Pakistan slams 'ignorant' Obama attack warning

[rodeodance]

Source: (AFP)

Pakistan slams 'ignorant' Obama attack warning

Thu Aug 2, 6:28 AM ET

ISLAMABAD (AFP) - Pakistan accused Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama of "sheer ignorance" for threatening to launch US military strikes against Al-Qaeda on Pakistani soil.


Obama warned Wednesday that if he is elected president, he would order US forces to hit extremist targets on Pakistan's frontier with Afghanistan if embattled military ruler President Pervez Musharraf failed to act.

"Such statements are being made out of sheer ignorance," Pakistan's Minister of State for Information, Tariq Azeem, told AFP. "They are not fully apprised about the ground realities and not aware of the efforts by Pakistan."

Islamabad has bristled against a string of similar threats in recent weeks by the administration of US President George W. Bush, whose top counter-terror official in July refused to rule out US strikes in Pakistan.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070802/wl_sthasia_afp/usvote2008pakistanafghanistan;_ylt=Ah.AfwSoHMmOgCjA9rMIoIas0NUE

[Turbineguy]

1. OK, fess up

what did Bush promise you to say that?

[Delphinus]

2. I agree.

When I heard Obama say that, I realized he's not the candidate for me. And what gets me is that I read he called Hillary "Bush Lite" - what does he think a statement like that makes him?

[UrbScotty]

7. Hillary and Edwards must not be your candidate either.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3421230

[sui generis]

11. It was flaming ignorance

and utter naivete.

He is absolutely not the person to be in charge of foreign affairs at any level as he keeps demonstrating his disingenuity and inexperience on foreign affairs repeatedly.

Yes the problem is in Pakistan on their porous border, but short of genocide we have no realistic experience or options in finding "real" terrorists without blowing up everyone around them.

If Obama thinks that we could do that and contain the political aftermath in Pakistan (or the literal fallout), quite frankly he's an idiot.

[Hatalles]

16. Obama was my candidate.

Of course, this is because Kucinich doesn't have a chance... but after this comment, I'm not so sure I feel comfortable anymore with giving Obama my vote.

[sui generis]

19. there are better ways of "appearing tough" than to show

that one's mouth can accommodate both dainty size eleven feet, as Obama did.

I want to hear him say that he will work WITH the heads of state to fight terror rather than bluster on a fight he can neither start nor finish.

[DavidMS]

53. I though that his statements were for the Idiots in the DC press corps.

I don't think he really intends to violate international law, start a war or play pinata with a hornet's nest (Pakistani Tribal Areas).

[ohio2007]

22. how about Dennis Kucinich and his department of peace plans?

Dennis never wanted a single US boot on the ground in Afghanistan,Bosnia or the 1st Gulf war come to think of it.

[Le Taz Hot]

28. He's not tall enough

or pretty enough. :sarcasm:

[ohio2007]

57. 'pretty' much the way it is today

boob jobs and hair styles on boobs is what 'attracts' voters

[humbled_opinion]

33. Your deflating statement regarding Dennis Kucinich.....

The only realist in the field at the moment is Kucinich and people that arbitrarally dismiss him as unwinable irk me. Why would you vote for someone that does not express your political desires? and dismiss someone that does?

I personally view Dennis Kucinich as the Teddy Roosevelt of the 21st century... give him a chance.

[BestCenter]

47. TR was a flaming imperialist

and lover of war. I think you're thinking of William Jennings Bryan here.

[humbled_opinion]

50. Never was good in History but Yes embracer of Progressive idea's is where

I was going... thanks for that.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

30. brilliant!

[truebrit71]

43. Pakistan gets to do what they're told and fucking LIKE it...

..otherwise they get erased from the map...

Pretty bloody straightforward really...

They are harbouring criminals and they either hand the fuckers over, or they get to pick through the rubble and try and identify the remains...

[humbled_opinion]

51. WOW... sounds like Bush strategery there... you know you're either with us or dead...n/t

[sandnsea]

3. Who slams Pakistan letting Kahn go?

Nobody?? Oh yeah.

Something stinks to high heaven with Pakistan. I really think the Hillary people might want to reconsider quoting Pakistan in making a case for her foreign policy expertise.

[Double T]

4. The continued alienation of leaders of other strategic nations of the world.........

is exactly the same crap we have experienced for the last 6 1/2 years. This is a blatant example of Obama's complete lack of experience in politics in general; specially foreign political relations. Move on to other more qualified candidates.

[theoldman]

5. i agree, we should not strike the terrorist where they are located.

We should bomb the hell out of an innocent country. Sorry folks, but I agree with Obama completely. He has more common sense than the rest of them combined. I listened to him on Nightline last night and he has a very intelligent reason for his statements.

[flobee1]

6. I recall comments made a while ago

By pakistan's leader

"We wont kick the terrorists out or arrest them as long as they dont cause any trouble for pakistan"
I've heard all I need to hear

We dont need armies and missles to get rid of Osama
there are other ways

[arewenotdemo]

40. I agree. First of all. Pakistan has already ceded sovereignty of those areas

to the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

Secondly, without the support of the ISI, 9/11 probably never happens.

We fucking already have Repuke candidates talking of hitting Mecca and Medina in retaliation for the next, coming attack. Do our fellow DU'ers doubt that Murkans won't allow that to happen, if not demand it should we get hit again? Do they want an all-out conflagration????

It's been long past time to take Al Qaeda out. Six fucking years!

[Tempest]

8. Instead of complaining about what Obama said

Pakistan should do something about the terrorist problem in their country.

With friends like them, who needs enemies.

[sui generis]

24. We invaded Iraq for Weapons of Mass Destruction

not terrorists. We do not invade countries for "terrorists". I have opinions about our own government that would probably qualify me as a "terrorist" if someone was so inclined. People who hold up gas stations are now accused of "terroristic activity", among other things. Terrorism is the boogeyman du jour. Our nation is infected with this idea, with these terrorism-colored glasses.

"Terrorists" under every rock is as ridiculous as another regime claiming that jews under every rock were the final problem requiring a global solution. To hear Obama make hay from it just makes Obama part of the same machine that I despise.

We buy into this terrorism crap like it is candy. Yes there are terrorists, but there have always been terrorists. The entire rest of the world has known this for two hundred years before we woke up and smelled the burning coffee, but they don't live in a constant state of panic.

We should do something about the way we look at the world.

[Tempest]

29. Ignorance isn't something that should be advertised

Terrorism Havens: Pakistan
http://www.cfr.org/publication/9514/#1

----------

The U.S. is working with Pakistan to find a way to counter al Qaeda and Taliban terrorists who operate inside Pakistan, along the Afghan border, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Marine Gen. Peter Pace said here today.
www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2007/07/mil-070720-afps06.htm

----------

Pakistan's Peace Deal with Terrorist Factions a Major Blow to U.S.
http://counterterrorismblog.org/2006/09/pakistans_peace_deal_with_terr.php

[sui generis]

34. terror terror terror!

give me a break.

who are you quoting? You are correct about ignorance.

[MiserableFailure]

9. Musharraf is not our friend

He is a Bush crony and this country should not trust him. Pakistan has proven that they have supported the Taliban in the past and we have every right to hit border targets on the Pakistan side.

[sui generis]

12. Musharraf is the friend of anyone who doesn't threaten

internal stability.

when we knocked saddam off his "throne" we destabilized an entire region, caused more deaths than Saddam ever dreamed of when we took away the lesser evil of dictatorship and it is QUICKSAND now.

How on earth does this knucklebrain Obama think the outcome in Pakistan would be ANY different than the outcome in Iraq right now? How stupid are we to think Obama knows something we don't?

And lastly, am wondering how many "experts" we have on middle eastern cultures here, particularly northern India and Pakistan? Hmm. It's not America or Europe, and very few people truly understand how vastly different the culture of kinship is there the moment you step outside the cities.

You can't overcome it with targeted bombs or force, so that's not the direction to take.

[MiserableFailure]

13. Wondering how many experts we have huh?

Well I did serve as a 1st lieutenant in the Gulf War I conflict. My platoon spent time in Kuwait and in Iraq, two Middle Eastern countries.

[sui generis]

14. that does not make you an expert

in the cultural divisions of Pakistan.

[MiserableFailure]

23. and neither are you

if you think that musharraf is a good leader for pakistan

[sui generis]

25. whatever you are doing is enough to get you where you are

It's kind of a silly thing to say here, but it also applies to politics.

Dictators rise to power because they fill a void in leadership. It's tough love but if there is a flaw in the system that allows a dictator to take over and stay, then we can't fix that flaw from outside. Maybe it's not even a flaw - just a growing pain.

We have a dictator in our very own country who is not a good leader for the U.S. What are we doing about it? Would we welcome an outside force overthrowing Bush? Why or why not?

I'll argue that Musharraf is the best leader for pakistan for the moment - which has nothing to do with being a good leader. I am maybe not an expert, but experienced. The only thing keeping these people from killing each other is dictatorship, at the moment, and that's a very harsh reality we're still in denial about with Iraq and Saddam's role as the cork in that bottle. All we had to do was wait for the system to correct itself, but instead, we meddle and add to the bloodshed, add to the list of feuds and wrongs that people feel must be righted. We are not heroes to anyone but ourselves.

How are we going to have a better track record in pakistan? The country is phenomenally poor; it's reflected in gaunt faces and desperation everywhere. When people are oppressed by poverty and hunger, petty grievances become earth shaking reasons for action. It's a kind of madness. The culture generally speaking responds to constrained resources by earmarking them, through dowry, through kinship agreements, through cultural obligation to "their own".

We can't change what it is, or how it got there, but we can change how it might be, by making a country like Pakistan wealthier and less hungry, by making democracy seem like their idea, not ours. Democracy is unnatural. Highly desirable, difficult to achieve and a constant challenge to keep. You can't just dump that rose garden on hungry people and expect it to not immediately succumb to the weeds and to people who fundamentally and culturally don't believe that an individual has a right to their own life.

We don't even believe that here or we wouldn't be able to even ponder an involuntary draft, and we've had two hundred plus years to work on it.

[Hatalles]

15. Musharraf is a US crony. He is viewed as a Western puppet by his own people.

If Pakistan ever supported the Taliban, it was before Musharraf came along. There was a military coup in Pakistan -- remember?

We have no right to invade yet another sovereign nation.

[sui generis]

17. I worked in Pak right up until the coup

Karachi in fact. Replaced a guy who had gotten shot and ate in Clinton district at the very restaurant that Daniel Pearl was kidnapped from.

Musharraf is a vast improvement over the horrorfest that was there before; if anyone knows about or remembers the "extrajudicial" tortures and executions that were happening on a daily basis, mostly to terrorize and extort anyone who had money.

[Hatalles]

18. I agree about Musharraf...

... but he's quite unpopular with a lot of Pakistanis because of his long hold onto power and that whole 'puppet' image. I have a friend who lived there most of his life and he's told me that if Benazir Bhutto was ever able to run again, she would win in a heartbeat.

[sui generis]

21. Benazir was a populist

but she also had a corrupt regime. I fear that having her back would end as badly as Indira Ghandi's stewardship.

Pakistan is a fascinating place; it is culturally popular to be vocally anti-western but secretly pro-western. MTV from northern India is very popular, and cultural norms are challenged by youth as long as possible. The old fights of their parents, the complex politics and feuds of their elders are boring and "old country, old school". The tribal fringes will always be dangerous, but no more dangerous AT ALL than the tribal fringes around major cities in Argentina or Colombia.

I just think westerners are generally underinformed about the things that might unite disparate groups such as the PPP and the Mujadeen; and an attack on one's sovereign soil would certainly do that. Everyone everywhere in that region is waiting for the tiniest distraction in attention to start their own pot of crap boiling in a bid for power, but I personally believe in 10, 30 or even 50 years, those political and cultural divisions will fade as youth dismisses it in favor of western comforts, easier living, participating in the wider world economy and not buying into terrorism as a tool for political ascendancy.

Most everybody just wants to get to work, get home and feed the kids at the end of the day, and if terrorists are willing to address everyone's discontents, we have to be willing to address their daily needs, their dreams of a "normal" life.

Terrorizing the terrorists by blowing up civilians does nothing for our case.

[19jet54]

10. The real issue is...

... we are not in charge of the world, nor are we it's police, the U.N. is tasked with that as a collection of the World nations.

Any president or 'hopeful wannabe' should be humble and quit being a bully to the world without the U.N. consensus of the World's nations as allies.

Obama is simply wrong to make such statements - he is not sounding very presidential to me, but sounds more like a street thug in the hood a.k.a. cowboy bush lite like, so to speak? Bad move!

[smitty]

20. Sounds like Obama is trying to prove he's tough but he's making

a reckless statement. His lack of experience and, perhaps, inexperienced advisers is showing.

[sui generis]

26. it would destabilize Pakistan and lead to Musharraf's overthrow

Strategically that's a very very very bad thing.

What westerners fail to understand is that Musharraf musters the military FIRST. Culturally, the military is "secular", but the other three major political forces in Pakistan are religious, and extraordinarily conservative. And powerful and itching for the tiniest opportunity.

It is a powder keg and as long as there are people jockeying for power to impress their particular brand of religious nutbaggery on everyone it is best to work with the state machine as it is, even flawed as it is.

Musharraf has to ride a fence that few can comprehend; a leader who can't control or police every corner of his nation? Whaaaa? Someone who can't make significant concessions to any particular party, political group, or religious group? Huh? It is a delicate balancing act that has little to do with our obsession with terrorists.

Musharraf's concerns are not terrorists. They are the civil war that would ensue from striking against his own to appease the U.S., or worse, from allowing the U.S. to strike against his own. Obama just threatened to be the cause of a civil war that might kill millions, because we want to get Osama.

What a flaming idiot. WE are obsessed with terrorists under every rock. The rest of the world: not so much. We just look stupid foisting our psychoses on the rest of the world, but again, here in sheltered soccermomerica we don't really get it. It's ALLLLL about us, all the time.

[varun]

31. Musharraf has to go

If Musharraf manipulates the upcoming election and gets 90% of the votes (like he did in 2002), there will be repurcussions in India, Iran, Afghanistan, and finally, all over the world.

There is a lot of anger against Musharraf in Pakistan now. He is perceived as a Bush crony and anti-muslim. If he is "elected" again, he will be overthrown by the religious elements in the ISI or the army.

He needs to share his power with Benazir or some other civilian leader, and step down from his position. That is the only way to go.

[sui generis]

36. I do agree he needs to work his way out

but you make my point for me; he's damned if he does and damned if he does not. He is the ONLY thing that is keeping the lid on the "religious elements" at the moment; certainly they do not police themselves.

I think he is in a difficult position. I do agree he has been there too long and is becoming more and more ineffective, but he IS there and if we go bombing in there and knock him out of power we WILL have another Iraq on our hands.

I suspect you may probably know that already from personal experience; Pakistan has amazing people in it, but is also amazingly dangerous if any one group, particularly religious, is ascendant.

[Tempest]

32. Mushy's days are numbered anyway

There's been four assassination attempts on his life in the last year. One will eventually succeed.

And Mushy's hold on the military is weakening according to the State Department.

[sui generis]

37. that would be very sad

You even use the language of the republicans when referring to him.

Why do you think he took over in a "bloodless" coup? What do you think were his motivations? I'm hearing repeated mindless crap, but no original thinking here.

Why do you think assassinating someone who originally wanted to stop the defiling and torture of Pakistani citizens by unchecked district "police" organizations; who wanted to stop blaming overfishing and toxic waste from causing food shortages rather than blaming the blue eyed devils for poor catches; who thought to keep a religious oligarchy from forming, why do you think that would be a good thing?

He should have ceded power (and should) to the democratic process, I agree, regardless of the outcome. But his intentions, however misguided, were not rooted in base evil. You know nothing about Musharraf except the propaganda you read.

He's not a saint and he needs sincerely step down and walk away, but the alternatives AT THIS MOMENT, and in the event of an external military event, are definitely worse.

[customerserviceguy]

27. Has Edwards put in his two cents on these topics?

Has Kucinich shown a pulse lately? Looks like we need to think beyond both Hillary and Obama.

[JerseygirlCT]

35. So long as Islamabad refuses to do anything about these creeps

hiding out on their border, this will remain a threat to them.

I understand they feel caught in the middle. But how much of that is truly trying to walk a political razor's edge and how much is about protecting their personal interests?

[truebrit71]

45. It has everything to do with Musharef holding on to power...

...people seem to forget that this guy is a DICTATOR...he was NOT elected...he has to placate the radical muslims in his military or face a coup of his own...he is in DEEP shit right now because of the deaths at the Red Mosque, and he cannot afford to be seen to be *'s bitch....

So in this reverse world that we are living in, a Democrat says "we need to go get the fuckers that attacked us on 9/11" and he is called irresponsible, and the cowardly fuck in the WH gets to say that going after the perps behind 9/11 is "irresponsible"...

Talk about backward-ass crazy!

[tabasco]

38. Maybe the dictatorship of Pakistan should buy a clue.

If Obama gets eleceted - give up Bin Laden and his henchmen or we come in and get them!

How can any American disagree with attacking the people who attacked NYC?

It wasn't the Iraqis - - it was the asshole Saudis who are now holed up in Pakistan!

It is a disgrace to America that Bin Laden still walks a free man.

[sui generis]

39. such a clear understanding of foreign policy

So, let me get this straight.

If some asshole here sent anthrax to Europe and we didn't turn them over, Europe gets to "come in and get them".

How could any European disagree with that attacking the people who attack Europe?

We are not the only country on the planet, hard as that may be to digest. And we barely have enough people to hold down BAGHDAD, much less fight Europe or some other collection of countries. We are NOT number one and even if we were this is not the way to behave on the foreign stage if we want to make an example.

Yahoos go ahead and wail away on DU; but in reality if we clog up international shipping lanes and commerce, the planet dies. If we cause the middle east to implode completely, Israel starts a nuclear war and we breath nuclear dust for next 500 hundred years around the planet as we ride our donkeys and bicycle our fat asses to work remembering the good old days when you could put gas in your car and leave your county.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[truebrit71]

44. Short answer? Yes they do...

If you harbour known criminals you hand them over or we'll come and get the fuckers ourselves...

[PBass]

42. I agree with his basic sentiments, but his statement was reckless.

What Obama said is not all that different in effect than Bush's "Axis of Evil" comments at the State of the Union. It just insures mistrust, increases international tension, and telegraphs our potential moves. Obama is getting some bad advice, or he is losing his cool. He didn't need to create this controversey.

I personally do think we need to get Bin Laden, but a better way would be to get some international cooperation, and not by acting unilaterally.

[BooScout]

46. And this folks is the beginning of the end.....

...for Obama. It shows he does not have the experience on the national level that he needs to get into the White House.

[LadyAziz]

48. And Hillary does?

[humbled_opinion]

52. Remember Hillary comes in as Team Clinton and yes they do.

[BooScout]

55. As opposed to Obama? Yes

She's been on the scene in National politics for years (if you think she didn't play a large part in getting Bill elected President then you are mistaken and she has been a Senator for at least one more term than Obama)........Obama made a keynote speech that was pretty good and became a Junior Senator. I am not saying that Obama won't one day make a wonderful President, but I would like to see him complete at least one term as a Senator before he starts running the country.

[leaninglib]

49. Every time Obama opens his mouth,

Bill Richardson starts thinking he is going to get to be the Vice President.

[Odin2005]

54. Pakistan has no right to complain, they aren't doing anything to get the Taliban and AQ out of...

...the NW tribal regions. Maybe they need someone to do it for them.

[ohio2007]

56. They ARE the Taliban, they nutured AQ after the Cold War Soviets

bailed.
True, we walked away after building a token hydroelectric project or two but the void left by Soviet influence was fill by Paki dictators anf the ISI pulling the strings.

[mvd]

58. I'm afraid Obama is showing some inexperience

First of all, I thought Hillary was right that the President shouldn't personally meet with leaders like Chavez out of the blue - even though Obama was partially right in that the President shouldn't be afraid to meet after aides have been sent. Chavez isn't the evil figure the right makes him out to be. Now, this Pakistan thing sounds like Obama over-compensating.

He is right, though, that our "friends" in the Middle East are not pure. Pakistan has much more Al Qaeda than Iraq did. We should examine Pakistan for threats.