Trend in Pakistan looking dangerous
Watching events out of Pakistan, I’ve grudgingly come to the conclusion that before Barack Obama’s first term is over, we will probably have American troops fighting on the ground in Pakistan in significant numbers. I’m putting together a piece, probably for Sunday, explaining why.
Just to be clear, I’m not advocating such a step and I do hope I’m proven wrong. But it seems to be where we are inexorably headed, given the apparent inability of Pakistan’s government to defend itself and its possession of nuclear weapons. That is a far more dangerous challenge than that posed by Iran, for example.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
126 comments Add your comment
Taxpayer
March 31st, 2009
3:23 pm
Now, Netanyahoo is telling us to take out Iran’s nukes or THEY’ll do it themselves. Well, tell Israel to go for it. Let’s quit beating around the Bush family legacy and get the show on the road. Let’s not hand this mess off to our children on top of everything else that has been dumped on them. Let’s try to finish something for a change. Let’s speed things up even. Let’s plant big nukes in each of their back yards and give everyone else remote controls with one little hitch. The remote controls set off everything at once. Let them all blow themselves to hell if that’s truly what they want.
G
March 31st, 2009
3:24 pm
Troll alert! Troll alert! And this one’s dumber than dirt.
G
March 31st, 2009
3:25 pm
ff @ 3:23,
Yes!
jon
March 31st, 2009
3:26 pm
Why do the cops get to have automatic weapons and I don’t! It’s just not fair!! I could have the cool stuff they do then they would have to listen to me, yessiree.
Don’t call HS on me – just trying to point out the silliness of the discussion that Taxpayer and Bosch are having. We get to have nukes and they don’t because we have them and they don’t. Would you like for us to just pass them out like candy on Halloween to every pissant country that wants them? Then the world would be more fair and we would have to listen to everyone!!!
Good grief, libs can be so naive.
Taxpayer
March 31st, 2009
3:28 pm
I just love the silly responses these conservatives (Republicans) come back with. The entertainment value is just, well, priceless.
Corporal
March 31st, 2009
3:32 pm
Well, no surprise here on “Aunt Bea”. We all knew they would find (or make) a loophole somewhere ………….
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090331/D97902N80.html
The Eighth
March 31st, 2009
3:35 pm
G how can you make a list of people you want to deny people healthcare to? You earlier implied that it was a right. I am confused? Oh wait, am I a troll now because I disagree with you? And mm, if you don’t want the myth perpetrated that libs put Obama on a pedastal, you might have a little talk with G and Mrs. Godzilla. It practically oozes out of them.
Now I to have never had the question on who gets nukes and who doesn’t appropriately answered. Used to be it was just those who had the know how and the money. That list was pretty small. As that list grows, I am not sure how it is decided, but I do know it will be impossible to enforce so the best course will have to be dimplomacy. Is that possible though?
G
March 31st, 2009
3:43 pm
The fault for this lies at George Hoover Bush and Company’s feet.
G
March 31st, 2009
3:45 pm
Troll alert! Troll alert! This one is so dumb “it” makes Dumbya look smart.
G
March 31st, 2009
3:47 pm
No healthcare for Rushpublicants and trolls! Maybe they will become extinct.
SaveOurRepublic
March 31st, 2009
3:49 pm
With the phoney (neo)conservatives out of the White House, one would think the chances of U.S. forces in Pakistan would be lessened. However, it’s all too clear that “Bacrock Obuma” is just another puppet of the Globalist Elite. I’m not surprised that Bacrock isn’t extracting our troops from the Middle East quagmire (as he alluded to), nor would I be shocked to see yet another (needless) foreign entanglement in Pakistan.
ByteMe
March 31st, 2009
3:49 pm
G: Relax already. Tone down the silliness unless your point is to just insult everyone who is a rightwinger. In which case, you’re doing a bang-up job!
Lee
March 31st, 2009
3:50 pm
Funny, for the past six years, Bookman, Tucker, and the rest of the AJC politically correct weinies have been bashing Bush. Now that obamer’s in office, they’re ready to go rumble in Pakistan.
What are they going to call it, Operation Gonna-pitch-a-hissy-fit?
Besides, we nuke Pakistan, who’s gonna work in all our Quiktrips?
Dave R
March 31st, 2009
3:55 pm
Just a couple of points here.
We try to keep nukes out of the hands of others for various reasons. One, we know the horrors of what happens when they are used, and do not wish that horror on others. Two, we know that there are irresponsible leaders (one might call them dictators) out there who are not constrained by our Constitution and our separation of powers. Three, we have never threatened to “wipe (fill in the blank) off the map or exterminate an entire race of people. Fourth, we do not have long-standing ideological or religious feuds with our neighbors.
Those four reasons alone should be reason enough to keep nuclear weapons from proliferating.
That being said, we certainly do not need the arsenal we currently have. We no longer have a mass of Soviet tanks ready to cross the Fulda Gap and wipe out NATO. The world would be a lot better without nukes at all, but until everyone agrees to remove them all and not develop any more, we must keep ours in place.
Iran wants their “rightful place” in the world community, and thinks that nuclear weapons gets them there. Someone will have to explain to them someday what the definition of a third world country is, and that it has nothing to do with nukes. As far as Netanyahu goes, if he wants to take Iran’s nukes out, let ‘em have at it. The problem in the Middle East has been one of restraint. Our policy should be that if Israel wants to attack any country that has expressed a desire to wipe them off the map, and further expresses a willingness to build weapons that can do so, then Israel should have the right to vigorously defend themselves as any sovereign country should – up to, and including preemptive strikes. Frankly, if let loose, Israel’s armed forces could defeat Lebanon, Syria and Jordan with ease, and still have enough left for Iran after breakfast if they so choose.
Now, to the original premise of Jay’s article, I don’t know what he’s been reading, so I don’t know where he’s going on this one. I, for one, do not see any reason why we’d have troops on the ground in Pakistan any time soon. Certainly, I’ll wait to let Jay make his case before blasting his opinion.
Bosch
March 31st, 2009
4:07 pm
Dave R.,
One, couldn’t one just as easily argue that countries such as NK and Iran also know the horrors of what happens when they are used?
Two,
“we know that there are irresponsible leaders (one might call them dictators) out there who are not constrained by our Constitution and our separation of powers”
Irresponsible leaders according to whom? Us? That’s kind of my point – we don’t get to make those world decisions – some countries who happen to be our “friends” do business with these folks and well, I guess they just don’t see it that way.
Three, no we haven’t threatened to do that, but we have nuked a country before – I think we’re the only one whose done it in a planned way – now that whole Chernobyl thing was a nuclear explosion for the most part, but it was kind of an accident.
Four, “we do not have long-standing ideological or religious feuds with our neighbors” – maybe not our neighbors like Canada and Mexico and Caribbean, but one could argue that we’ve had religious feuds with people before – not officially of course.
Maybe Iran wants nuclear weapons because we keep threatening to bomb them, and they fear that Israel may also – I mean they got ‘em. And let’s face it – Saddam Hussein was a big talker too – it’s just kind of the way they do things over there (not to be prejudice of course).
“Our policy should be that if Israel wants to attack any country that has expressed a desire to wipe them off the map, and further expresses a willingness to build weapons that can do so, then Israel should have the right to vigorously defend themselves as any sovereign country should – up to, and including preemptive strikes”
Well, I agree with that of course – and they do it alone – without our help if they chose to be that dumb. Maybe that’s what the world thought about us when we went into Iraq.
“if let loose, Israel’s armed forces could defeat Lebanon, Syria and Jordan with ease, and still have enough left for Iran after breakfast if they so choose”
I disagree – I could be wrong about this, but isn’t Israel currently still officially in war with Lebanon and Syria? And if they decided to expand that war into Jordan – I think those countries would start getting a little support from others like Russian, Iran, China, etc. Ya’ know some of their business partners. But of course that’s alot of “ifs.”
Gotta run – later.
Midori
March 31st, 2009
4:09 pm
wahh!!!
waaah!!!!
they just love to bash Bush!!!
WAH!!!!!!!
numbskulls – telling the truth about that buffoon isn’t “bashing”. how can someone nicely say Bush was/is an incompetent, linguistically challenged, war mongering, lying, filthy scumbag degenerate idiot?
Midori
March 31st, 2009
4:11 pm
p.s. – just ask Bush’s teleprompter. it will tell you the truth, too.
the truth shall set you free, wingnuts. give it a try.
Dave R
March 31st, 2009
4:19 pm
Bosch, most democracies have a set of checks and balances in their leadership. Dictators do not. That, by it’s very nature, makes them irresponsible.
As the only country to have used one before, we, and only we have the distinct knowledge regarding the decisions required to use them, and the fallout (no pun intended) of such decisions.
This country has never had religious feuds with anyone. Ever.
Bosch
March 31st, 2009
4:25 pm
Dave R,
Didn’t have to run out after all.
I see your point, but again, that’s just your definition – it’s not a global definition and apparently, alot of countries just don’t care if they can save them some $$$. So, do we start messing around with say Spain, Russia, France, Germany, and Italy because they do business with them? I know that’s rhetorical, but we can’t sustain this type of policy with countries like Iran just because WE say, or YOU say they are irresponsible. It’s just not practical.
I’m not talking about the decisions that were made to use them, I’m saying that Iran and everyone else saw the horrors afterwards (even if it wasn’t intended, nice pun) – everyone knows the consequences of using a nuclear weapon.
Maybe not officially, like I said, but it is certainly seen that way by say OBL and AQ. But then again, he’s nuts, so who cares.
Bosch
March 31st, 2009
4:26 pm
And can anyone here verify for me that Israel is still officially in a war with Lebanon and Syria?
Eric
March 31st, 2009
4:26 pm
This would have happened whether or not W went into Iraq. The Iraq insurgency would have simply occurred in Afghanistan instead, and we would be no better off there today.
ByteMe
March 31st, 2009
4:36 pm
Eric: you are likely correct, Pakistan being unstable would have happened anyway, given their people and politics. However, we would be $1 trillion less in the hole and our forces wouldn’t be stretched so thin had we left Iraq as a “low level annoyance” and focused our efforts on Afghanistan. So we would indeed be slightly better off… maybe. That’s the problem with predicting alternate futures.
RW-(the original)
March 31st, 2009
4:38 pm
So Jay B thinks we’ll have troops on the ground in Pakistan and is off to research his conclusion. There was a time when a writer of investigative opinion would be embarrassed to admit they started with their conclusion and then “researched” things that would seem to support it.
Corporal
March 31st, 2009
6:37 pm
Bosch:
I think you are correct in that they only have peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan … unless someone know of some others.
Any point you are trying to make?
RW(the original):
Maybe Jay should go “embed” himself with the Taliban. Maybe he can get the inside scoop?
Bud Wiser
April 3rd, 2009
11:31 am
This is a test.
Bud Wiser
April 3rd, 2009
11:31 am
aha