Would RP vote to attack AlQeada in Pakistan?

[quantized]

i am wondering if the congress claim that there is absolute intelligence (lets say a satallite imagery) of the location of AlQeada in Pakistan, would RP vote to authorize to strike these AlQeada even without the permission of Pakistan president (assuming Pakistan do not play ball and give lame excuse for US not able to strike).

What would RP do? Vote for the congress bill or not?

[Cinderella]

absolute intelligence?? like the images of saddams WMD??

[quantized]

absolute intelligence?? like the images of saddams WMD??

i assume you do not accept the premise of the question, of absolute intelligence. So you are playing Clinton of not engaing in hypotheticals. Perfectly fine. Next.

[Phantom]

Or the satellite image the US showed the UN/Saudi leadership to prove that Saddam had his troops on the Saudi border ready to invade.

I doubt that Ron Paul would vote for such an action.

[trapfive]

i am wondering if the congress claim that there is absolute intelligence (lets say a satallite imagery) of the location of AlQeada in Pakistan, would RP vote to authorize to strike these AlQeada even without the permission of Pakistan president (assuming Pakistan do not play ball and give lame excuse for US not able to strike).

What would RP do? Vote for the congress bill or not?

it's hard to have satallite imagery of an imaginary target .... but at this point I imagine anything is possible. Right now I'm imagining Dr. Paul's inaugural speech. I'm smiling:)

[WilliamC]

That's what Letters of Marque and Reprisal are far.

It there are non-governmental agents that Congress decides are a serious enough threat to our National Security, then they can issue Letters of Marque and Reprisal against them.

That gives legal authority for third-party agents or even our military to go after the specific groups/individuals without having to declare war on an entire country.

If the "bad guys" are in a host country that is not cooperating with us we are then Constitutionally authorized to ignore that countries sovereignty to the extent that we are going after the "bad guys". If the host country gets too offended they can either cooperate with us or face an escalation of hostilities.

Does this mean that our military will never cause any harm to innocents? Of course not, but we don't have to invade Pakistan to go after the Al Qida there, at least not at the level we invaded Iraq. Leave the vast majority of the citizenry alone and there is going to be far less blowback than if we strategically bombed the entire country back to the stoneage.

[quantized]

it's hard to have satallite imagery of an imaginary target .... but at this point I imagine anything is possible. Right now I'm imagining Dr. Paul's inaugural speech. I'm smiling:)

i find it easier to imagine a satallit imagery of AlQeada base in Pakistan than to imagine a 911 attack of world trade before the attack. But i do know that these are the same old tactics the bush administration used for endorsing their pre-emptive war. it is tricky ground. but SUPPOSE there is over-whelming evidence, strike or no strike? Thats my premise of the question. Probably it is easier to avoid the question, than to just say "NO, I WILL NOT STRIKE"

[quantized]

That's what Letters of Marque and Reprisal are far.

It there are non-governmental agents that Congress decides are a serious enough threat to our National Security, then they can issue Letters of Marque and Reprisal against them.

That gives legal authority for third-party agents or even our military to go after the specific groups/individuals without having to declare war on an entire country.

If the "bad guys" are in a host country that is not cooperating with us we are then Constitutionally authorized to ignore that countries sovereignty to the extent that we are going after the "bad guys". If the host country gets too offended they can either cooperate with us or face an escalation of hostilities.

Does this mean that our military will never cause any harm to innocents? Of course not, but we don't have to invade Pakistan to go after the Al Qida there, at least not at the level we invaded Iraq. Leave the vast majority of the citizenry alone and there is going to be far less blowback than if we strategically bombed the entire country back to the stoneage.

Thank you. Great answer. Yes, go after the AlQeada only. Assume target is specific. Bomb them and job done. So you also feel that RP would vote for the bill if there is evidence of AlQeada location in Pakistan?

[amy31416]

Thank you. Great answer. Yes, go after the AlQeada only. Assume target is specific. Bomb them and job done. So you also feel that RP would vote for the bill if there is evidence of AlQeada location in Pakistan?

Dont worry, your man Obama will bomb Pakistan for you.

[Cinderella]

Dont worry, your man Obama will bomb Pakistan for you.


LMFAO!!!!
:D

[trapfive]

i find it easier to imagine a satallit imagery of AlQeada base in Pakistan than to imagine a 911 attack of world trade before the attack. But i do know that these are the same old tactics the bush administration used for endorsing their pre-emptive war. it is tricky ground. but SUPPOSE there is over-whelming evidence, strike or no strike? Thats my premise of the question. Probably it is easier to avoid the question, than to just say "NO, I WILL NOT STRIKE"

When they find the 7 story underground bunkers in Afghanistan that Rumsfeld so eloquently described on national TV I'll believe in this vast terror network they're hunting down. When the establishment panders this fear it's important for me to remember this is the same crowd that actually believes McCain, Clinton or Obama are the absolute best choices I have as a president..

Are there terrorist, yes. But most of the Arab world was pulling away from the extremist, the bin ladens of the region...until we invented an enemy, named it and invaded. Now the Islamo-facist are picking up many new recruits. Thanks W!!

[quantized]

Dont worry, your man Obama will bomb Pakistan for you.

can i assume your answer to my question is NO then?

Obama position is clear. He will bomb AlQeada in Pakistan. Yes, bomb AlQeada. You abhor this idea? explain.

[amy31416]

can i assume your answer to my question is NO then?

Obama position is clear. He will bomb AlQeada in Pakistan. Yes, bomb AlQeada. You abhor this idea? explain.

If they are a clear and present threat, of course RP will, with congressional authority go in.

I have not seen any information that shows there is any real danger to our national security coming out of Pakistan.

Al-Qaeda sucks, but do you really believe we should destroy a country based on suspicions? Isn't that what got us in this mess with Iraq?

[quantized]

I have not seen any information that shows there is any real danger to our national security coming out of Pakistan. Al-Qaeda sucks, but do you really believe we should destroy a country based on suspicions? Isn't that what got us in this mess with Iraq?

AlQeada not a threat to our national security? RP voted for the war to destroy them in Afganistan. We are not talking about a war like iraq. We are talking about knowing specific AlQeada target in Pakistan and strike the specific target. Threat is clear. Target is clear. Evidence is clear. Bomb the target or not. That is the question. Pls do not overthink the question. The main dilenma of the question is we do not have Pakistan goverment's support and authorizatin to strike. If your answer is to strike, how to reconcile this obvious intrusion of Pakistan soveriegnty with liberatarian ideas of respecting other nation sovereignty.

[slamhead]

That's what Letters of Marque and Reprisal are far.

It there are non-governmental agents that Congress decides are a serious enough threat to our National Security, then they can issue Letters of Marque and Reprisal against them.

That gives legal authority for third-party agents or even our military to go after the specific groups/individuals without having to declare war on an entire country.

If the "bad guys" are in a host country that is not cooperating with us we are then Constitutionally authorized to ignore that countries sovereignty to the extent that we are going after the "bad guys". If the host country gets too offended they can either cooperate with us or face an escalation of hostilities.

Does this mean that our military will never cause any harm to innocents? Of course not, but we don't have to invade Pakistan to go after the Al Qida there, at least not at the level we invaded Iraq. Leave the vast majority of the citizenry alone and there is going to be far less blowback than if we strategically bombed the entire country back to the stoneage.

Under the letters of Marq and reprisal it would limit the power of the president and protect us from situations like Iraq.

Just imagine if we were under marque and reprisal. We could put up a huge bounty, not the token bounty of $50M, and really put the heat on Al-qaeda. Imagine the nastiest people in the world going after Osama to collect a $5 billion bounty. The US military would not even have to get involved and we would not have blowback.

[jmdrake]

AlQeada not a threat to our national security? RP voted for the war to destroy them in Afganistan. We are not talking about a war like iraq. We are talking about knowing specific AlQeada target in Pakistan and strike the specific target. Threat is clear. Target is clear. Evidence is clear. Bomb the target or not. That is the question. Pls do not overthink the question. The main dilenma of the question is we do not have Pakistan goverment's support and authorizatin to strike. If your answer is to strike, how to reconcile this obvious intrusion of Pakistan soveriegnty with liberatarian ideas of respecting other nation sovereignty.

QFT! And frankly Musharraf himself represents a clear and present danger to U.S. national security. I don't care what the Bush administration wants you to believe. The Pakistani ISI practically created Al Qaeda (http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Jan/24-318760.html) (with CIA money of course). The head of Pakistani intelligence wired $100,000 to Mohammed Atta (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/html/uncomp/articleshow?artid=1454238160&sType=1) back in April 2001. Pakistan funneled $500,000 to Al Qaeda (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4249525.stm) in 2005. In 2005 a Pakistani general gave "shoot to kill" orders (http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_22-2-2005_pg1_4) for any U.S. troops that might cross the border from Afghanistan in hot pursuit of terrorists. Pakistan has gone into "truce" agreements (http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0207/p04s02-wosc.html) with the Taliban at multiple times (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/HI08Df03.html). Prior to 9/11 Pakistani nuclear scientists were CAUGHT meeting with Al Qaeda (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/FF04Df05.html) in Afghanistan. They claimed they wanted to discuss the "peaceful" use of nuclear weapons.

Satellite imagery? You don't even need that. The camera crew of the PBS show Frontline (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/taliban/) was able to capture actionable intelligence on the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Pakistan. Meanwhile the administration is continuing it's sabre rattling against Iran even though that was a country that helped us FIGHT the Taliban (http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/jir/jir010315_1_n.shtml).

But yes. I agree. I would rather see any engagement targeted specifically at Al Qaeda and not the country as a whole. We could bring down Musharraf just by removing our support of him. I would hate to see an entire country punished for the evil of one man. After all we still have W for president. :eek:

Regards,

John M. Drake

[sethay]

Under the letters of Marq and reprisal it would limit the power of the president and protect us from situations like Iraq.

Just imagine if we were under marque and reprisal. We could put up a huge bounty, not the token bounty of $50M, and really put the heat on Al-qaeda. Imagine the nastiest people in the world going after Osama to collect a $5 billion bounty. The US military would not even have to get involved and we would not have blowback.

No blowback? We would have just given 'the nastiest people in the world' $5 billion dollars.

That does not sound smart to me.

[familydog]

That's what Letters of Marque and Reprisal are far.

It there are non-governmental agents that Congress decides are a serious enough threat to our National Security, then they can issue Letters of Marque and Reprisal against them.

That gives legal authority for third-party agents or even our military to go after the specific groups/individuals without having to declare war on an entire country.

If the "bad guys" are in a host country that is not cooperating with us we are then Constitutionally authorized to ignore that countries sovereignty to the extent that we are going after the "bad guys". If the host country gets too offended they can either cooperate with us or face an escalation of hostilities.

Does this mean that our military will never cause any harm to innocents? Of course not, but we don't have to invade Pakistan to go after the Al Qida there, at least not at the level we invaded Iraq. Leave the vast majority of the citizenry alone and there is going to be far less blowback than if we strategically bombed the entire country back to the stoneage.

I'm assuming Ron would go for the Letters solution. I don't buy that solution personally, but it seems he would vote against invading in favor of issuing Letters.

[nbhadja]

can i assume your answer to my question is NO then?

Obama position is clear. He will bomb AlQeada in Pakistan. Yes, bomb AlQeada. You abhor this idea? explain.

Just like Bush bombed Al Queda in Iraq. :rolleyes:

Obama's foreign policy is NO DIFFERENT than Bush's foreign policy

I will not hesitate to use military force to take out terrorists who pose a direct threat to America.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-obama2aug02,1,1165056.story?coll=la-headlines-nation&track=crosspromo

As President, I would deploy at least two additional brigades to Afghanistan to re-enforce our counter-terrorism operations .
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/08/01/obama_says_pakistan_must_act_against_taliban/

Obama stated that as President he would consider military action in Pakistan in order to attack al-Qaeda, even if the Pakistani government did not give approval.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6926663.stm

He was not in office to vote for the iraq war, but he voted to fund it for over 300 billion dollars.

Obama also will not guarantee a Iraqi troop pullout until at least 2013. http://action.richardsonforpresident.com/page/content/2013/obamarecord/

Sen. Barack Obama said Friday the use of military force should not be taken off the table when dealing with Iran, which he called a threat to all of us.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/281249,CST-NWS-OBAMA03.article

Senator Barack Obama yesterday defended his votes on behalf of funding the Iraq war, asserting that he has always made clear that he supports funding for US troops despite his consistent opposition to the war.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/03/22/obama_defends_votes_in_favor_of_iraq_funding/

[xerigen]

"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
- G.W. Bush, 9/13/01

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

Let's not give the next President any power.

[amy31416]

AlQeada not a threat to our national security? RP voted for the war to destroy them in Afganistan. We are not talking about a war like iraq. We are talking about knowing specific AlQeada target in Pakistan and strike the specific target. Threat is clear. Target is clear. Evidence is clear. Bomb the target or not. That is the question. Pls do not overthink the question. The main dilenma of the question is we do not have Pakistan goverment's support and authorizatin to strike. If your answer is to strike, how to reconcile this obvious intrusion of Pakistan soveriegnty with liberatarian ideas of respecting other nation sovereignty.

Okay, my friend. Go join the military and go bomb Pakistan--haven't you learned one goddamned thing from "supporting" Ron Paul? I supported the efforts in Afghanistan and look how our government played us to get Iraq. Do you really think the government can be trusted to handle anything else after that? Especially considering that Barack is the same as McCain, Hillary and Bush? The biggest difference between Hillary and McCain is that he would OUTSPEND them by about 70 billion, to give us both MORE war and MORE socialism. More dumbing down and bigger government.

Of the three "frontrunners," Barack is, by far, the worst. I would actually vote for Hillary or McCain over Barack and that would make me sick to my stomach. The fact that YOU support him, in my opinion, negates every single thing you have to say. Are you that vapid and superficial in your knowledge?

I WILL overthink the question, it's a lack of thought that gets us into bullshit like Iraq, and Pakistan would likely be the same. I will NOT support going into another country and taking pre-emptive strikes, taking out innocent people.

Do you have no respect for life? Do you realize that real people die? People like you, sons and daughters of real people. People that could have made a fucking difference in this world. And you cavalierly suggest bombing a fucking country. The decision to go to war is a very, very profound one and I doubt you have the capacity to understand what you are suggesting. Bombing a country is not a fucking video game.

You go to war and put your ass on the line and see your friends and innocent people die in front of you. See if you are ever the same. Maybe you might consider non-interventionism after that, or even negotiations. Or perhaps you'll be so insane from PTSD that you have to be put away and disarmed by your own government that you supported.

And what the hell is a liberatarian idea? Does it have anything to do with the Dewey Decimal System?

[jmdrake]

Just like Bush bombed Al Queda in Iraq. :rolleyes:

There's a huge difference. Al Qaeda (if you believe they exists) actually is in Pakistan! Remember the whole "Osama escaping from Tora Bora" story? Tora Bora borders the Pakistani tribal regions and that's where Al Qaeda went. Bombing Al Qaeda in Pakistan is like bombing Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. (Something Ron Paul voted to do.) The only difference between the Paul "letters of Marquee" plan and the Obama "I'll bomb Al Qaeda unilaterally" plan is that Paul's is constitutional.

Regards,

John M. Drake