Log in

View Full Version : About "reading between the lines"


Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
June 15th 09, 09:33 PM
"To achieve our goals, we need a stronger, smarter and comprehensive
strategy," said Obama at the White House, flanked by Secretary of
State Hillary Clinton, Defense Secretary Roberts Gates and National
Security Advisor James Jones.

In laying out the new strategy, the president said that the U.S.
goal is to defeat al-Qaeda and to strengthen anti-terrorism
capabilities of both Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The mission, the president said, is "to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat
al-Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to
either country in the future."

However, the president also hinted that the United States is open to
talks with moderate elements of the Taliban.

To defeat terrorists, Obama said he envisions a regional approach that
includes both Afghanistan and Pakistan.

"The future of Afghanistan is inextricably linked to the future of
its neighbor, Pakistan. In the nearly eight years since 9/11, al-Qaeda
and its extremist allies have moved across the border to the remote
areas of the Pakistani frontier," he said.

Obama said the Afghan-Pakistani border region has become the most
dangerous place in the world.

"To enhance the military, governance, and economic capacity of
Afghanistan and Pakistan, we have to marshal international support,"
the president said.

"To defeat an enemy that heeds no borders or laws of war, we must
recognize the fundamental connection between the future of Afghanistan
and Pakistan," he added.

Meanwhile, to uproot terrorist safe heavens in Pakistan, Obama said he
is "calling upon Congress to pass a bipartisan bill co-sponsors by
John Kerry and Richard Lugar that authorizes 1.5 billion dollars in
direct support to the Pakistani people every year over the next five
years."

"It is important for the American people to understand that
Pakistan needs our help in going after al-Qaeda," he said.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-03/28/content_11086818.htm

You claim to be good at reading between the lines. Do you think I'm
off base in my assessment that cooperation is a very likely
possibility and that the timing of operations in Pakistan and troop
increases are probably not simply coincidental?

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
June 15th 09, 10:12 PM
On Jun 15, 3:59*pm, ScottW2 > wrote:
> On Jun 15, 1:33*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> > wrote:

> > "To achieve our goals, we need a stronger, smarter and comprehensive
> > strategy," said Obama at the White House, flanked by Secretary of
> > State Hillary Clinton, Defense Secretary Roberts Gates and National
> > Security Advisor James Jones.
>
> > * * In laying out the new strategy, the president said that the U.S..
> > goal is to defeat al-Qaeda and to strengthen anti-terrorism
> > capabilities of both Afghanistan and Pakistan.
>
> > The mission, the president said, is "to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat
> > al-Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to
> > either country in the future."
>
> > However, the president also hinted that the United States is open to
> > talks with moderate elements of the Taliban.
>
> > To defeat terrorists, Obama said he envisions a regional approach that
> > includes both Afghanistan and Pakistan.
>
> > * * "The future of Afghanistan is inextricably linked to the future of
> > its neighbor, Pakistan. In the nearly eight years since 9/11, al-Qaeda
> > and its extremist allies have moved across the border to the remote
> > areas of the Pakistani frontier," he said.
>
> > * * Obama said the Afghan-Pakistani border region has become the most
> > dangerous place in the world.
>
> > * * "To enhance the military, governance, and economic capacity of
> > Afghanistan and Pakistan, we have to marshal international support,"
> > the president said.
>
> > * * "To defeat an enemy that heeds no borders or laws of war, we must
> > recognize the fundamental connection between the future of Afghanistan
> > and Pakistan," he added.
>
> > Meanwhile, to uproot terrorist safe heavens in Pakistan, Obama said he
> > is "calling upon Congress to pass a bipartisan bill co-sponsors by
> > John Kerry and Richard Lugar that authorizes 1.5 billion dollars in
> > direct support to the Pakistani people every year over the next five
> > years."
>
> > * * "It is important for the American people to understand that
> > Pakistan needs our help in going after al-Qaeda," he said.
>
> >http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-03/28/content_11086818.htm
>
> > You claim to be good at reading between the lines. Do you think I'm
> > off base in my assessment that cooperation is a very likely
> > possibility and that the timing of operations in Pakistan and troop
> > increases are probably not simply *coincidental?
>
> *No. *But I do think we could have bribed the Taliban to hand Osama
> over
> for a lot less before invading Afghanistan. *That's a 7.5 B bribe with
> no
> guarantees.

Possibly, but some here have said in the past that we can't cry over
spilt milk and that we must look at the situation we have now.

As for "Obama's War": he inherited this. If they're doing what I think
they're doing it is probably a good choice based on the current
situation and perhaps the only choice that has a chance of breaking a
stalemate.

Clyde Slick
June 15th 09, 10:46 PM
On Jun 15, 4:59*pm, ScottW2 > wrote:

>
> *No. *But I do think we could have bribed the Taliban to hand Osama
> over
> for a lot less before invading Afghanistan. *

You are out of your mind, they were thumbing their noses at the west.
they weren't going to do anything
we asked them to do, or tried to
bribe them to do.

Evn if it worked, there would be a lot of backsplash
for giving them any money to use
on any of their other nefarious projects.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
June 15th 09, 10:55 PM
On Jun 15, 4:46*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On Jun 15, 4:59*pm, ScottW2 > wrote:
>
>
>
> > *No. *But I do think we could have bribed the Taliban to hand Osama
> > over
> > for a lot less before invading Afghanistan. *
>
> You are out of your mind, they were thumbing their noses at the west.
> they weren't going to do anything
> we asked them to do, or tried to
> bribe them to do.
>
> Evn if it worked, there would be a lot of backsplash
> for giving them any money to use
> on any of their other nefarious projects.

That depends: would Clinton have given them the money or would it have
been bushie?

Clyde Slick
June 16th 09, 05:17 AM
On Jun 15, 7:45*pm, ScottW2 > wrote:
> On Jun 15, 2:46*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:

> > on any of their other nefarious projects.
>
> *What backsplash? *By whom? and would/should we care?
> We're giving the greatest nuclear weapons proliferating country in the
> history of the world 7.5B over the next 5 years. Is there any
> backsplash to that?
>


there would be, if we knew about it.
maybe you are counting humanitarian aid consisting of food shipments

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
June 16th 09, 06:23 AM
On Jun 15, 6:41 pm, ScottW2 > wrote:
> On Jun 15, 2:12 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

> > As for "Obama's War": he inherited this. If they're doing what I think
> > they're doing it is probably a good choice based on the current
> > situation and perhaps the only choice that has a chance of breaking a
> > stalemate.
>
> I agree. Petraeus has never seemed to be a guy who accepted status
> quo.

And McChrystal took command yesterday or the day before. I'd
anticiptae less "status quo" in Afghanistan as a result.

> The problem is the reliability of our ally we are so dependent on in
> this.

Well, it's not like we have a choice or anything...