Jump to content

Obama's 3 options for Afghanistan fight to win, retreat, surrender


Recommended Posts

Obama Weighs All Afghanistan Options in Meeting Generals

Bloomberg Politics

By Gopal Ratnam and David Lerman Feb 4, 2014 7:54 PM GM

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-04/obama-weighs-all-afghanistan-options-in-meeting-generals.html

 

The Obama administration is considering its options to withdraw some or all U.S. forces from Afghanistan as time runs out for a new security agreement, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee said.

 

“They’re planning for all options,” Senator Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat, said after a closed-door briefing today with defense officials at the Capitol. “They have to.”

1. Fight to win

The AfPak Mission on the internet is about war on terror military and security strategy for NATO and allied countries with ground forces in action in Afghanistan and air and airborne forces including drones and special force raids in action over Pakistan.

 

The AfPak Mission helps implementation of the Bush Doctrine versus state sponsors of terror and is inspired by the leadership of Condoleezza Rice.

 

The AfPak Mission approach to the Taliban is uncompromising.

There should be no peace with the Taliban.

The only "good" Taliban is a dead Taliban.

Arrest all Taliban political leaders and media spokesmen.

Capture or kill all Taliban fighters.

 

The AfPak Mission identifies useful content across multiple websites.

 

On YouTube, the AfPak Mission channel presents playlists of useful videos.

 

The AfPak Mission forum offers structured on-line written discussion facilities and the forum is the rallying and reference centre of the AfPak Mission, linking to all other AfPak Mission content on the internet.

 

The AfPak Mission has a Twitter, a Flickr and a wordpress Blog too.

You are invited to subscribe to the channel, register with the forum and follow on twitter, flickr and the blog.

 

 

AfPak Mission Channel http://www.youtube.com/user/AfpakMission

Forum http://scot.tk/forum/viewforum.php?f=26

Twitter http://twitter.com/AfPakMission

Flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/afpakmission/

Blog http://afpakmission.wordpress.com/

 

2. Retreat

Americans dropping dead to terrorist attacks after 'Drop-Dead Date'

 

‘Drop-Dead Date’

 

Several senators today said they’ve concluded that Karzai will never sign the agreement and are looking past him toward a successor. Levin said waiting for the next president would give the U.S. and NATO allies enough time to plan for a limited military presence after this year.

 

Really, the drop-dead date is the next president,” said Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a Republican member of the Armed Services Committee.

 

nuke_pic1.jpg

American city nuked after the so-called 'Drop-Dead Date'

 

What Senator Lindsey Graham doesn't realise is that he and President Obama if they agree with a "drop-dead date" policy may be condemning Americans in American cities to be the ones who are dropping dead after the 'drop-dead date'.

 

Why should American civilians in cities like New York be the ones to drop dead?

 

That's not what Senator Graham has in mind. He thinks the ones to drop dead would be Afghans. Not so. It would be Americans.

 

How could this be?

 

Well for example, if the Pakistani military give a nuclear weapon to an Al-Qaeda terrorist to set off in an American city then it will be American civilians dropping dead from a nuclear blast.

 

Plenty of Americans dropped dead on 9/11.

 

Plenty of Americans would drop dead in a terrorist nuclear attack on an American city.

 

Now that is the danger that Senator Graham and his "drop-dead date" policy are heading Americans into.

 

So before anyone thinks that a "drop dead date" policy is clever and a good sound bite then we first need to look at why the danger is to American civilians in American cities dropping dead.

 

Senator Graham is the Senator from South Carolina and the largest metro in that state is Greenville with a population of more than 800,000.

 

Now if Greenville is unlucky and Al-Qaeda terrorists choose Greenville to set off a terrorist nuclear bomb in then very many of those 800,000 American citizens of Greenville will be dropping dead.

 

Now I am sure that Senator Graham does not have in mind the good citizens of Greenville would be the ones to be dropping dead after his "drop-dead date" policy had gone in to operation.

 

Nevertheless Senator Graham and other Senators really ought to think of that scenario or some other American metro being destroyed by a terrorist nuclear weapon before he goes to the media boasting about his "drop-dead date" policy.

 

Someone needs to explain to the good Senator that all those in the Oval Office who think a "drop-dead date" is a good policy may be condemning American civilians in American cities to be dropping dead some time after their much flaunted "drop-dead date".

 

Why?

 

Because if we pull our forces out of Afghanistan, retreat, after a "drop-dead Date" then the Pakistani military will believe that their terrorists are winning the war on terror, that the US is weak and on the retreat, doesn't have the will to win, will pay billions of dollars and then go home.

 

The Pakistani military will see that as a green light to intensify terrorist attacks in America with which to make further blackmail and extortion demands on the USA.

 

The Pakistani military got $10 billion in military aid after 9/11 and if they get away with that, if the USA retreats from Pakistan having done nothing but give money to the USA's enemies in the Pakistani military then the next terrorist attack will be bigger and more damaging with a view to get even more than $10 billion.

 

I do not know how much the Pakistani military will be looking to get from the USA after their nuclear attack on an American city but I would expect that they would be expecting a great deal more than $10 billion - maybe $100 billion or more. I don't know.

 

But if the USA is weak and paying up to terrorists then they will terrorise the USA even more to get as much money as they can get.

 

We need to keep the Afghan bases to wage war on our enemies in Afghanistan and Pakistan - both the terrorists sponsored by the ISI of the Pakistani military and we need to wage war on the ISI itself and all Pakistani generals and former generals who are dictating policy to sponsor terrorism.

 

We need to keep the Afghan bases without paying Afghanistan anything or giving any ground whatsoever in the war on terror.

 

Keep the bases as an act of war against our enemies in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

 

That is the best way to be make sure that our enemies in Pakistan know that we are not retreating, that we are still at war with our enemies in Pakistan and that we will hold them accountable one day for 9/11 and certainly even more so if there are any further big terrorist attacks on the USA like that.

 

We must teach Pakistan accountability for their terrorists and if we withdraw our forces after a drop dead date then Pakistan will have escaped accountability for 9/11 and our enemies in Pakistan will believe that they can escape accountability for another such massive terrorist attack on America, perhaps next time with nuclear weapons.

 

So don't use the phrase "drop-dead date" except to explain how stupid and dangerous such a policy is because it will be Americans dropping dead.

 

Don't abandon our Afghan bases. Keep them even if the next Afghan president doesn't sign the BSA.

 

That's the way to win the war on terror.

 

Retreating after a 'drop-dead date' is not the way to win.

 

3. Surrender

Obama going soft on war on Al Qaeda

 

WSJ: U.S. to Curb Pakistan Drone Program

 

The CIA has long added new targets to a longer "kill list" on a rolling basis as old targets are hit.

 

Now, U.S. officials say, the "kill list" is not self-replenishing, a change long sought by Islamabad. "By taking one off, we're not automatically putting one on," a senior U.S. official said. As a result, the number of targets on the list are decreasing as the CIA's drones focus on a more limited number of high-level targets that "will enable us to conclude the program," the official said.

And here are the headlines of the next few years (maybe)

  • US stops adding al Qaeda leaders to 'kill list'
  • US announces peace talks with Al-Qaeda.
  • US president signs peace treaty with Al-Qaeda.
  • Pentagon purges military to quell dissent against Al-Qaeda treaty.
  • Rump US military stages joint exercises with Al-Qaeda.
  • Obama appointed senior Al-Qaeda commander in America.
  • US military joins Al-Qaeda renamed as "Al-Qaeda in America".
  • Al-Qaeda in America occupies Congress and the Supreme court.
  • US Congress members and Supreme Court judges beheaded.
  • Al-Qaeda in America defeats National Rifle Association in last stand.
  • Al-Qaeda declares Sharia Law in America.
  • Barack Obama gets his 2nd Nobel Peace Prize.

Yes he can?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 80
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Reminds me of the Champaign against Goldwater in the early 60's. Guess if it isn't broke, keep using the same bs. Just change the dates, details, and names.

 

You mean this?

 

Wikipedia: Barry Goldwater presidential campaign, 1964 - General Election

 

In reference to Goldwater's policies regarding the use of nuclear weaponry, the Johnson campaign launched a television ad that would come to be known as the "daisy ad" in which a young girl pulls the petals off of a flower until the screen is overtaken by an exploding mushroom cloud. Despite Johnson's accusing Goldwater of being willing to use nuclear weapons in Vietnam after stating the United States should do whatever was necessary for victory, Goldwater clarified that he was not an outright advocate of using nuclear weapons there. Despite this, the Johnson campaign continued to portray Goldwater as a warmonger.

 

That's quite different from my criticism of President Obama.

 

I am not accusing President Obama of an intention of using nuclear weapons against the enemy in Afghanstan, Pakistan or indeed anywhere else.

 

nuke_pic1.jpg

 

I am accusing President Obama of considering a policy of retreat from Afghanistan which demonstrates a weakness which the Pakistani military may choose to exploit by giving one or more of their nuclear weapons to the Al Qaeda terrorists which they sponsor to use against Americans in the US homeland.

 

The charge against Goldwater was that he was too willing to use US nuclear weapons in Vietnam - that if Goldwater was elected the US military would use nuclear weapons in Vietnam.

 

My charge against Obama is that he is too weak to deter Pakistan from using nuclear terrorism - that if Obama orders US forces to retreat from Afghanistan, Al-Qaeda would use Pakistani nuclear weapons in the US homeland.

 

So it's not the same, at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Get the fu-ck out of Afghanistan ASAP. Have we not learned anything from history that fighting this war is a totally losing prospect? No matter how long we stay, the home team will have the edge. They'll always be there.

 

Ask the Russians if it's a good idea to get into a neverending war with this country.

Jeeeeeezzzz

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Get the fu-ck out of Afghanistan ASAP. Have we not learned anything from history that fighting this war is a totally losing prospect? No matter how long we stay, the home team will have the edge. They'll always be there.

 

Ask the Russians if it's a good idea to get into a neverending war with this country.

Jeeeeeezzzz

 

Retreating with no strategy to win leaves us vulnerable to being nuked by Al-Qaeda terrorists as they press home their perceived advantage to turn a rout into a victory.

 

History teaches us that wars are won by good generals and wars are lost by bad ones or good generals made bad because of political masters tying their hands as what they are not allowed to do.

 

Al Qaeda aren't the home team in Afghanistan. They are a global enemy. Bin Laden was a Saudi. The new Al Qaeda number 1 Al-Zawahiri is an Egyptian.

 

The enemy is more the Pakistani military than the Afghan military and yes the Pakistani military do have a certain home advantage in that Pakistan is closer to Afghanistan than the US homeland and their supply lines are much shorter.

 

However the Pakistani military has numerous other disadvantages against the US and its NATO allies - for example, they have fewer resources to fund their war machine and in large part depend on international financial support - from the the USA among other countries.

 

So the US has a big advantage in being able to pull the plug on much of Pakistan's finances for its war effort. Plus the US and NATO have a bigger more advanced military than do Pakistan. Really the balance of power is very much in our advantage even though, yes, we are playing away from home. We are the away team but the clear favourite in this war I would say,

 

The Soviet war in Afghanistan was against Afghans who were supported with Stinger ground-to-air missiles by the USA and they were supported by Pakistan at that time a closer ally of the US than it is now.

 

So the Russians were not just at war with Afghan rebels - they were at war with the US as well and so that's why it would be a never ending war in Afghanistan - the Soviets knew the US and Saudi Arabia could fund the anti-Soviet Afghan forces for ever.

 

We can win this war and reasonably quickly but we do need better generals at the highest level of command - the NATO supreme allied commander europe - the US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

 

At the very highest level of command our professional generals lack a certain ability to think outside of the box and plod along as if each war was the same as the last.

 

So we need new supreme military commanders in order to make rapid progress with this war and I'm standing by ready to serve NATO, to take command of the war on terror, ideally with Condoleezza Rice, the greatest leader of our age.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

We can win this war and reasonably quickly .

 

 

So we need new supreme military commanders in order to make rapid progress with this war and I'm standing by ready to serve NATO, to take command of the war on terror, ideally with Condoleezza Rice, the greatest leader of our age.

Oh my God. Dick Cheney Jr. Another neocon, the type that thought invading two countries, starting two unpaid for wars was a great idea.

The worst foreign policy decision in our nation's history.

 

But I see you have a great sense of humor with the Condi rice crack. Pure comedic genius!

She was a mediocre at best SOS who's dubious claim to fame was she was about to give a major speech on 9/11/01 on the need to spend billions on SDI. The Star Wars debacle. She never got to make that speech. We were attacked while she and her boss were snoozing.

 

Get the fu-ck out of here you war monger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Fight to win

 

Yes he can?

This is the only option, we should stay and fight to win. Any other option just emboldens the enemy, and makes us appear weak to the World. Stay the course!!! We have had 3,400 deaths among the coalition in last 14 years, so I would say we are winning the fight. As long as we are fighting the terrorists over there, they aren't here killing innocent civilians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the very highest level of command our professional generals lack a certain ability to think outside of the box and plod along as if each war was the same as the last.

 

How do you know that? Are you there?

So we need new supreme military commanders in order to make rapid progress with this war and I'm standing by ready to serve NATO, to take command of the war on terror, ideally with Condoleezza Rice, the greatest leader of our age.

That's a bad strategy, you need people in command that know what is going on, know what works and what doesn't. Name ten generals that you would send over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh my God. Dick Cheney Jr. Another neocon, the type that thought invading two countries, starting two unpaid for wars was a great idea.

The worst foreign policy decision in our nation's history.

 

But I see you have a great sense of humor with the Condi rice crack. Pure comedic genius!

She was a mediocre at best SOS who's dubious claim to fame was she was about to give a major speech on 9/11/01 on the need to spend billions on SDI. The Star Wars debacle. She never got to make that speech. We were attacked while she and her boss were snoozing.

 

Get the fu-ck out of here you war monger.

 

No actually Dick Cheney was only the Vice-President. The wars were started by President Bush and with the support of Congress I might add, members on both sides of aisle and that means Republicans and Democrats.

 

I'm not a neocon. I've never been a conservative. I'm a Scottish republican socialist who is somewhat of a hawk. I don't think the neocons are known for being in favour of a republican revolution to overthrow Queen Elizabeth and the United Kingdom.

 

Think of me more as a wanna-be founding father of Scottish and British independence and republics. On the 4th of July Americans celebrate the victory of republican revolution and independence. That's what I celebrate too.

 

Sadly, too many Americans support Queen Elizabeth, including many neocons. So Americans have forgotten their revolutionary republican roots and are brainwashed by BBC pro-royalist propaganda which is picked up by American journalists and broadcast by the likes of Diane Sawyer on ABC World News - all those prince Harry and the royal wedding and baby stories - all that. That is what you are now America. I'm the real deal - a real republican.

 

Well even great leaders are not all powerful. That Condi didn't know who, when and where the 9/11 attacks were to happen made her no different from any other American. All Americans were equally snoozing.

 

You live in freedom delivered to you by "warmongers" or freedom fighter in many wars. So if you wish to tell the heroes of War War 2 to "Get the fu-ck out of here you war monger." then I think we can all see how blind you are the value of waging war successfully.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the very highest level of command our professional generals lack a certain ability to think outside of the box and plod along as if each war was the same as the last.

How do you know that? Are you there?

I'm not there and I don't need to be there to be aware of the published facts as to the way this war is being run.

 

I've documented many of the failures of our commanders and their political masters in my AfPak Mission forum

 

So we need new supreme military commanders in order to make rapid progress with this war and I'm standing by ready to serve NATO, to take command of the war on terror, ideally with Condoleezza Rice, the greatest leader of our age.

That's a bad strategy,

You've not read my proposed strategy yet so I'm not sure why you think it will be bad before you have read it?

 

you need people in command that know what is going on, know what works and what doesn't.

Agreed. I do know.

 

Name ten generals

I'm only going to name two people I'd appoint as supreme military commanders or the NATO civilian managers - the Secretary General and deputy, right now - myself and Condoleezza Rice.

 

Neither of us is by professional a military service person - though Condi is a political scientist with a great deal of experience in military affairs who has worked in a professional capacity with senior US military personnel - such as Colin Powell. I'm just an amateur scientist with an interest in political and military affairs.

 

So I don't think if it matters too much that neither of us is a "general" as such. What matters more is that we can give the correct orders that need to be given.

 

that you would send over.

Well the NATO military commander the Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) and deputy (DSACEUR) and the NATO secretary general and deputy work here I believe.

 

800px-SHAPE_HQ_Mons_Belgium.JPG

NATO SHAPE headquarters in Mons, Belgium (main entrance in main building)

 

Wikipedia: Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe

 

So that's where I'd send myself and hopefully Condi would be happy to work there too. If not I'll do my best without Condi but it is her leadership that I'd value above all others.

 

Initially it will be more a question of explaining the new strategy to the NATO staff, civilian and military and then finding out who was willing to follow the new orders or who preferred to resign or be sacked. Where necessary we could appoint new field generals for Afghanistan.

 

As I say, it really is the top level NATO strategy that needs to be changed. There's a lot wrong with our war that isn't the fault of the generals in Afghanistan but some things wrong have been the generals fault so changes will be needed in operations or commanders no doubt.

 

Now the other way to change the management of this war is to change the people running the pentagon - but I am not an American so I don't see how it would be possible to appoint me to run something at the Pentagon.

 

There have been many British generals who have served as Deputy Supreme Allied Commander Europe - Field Marshal Viscount Montgomery was the first and so I'd be happy to do the job that he once did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

High%20Aerial%20View%20SHAPE.jpg

 

There's also a NATO political HQ here in Brussels, Belgium.

 

 

NATO Headquarters is the political and administrative centre of the Alliance and the permanent home of the North Atlantic Council, NATO's senior political decision-making body.

 

The Headquarters is located at Boulevard Leopold III, 1110 Brussels, Belgium, on the northeast perimeter of the city. It is home to national delegations of member countries and to liaison offices or diplomatic missions of partner countries.

The work of these delegations and missions is supported by NATO’s International Staff and International Military Staff, also based at the Headquarters.

So that looks like where I'd really need Condi to go to get the political authority for whatever military decision I was wanting to make.

 

The big hold up is always making sure that the military have the required political support. This is where Condi's experience as Secretary of State would be invaluable as a NATO leader.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not there and I don't need to be there to be aware of the published facts as to the way this war is being run.

 

I've documented many of the failures of our commanders and their political masters in my AfPak Mission forum

 

Documented slanted reporting only telling then general public what they need to hear that leaves you and your think tank in control of the flow of information. Capitol governence rules capital government that legislates morality through religion, legalities through politics and ethics through economic hyperbole leaving academia training brains to educate ancestors to only compare social narratives against each other and never measure anything as self contained totally to an eternity universally now all the time.

 

Seeing is believing life is linear, because sight is a radius, not a diameter from a mobile position that can move in any direction desired other than escaping the eternity of now physically.

 

I am tired of being misled and labelled misguided. I am grounded in the eternity of now whikle you direct societal evolution eternally to deny such a thing real because true is every social identity has to believe in space time continuum or reality implodes universally.

 

here lays the physical absolute reason "Absolute power corrupts absolutely". Your time is up. Now is taking back self anointed to be just another ancestor lost in their own self deception, Look The emperor has no clothes. master of vocabulary doesn't mean you understand self containment to being here now all the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Obama visits Pakistan joke

 

President Barack Obama makes a state visit to Pakistan. Michelle and the kids come too.

 

Obama is a guest of the Pakistani military but sadly a military dog savages Sasha to death before the US Secret Service can shoot the dog dead.

 

Obama, tears in his eyes, says to the ISI general whose dog it was - "I'm so sorry. Can I buy you a new dog?".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

this is stupid . the guy we put into office , [bush appointee] told us to leave . rejected leavening enough troops to train their army .

and you want more of our people killed? really?

 

then I suggest you chicken hawks grab your ar15s and go on over .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Get out of afghan and the middle east yesterday. Become energy independent. Easily accomplished after oblameo. Do not call for the overthrow of arab dictators. Let the barbarians fight it out. It will last forever. We will not need any of these clowns anymore and they will go bankrupt. Sell them corn at $1000 a bushel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All the people crying "war monger" think it's perfectly fine that we are STILL in Afghanistan SIX YEARS (not six months people, but SIX YEARS) after electing "Hope" (Easter Bunny) and "Change" (Great Pumpkin). Use that "war monger" outrage and start anew the anti-war fervor that ended, coincidentally I'm sure, on Inauguration Day 2009.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

What Pakistan Knew About Bin Laden

The New York Times

By CARLOTTA GALL. MARCH 19, 2014

...

 

Soon after the Navy SEAL raid on Bin Laden’s house, a Pakistani official told me that the United States had direct evidence that the ISI chief, Lt. Gen. Ahmed Shuja Pasha, knew of Bin Laden’s presence in Abbottabad.

 

Lt_Gen_Ahmed_Shuja_Pasha.png

Pakistani ISI chief "knew of Bin Laden's presence in Abbottabad"

Lieutenant General Ahmed Shuja Pasha, was the Director-General of the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), Pakistan's main intelligence service, from October 2008 until March 2012.

 

What Pakistan Knew About Bin Laden - continued

 

The information came from a senior United States official, and I guessed that the Americans had intercepted a phone call of Pasha’s or one about him in the days after the raid. “He knew of Osama’s whereabouts, yes,” the Pakistani official told me. The official was surprised to learn this and said the Americans were even more so. Pasha had been an energetic opponent of the Taliban and an open and cooperative counterpart for the Americans at the ISI. “Pasha was always their blue-eyed boy,” the official said. But in the weeks and months after the raid, Pasha and the ISI press office strenuously denied that they had any knowledge of Bin Laden’s presence in Abbottabad.

 

Colleagues at The Times began questioning officials in Washington about which high-ranking officials in Pakistan might also have been aware of Bin Laden’s whereabouts, but everyone suddenly clammed up. It was as if a decision had been made to contain the damage to the relationship between the two governments. “There’s no smoking gun,” officials in the Obama administration began to say.

 

The haul of handwritten notes, letters, computer files and other information collected from Bin Laden’s house during the raid suggested otherwise, however. It revealed regular correspondence between Bin Laden and a string of militant leaders who must have known he was living in Pakistan, including Hafiz Muhammad Saeed, the founder of Lashkar-e-Taiba, a pro-Kashmiri group that has also been active in Afghanistan, and Mullah Omar of the Taliban. Saeed and Omar are two of the ISI’s most important and loyal militant leaders. Both are protected by the agency. Both cooperate closely with it, restraining their followers from attacking the Pakistani state and coordinating with Pakistan’s greater strategic plans. Any correspondence the two men had with Bin Laden would probably have been known to their ISI handlers.

 

...

 

According to one inside source, the ISI actually ran a special desk assigned to handle Bin Laden. It was operated independently, led by an officer who made his own decisions and did not report to a superior. He handled only one person: Bin Laden. I was sitting at an outdoor cafe when I learned this, and I remember gasping, though quietly so as not to draw attention. (Two former senior American officials later told me that the information was consistent with their own conclusions.) This was what Afghans knew, and Taliban fighters had told me, but finally someone on the inside was admitting it. The desk was wholly deniable by virtually everyone at the ISI — such is how supersecret intelligence units operate — but the top military bosses knew about it, I was told.

 

America’s failure to fully understand and actively confront Pakistan on its support and export of terrorism is one of the primary reasons President Karzai has become so disillusioned with the United States. As American and NATO troops prepare to withdraw from Afghanistan by the end of this year, the Pakistani military and its Taliban proxy forces lie in wait, as much a threat as any that existed in 2001.

Carlotta Gall's excellent article is consistent with the findings of the BBC's Panorama documentary "SECRET PAKISTAN" (2011).

 

BBC's "SECRET PAKISTAN"

 

Part 1. Double Cross

Secret Pakistan : Documentary by BBC Part 1 (Double Cross) - YouTube

 

Part 2. Backlash

Secret Pakistan : Documentary by BBC Part 2 (Backlash) - YouTube

 

 

The buck stops with the President, Obama. Why is Obama turning a blind eye to the enemy rooted in the Pakistani military?

 

This is not Obama, the community organizer, representing the interests of the American communities threatened by a Pakistani nuclear bomb which the ISI could give, claiming "theft", to their Al Qaeda terrorists for a devastating attack on the US homeland.

 

nuke_pic1.jpg

American communities may be devastated by a Pakistani nuclear bomb

 

This is Obama, the peace-prize winner, wishing a legacy of "war is over", and welcoming advice to surrender Afghanistan to the Pakistani military from Pakistan's woman inside the White House, Robin Raphel.

 

This is Obama, the defamation lawyer, denying the incompetence of his Secretaries of Defense - Gates, Panetta & Hagel - and their Pentagon advisers who have founded their failing Afghan strategy on co-operation with the treacherous Pakistani military, depending on Pakistan's roads and air-space for US and NATO logistics purposes but at the price of taking off the table the winning Afghan and war on terror strategy of regime-change of Pakistan via policies of ultimatums, sanctions and war under the Bush Doctrine to root out the generals and former generals comprising the Pakistani military dictatorship which continues to sponsor jihadi terrorism and imperialism behind the scenes of an elected but relatively powerless government of Pakistan.

 

afpakmissionart_599.jpg

 

The AfPak Mission links

 

Channel AfPak Mission - YouTube

Forum For Freedom Forums

Twitter http://twitter.com/AfPakMission

Flickr Flickr: AfPak Mission's Photostream

Blog AfPak Mission

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Get the fu-ck out of Afghanistan ASAP. Have we not learned anything from history that fighting this war is a totally losing prospect? No matter how long we stay, the home team will have the edge. They'll always be there.

 

Ask the Russians if it's a good idea to get into a neverending war with this country.

Jeeeeeezzzz

we should have learned that ways back with vietnam. back then we thought we could do what the cheese eating french couldn't. now we gotta show that we can do what the russians couldn't do. we've been in afghanistan now over a decade and whatever we are peddling over there - they don't want it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Get the fu-ck out of Afghanistan ASAP. Have we not learned anything from history that fighting this war is a totally losing prospect?

No what we should have learned by now is not fighting Pakistan is a losing prospect in the war on terror.

 

And we've never fought Pakistan. We've paid Pakistan billions of dollars. Won't stop them sponsoring terrorism though.

 

At least in Vietnam the US taught Vietnam not to pick a fight with the US.

 

What has the US taught Pakistan? Get terrorists to attack the US and we will invade your neighbour and pay you billions of dollars.

 

So what Pakistan has learned is that the US is now run by idiots who pay their enemies billions of dollars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FAKE war vs an imaginary enemy.

 

To control stupid little american peasants and steal TRILLIONS in tax dollars.


No what we should have learned by now is not fighting Pakistan is a losing prospect in the war on terror.

 

 

And we've never fought Pakistan. We've paid Pakistan billions of dollars. Won't stop them sponsoring terrorism though.

 

At least in Vietnam the US taught Vietnam not to pick a fight with the US.

 

What has the US taught Pakistan? Get terrorists to attack the US and we will invade your neighbour and pay you billions of dollars.

 

So what Pakistan has learned is that the US is now run by idiots who pay their enemies billions of dollars.

Hahahaha...THERE ARE STILL PEASANTS OUT THERE WHO BELIEVE IN THE WAR ON TERROR....HAHAHAHAHHA

 

 

ps... The imaginary terrorists who did 911 were Saudi...not pakistani.

The US only INVENTS enemies to control the peasants in the US.

 

Have you noticed that Sweden and Austria and Holland do not have any enemies?

 

Every wondered why peasant?

 

It is because they are not dictatorships like the US is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...