Obama Widens Missile Strikes Inside Pakistan

It's not like when they drew up the Constitution, only white male landowners were supposed to be able to vote, either. We abolished slavery and gave blacks a full vote, too...We've strayed so far from the original vision for America.

 

It wasn't necessarily the Patriot Act that allows the US to bomb whomever we want, we already reserved that right , it was more the policy of "pre-emptive war" that the neoconservative politicians implemented after Afghanistan. Or, in other words, invading a country based on what they might do to us in the future.

But Obama probably does dig the Patriot Act as mush as Bush did. Afterall, the Patriot Act expanded Presidential powers immensely and why would the most powerful person in the country want to give up that power? I believe there was speculation when Obama flipped on the FISA issue that he did so because wanted to keep those "options" open if he ended being elected.

Sent ya a PM.

 

Give it up, hell look for him to expand upon it.

 

In granting rights to the people the constitution has improved, but in granting powers to the Federal government is where it has lost its way.

Strict constitutionalists, see Lysander Spooner, have always argued for equal voting rights and abolition of slavery since its inception, but nobody can lay down a moral argument for the expansion of Federal powers otherwise denied by the constitution.

Do you think the President should be able to bypass congress to declare war and create executive orders?

If there is one thing the founders had right it was the proper role of the federal government and foreign policy. I am all for progression, but not when the authority is unlawfully usurped rather than going through the established channels for constitutional amendment. I do not think the people would vote to allow the things the Federal government is doing (ie War on Drugs).

 

I say we tell India to take care of it, they have been waiting since the 70's to blow Pakistan half to hell, let there neighbors take care of it.

 

Sativamonk, the grander issue is that both Pakistan and India posses thermonuclear weapons.

A full-scale direct conflict between the two states could result in a regional nuclear exchange, potentially risking hundreds of millions if not billions of lives. It's in the interest of all countries to see that this does not happen.

Pakistan is in total disarray, a strong breeze could cause the whole country to explode in a quagmire of violence, more than it has already become.

 

I'm kind of confused as to what the issue is here... Is it because you think Obama ran on a "peace" platform? Because I wasn't aware that he did.

Or is it that you don't understand the motivation? The article states that these missile strikes were supposedly against groups hostile to the Pakistani government. Clearly the U.S has an interest in keeping Pakistan stable. I'm sure you guys are all aware about how fucked up that country is right now. If the government of Pakistan collapses then that's a lot of nukes that go unaccounted for.

So assuming that this group the strike was against were in fact a group of people intent on bringing down the Pakistani government (that may or may not be a big assumption), what would you have Obama do?

 

I don't think it would ever get to that point, regardless I doubt they even have the number of nukes it would take to kill millions of lives, or even the rocketry technology to reach far enough to get to a extremely populated city. India on the other hand has much more capabilities more likely with there nuclear weapons, but they have the competent military to take out Pakistan. India would not need to use nukes because they have a more than competent military, and with the recent terrorist attacks, they would seem more obligated to go to war in that area.

 

These drone attacks are not achieving anything towards stability, if anything they are a hinderence to the peace process as shown by the outcry against it from within Pakistan. Blowback.

The Pakistani government has a better chance using diplomacy, like they have been trying, and gaining the support of the people, rather than secretly working with the CIA to bomb civilians to get at terrorists. Right now the people view Pakistani government and US government teaming up as a negative force.

Here are some good local opinions:

Pakistan Can Solve Crisis Through Dialogue

Drones vs Sharia Law

 

Because it's undermining their authority and credibility. Something that the US thinks will somehow help them win the "war on terror" I guess.

 

Any reasoning behind that? I mean you're entitled to that opinion, I'm just curious if you have anything to validate it with.

Estimates vary, but at leave two dozen. Possibly upwards of 60 active warheads.

Other more current sources say 90-250, but use your discretion on these estimates.

These warheads have been tested and are in the 20-35 kiloton range. For comparison purposes, the Baker explosion of Operation Crossroads was 21-23 kilotons.

Hiroshima was even smaller and killed hundred of thousands of people.

Their weapons can absolutely kill millions of lives, especially in densely populated regions of India like Punjab and Haryana. You also have to realize that medical availability is not good in these regions either. Treating mild forms of radiation poisoning would be very difficult, even with international aid. Not to mention long term effects of exposure and their health ramifications.

Also, you have the risk of atmospheric radioactive fallout, which can threaten the long term well-being of people living thousands of miles away. Chernobyl or Castle Bravo are examples of how radioisotopes permeate and irradiate land and people, and have long term effects.

Well you can decide not to believe it if you want. The reality is, is that they do have the technology to deliver it. They have aircraft deliver, they have a number of ballistic missile systems, including tactile long range missiles. They also have commissioned a diesel-submarine capable of delivering nuclear warheads via short range ballistic missiles.

Not to mention that even without all this technology, a thermonuclear weapon can still be delivered to it's target. A paramilitary organization to get their hands on such a thing could fairly easily detonate it inside a populated area using non conventional geurilla tactics.

Yeah, because it's not like the fucking soup of the Iraq and Afghanistan insurgency have taught us anything about advance military powers and attempting to suppress paramilitary groups.

You conclude that one military can simply win over another one, because of a perceived technological difference; to me this illustrates that you have no clue how modern warfare, and even historic warfare has played out.

I mean I can rattle off a laundry list of precedent if you really want, but you can just google this kind of stuff.

India does not have to be the instigator for a devastating nuclear exchange to occur. That's one of the biggest issues, is that without the network of alliances and supporters, there is no MAD.

Only if you think that there is no other viable resolution to terrorist acts than military confrontation. Unfortunately, history has told us differently here at well.

It's certainly an option, I really don't rule it out. I just don't see how you can reach these kind of firm conclusions.

 

If Pakistan has the tactical advantages you speak of, why don't they police there own lawless areas? Face it, Pakistan is the wild west, full of religious nutts, desperados and overall wackos.

You think a country with that number of nuclear weapons could easily, EASILY police there country.

 

Uhh, nuking regions of your own country and engaging in a domestic genocide will only further destabilize things. Pakistan has managed to more or less co-exist with it's tribal area for 30 years now. (That is to say that open conventional combat is rare and almost nonexistent)

Also, you have to realize that although much of Pakistan doesn't support what is done in the tribal regions, the more moderate populace will fight for their ability to live in this way.

Also, the military of Pakistan, which is a very strong political force, doesn't necessarily disagree with what is being done, and may resist or purposefully sabotage efforts to police the region.

There is a lot of great reading and analysis on the subject. I encourage you to look into it more.

 

I did not mean nuke themselves, all I am saying is, if they have the know how to develop nuclear weaponry, what is keeping them from conjuring the know how to effectively clean up there own country.

 

Ever been to Pakistan? Kind of a hard country to clean up with its mountainous terrain. It has nothing to do with them having nukes.