Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Obama's First Pakistani Scalps
The Associated Press reports:
Missiles fired from a suspected U.S. spy plane killed seven people Friday on the Pakistan side of the Afghan border, a lawless region where al-Qaida militants are known to hide out, officials said.
The strike was the first on Pakistani territory since the inauguration of President Barrack Obama.
Whether this has much symbolic significance or not, Obama's aggressiveness in Pakistan will certainly come as no surprise to readers of Reason.
|1.23.09 @ 9:22AM|#
Only surprise is that they didn't go after Pakistan's
leadership... after all, he's shown his proclivities toward
invading Pakistan.
So we go from one black hole of a military incursion to another,
potentially. Great.
Abdul|1.23.09 @ 9:33AM|#
Barack Obama has never said a word about invading
Pakistan.
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama issued a pointed
warning yesterday to Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, saying
that as president he would be prepared to order U.S. troops into
that country unilaterally if it failed to act on its own against
Islamic extremists.
Gotcha!!! joe loses thread|1.23.09 @ 9:38AM|#
Barack Obama has never said a word about invading
Pakistan.
How's this quote:
"I never called for an invasion of Pakistan or Afghanistan "
Gotcha!!!! joe loses thread|1.23.09 @ 9:40AM|#
Barack Obama has never said a word about invading
Pakistan.
How's this quote:
"I never called for an invasion of Pakistan or Afghanistan
"
|1.23.09 @ 9:47AM|#
SIV,
As usual, you try to show I'm wrong, and shoot yourself in the
foot.
None of those links have Obama saying he wants to invade Pakistan,
while the third one has him affirming that he has no intention to
invade Afghanistan.
Did you even bother to read any of them, or did you just see the
number of hits and say "Golly, that's a big number?"
TMOF|1.23.09 @ 9:48AM|#
joe ... bad form man, bad form. Do a little research and use the Google before you make such a sweeping declaration.
|1.23.09 @ 9:48AM|#
Gotcha,
The Quote where he affirms that he never said he intended to invade
Pakistan is just fine, thanks.
Own goal, chief.
Thanks for the help.
|1.23.09 @ 9:49AM|#
Have you people all gone insane?
You're all quoting Barack Obama saying he doesn't intend to invade
Pakistan as evidence of his intent to invade Pakistan?
Are you that desperate to yell "Gotcha" at me that you can't
read?
Fluffy|1.23.09 @ 9:50AM|#
I have given Obama credit for some of his other policy
announcements, but I have to criticize him here.
Such a brilliant plan - let's antagonize a nuclear power
by committing acts of war on their territory in order to
kill 7 guys.
I bash the inability of freepers to perceive the skewed
cost/benefit relationship in the Iraq war, and some cost/benefit
thinking is required here too. Unless one of those seven militants
was Osama himself, it's absurd to believe that this raid justified
the risk involved in bombing and destabilizing a country with
nuclear arms.
If Pakistan requests assistance against its border area militants,
we should consider rendering it - if it doesn't involve ground
forces and can be undertaken at a reasonable cost. But this whole
"Hey, you guys suck, why don't you cower before our might as we
bomb your territory" crap is not wise.
Fluffy|1.23.09 @ 9:52AM|#
Joe,
Come on, dude. If you say you are going to send your troops into
another country against that country's wishes, that is what is
known as an "invasion". If you follow up your first statement with
a promise to never "invade", you're just dissembling.
The goal of permanent occupation and conquest is not a necessary
part of an "invasion". Tell me, can Israel say, "We have never
'invaded' Lebanon!" and be telling the truth?
SIV|1.23.09 @ 9:52AM|#
joe,
Obama's denial is saying "a word about invading Pakistan".That he
had to issue a denial indicates that what he said sure sounded like
a proposed invasion.
|1.23.09 @ 9:53AM|#
Here's my question. Obama is C-in-C now, so technically, this was carried out with his approval. But are the military and CIA operating under a "you don't have to check in with Washington" policy for these attacks, one that Obama would have to actually rescind for it to stop?
Sean Healy|1.23.09 @ 9:55AM|#
What? No more weddings in Pakistan? When Bush did this he always blew up weddings.
|1.23.09 @ 9:56AM|#
Actually, Fluffy, it's knows as a "raid" or an "incursion,"
rather than an "invasion," unless you state that you intend those
troops to stay, rather than perform a mission of limited duration
then leave.
The goal of permanent occupation and conquest is not a
necessary part of an "invasion". Not "permanent," but for some
considerable duration, aimed at establishing control over
territory.
The Israelis, for example, stayed in Lebanon for years.
|1.23.09 @ 9:57AM|#
Yes, SIV, when a politician denies a story ginned up by his
opponents, it can only mean they were right.
*rolls eyes*
TMOF|1.23.09 @ 10:03AM|#
joe ... dissembling as always. Let's get real ... if several hundred Mexican troops crossed our border in order to snuff out some drug-dealing undesirables, against the wishes of our government, would that constitute an invasion??
|1.23.09 @ 10:18AM|#
No, TMOF, it would constitute an incursion, or a raid. The
British in 1812 was in invasion.
Words mean stuff. Why do you think the people so desperate to argue
that Barack Obama is just like George Bush are stamping their feet
and insisting that exactly the same word that describes what we did
in Iraq applies to what Obama has stated he would consider doing in
Pakistan, despite the obviously, dramatic differences between the
two.
Seward|1.23.09 @ 10:19AM|#
As with most things internet, this has now come down to a fight
over word meaning: logomachy if you will.
I would say that Obama's remarks can fit within the definition
provided by wikipedia:
An invasion is a
military offensive consisting of all, or large parts of the armed
forces of one geopolitical entity aggressively entering territory
controlled by another such entity, generally with the objective of
either conquering, liberating or re-establishing control or
authority over a territory, altering the established government or
gaining concessions from said government, or a combination
thereof.
sage|1.23.09 @ 10:20AM|#
I have given Obama credit for some of his other policy
announcements, but I have to criticize him here.
Such a brilliant plan - let's antagonize a nuclear power by
committing acts of war on their territory in order to kill 7
guys.
I don't know if this has been mentioned already, but it could be
that this was done with a wink and a nod from the Pakistanis.
And I wouldn't really call this an invasion, as we were not really
going after civilian or military targets in Pakistan. This was a
"lawless" area that we shot up.
|1.23.09 @ 10:25AM|#
You people kill me.
There are all sorts of factual, reality-based, honest objections to
be made about Obama's intentions towards Pakistan.
A raid could piss off the governmet, and they'd stop cooperating
with us.
A raid could destablize the government, and the fundies could take
over.
Raids do more harm by damaging our reputation than they help by
killing terrorists.
But no, that's not good enough. There's a pretty little political
narrative you want to tell - Barack Obama is just like George Bush,
he's going to do in Pakistan just what George Bush did in Iraq, I'm
so smart for thinking so - but the actual facts just don't back
your narrative up. There is zero zip nada evidence to support the
thesis that Barack Obama intends, or has even given any indication
of intending, to invade Pakistan.
So instead of making a legitimate, defensible argument, you play
word games, use vague and inaccurate terms to make unlike things
look alike, truth be damned.
Pathetic.
|1.23.09 @ 10:30AM|#
Seward,
Which of the following is "destroy terrorists" supposed to be the
same as?
conquering territory
liberating territory
re-establishing control over territory
altering an established government
winning concessions from a government
Seward|1.23.09 @ 10:31AM|#
joe,
Those are also all true. And they are some of the reasons why an
invasion of a type would be problematic.
There is zero zip nada evidence to support the thesis that
Barack Obama intends, or has even given any indication of
intending, to invade Pakistan.
If by invade Pakistan one means that he intends to invade and then
occupy the country, no there doesn't appear to be much evidence of
that.
Seward|1.23.09 @ 10:35AM|#
joe,
Well, one of the arguments from many circles for sending troops
into Pakistan is to win concessions from the government there;
namely to force their hand on the issue of the "lawless" regions of
that country.
Indeed, that can seen from the language quoted by Abdul;
namely:
...saying that as president he would be prepared to order U.S.
troops into that country unilaterally if it failed to act on its
own against Islamic extremists.
You either straighten up your house or we are sending in troops;
and then we'll get you to straighten up your house.
|1.23.09 @ 10:39AM|#
Seward,
And they are some of the reasons why an invasion of a type
would be problematic.
Not only are they reasons why an INVASION of any type would be
problematic, but why other actions THAT ARE NOT AN INVASION could
be problematic as well.
No, I am not backing down from my insistence on accurate
language.
I also don't read that quote as a statement about trying to get the
Pakistani government to go along, but as a statement about what we
would do if they do not.
Seward|1.23.09 @ 10:40AM|#
Episiarch,
It is possible that a lot of the people who voted for Obama because
they expected him to have a less aggressive foreign policy than
Bush will be sadly mistaken.
I hope he will follow Jefferson's ideal myself:
"Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations entangling
alliances with none."
|1.23.09 @ 10:40AM|#
Barack Obama has never said a word about invading
Pakistan.
Be cool joe and say something like
Ooops! My bad. What a dumbshit fuckup. Of course Obama has talked aqbout the possibility of invading the tribal areas in NW Pakistan if the Pakistanis can't or wont't deal with the Taliban on their own.
J sub D, no Obama fanboy, agreed with him.
It helps your credibility when you admit to obvious
errors.
|1.23.09 @ 10:41AM|#
Episiarch | January 23, 2009, 10:34am | #
I am so enjoying this.
Say, Episiarch, I haven't seen you write "Meet the new boss..." or
even toss out an ironic "Change!" in days now.
Aw, whatsamatter? Just not in the mood? Funny, days before the
inauguration, you decided that spiking the football on the five
yard line was a great idea.
Now, I have to ask: Why so serious?
Episiarch having to STFU: now THAT'S change I can believe in.
|1.23.09 @ 10:43AM|#
J sub,
I'm on an accuracy kick right now - you know, that whole
reality-based thing - so I'm certainly not going to write something
as inaccurate and claiming that Barack Obama has stated that he
intendsd to invade Pakistan.
Because he hasn't. In fact, he's stated precisely the opposite.
|1.23.09 @ 10:43AM|#
Mental note: ordering US troops into another country
unilaterally does not equal invading that country.
I had no idea that the Change I will be Believing In, like it or
not, would be changes to the English language.
Sure, sure, a quick cross-border raid wouldn't necessarily be an
"invasion", but I must say I find it amusing to see people
previously unconcerned with nuances and niceties when it came to
the use of force overseas suddenly parsing things so closely.
Of course, I have a really hard time with sending troops into a
foreign country to force concessions from its government as
anything other than an invasion.
Seward|1.23.09 @ 10:46AM|#
joe,
No, I am not backing down from my insistence on accurate
language.
Dude, this is a blog conversation.
...but as a statement about what we would do if they do
not.
So, if they don't, and we invade, then what are we going to do?
What is the next step? If not permanent occupation, then something
else, right? If one is going to send in troops to deal with this
situation, do you expect that to be the end of it? I don't. So what
is next? So yea, it is very reasonably to assume that would be the
next step. Of course the next step could be an occupation, but I am
giving an Obama administration the benefit of the doubt on that
score.
Whenever the government is talking about doing something, you have
to think what the next four or five things will be a consequence of
such.
|1.23.09 @ 10:46AM|#
I'm on an accuracy kick right now - you know, that whole
reality-based thing - so I'm certainly not going to write something
as inaccurate and claiming that Barack Obama has stated that he
intendsd to invade Pakistan.
Because he actually never said the word "invade", you see.
Query: when Israeli troops crossed the border into Gaza, were they
"invading"?
|1.23.09 @ 10:47AM|#
Mental note: ordering US troops into another country
unilaterally does not necessarily equal invading that
country.
There, fixed that for you.
I had no idea that the Change I will be Believing In, like it
or not, would be changes to the English language.
Sure, sure, a quick cross-border raid wouldn't necessarily be an
"invasion",
Holy whiplash, Batman! From "change the English language" to
"techinically, it's accurate" with only a period and a paragraph
break!
I must say I find it amusing to see people previously
unconcerned with nuances and niceties when it came to the use of
force overseas suddenly parsing things so closely.
That's me: unconcerned with nuances and niceties. That must be why
I was such a John Kerry fan.
Of course, I have a really hard time with sending troops into a
foreign country to force concessions from its government as
anything other than an invasion. Good thing no one's claimed
that, then.
|1.23.09 @ 10:49AM|#
Seward,
So, if they don't, and we invade... You mean incur, or
raid.
...then what are we going to do? What is the next step? If not
permanent occupation, then something else, right? If one is going
to send in troops to deal with this situation, do you expect that
to be the end of it? Based on what Obama has said and done to
date, the answer is, hit the target we intend to hit, then
leave.
BTW, we've been doing incursions into Pakistan for a couple of
years now. When do you think the occupation will begin?
Seward|1.23.09 @ 10:49AM|#
R.C. Dean,
Well, who actually believes that a force of any significant size
would be mobilized for just a short term operation (and that is
presumably what it would take, right?)? As a practical matter, it
would lead of little value, beyond political theatrics. For a force
sizeable enough to tackle the problem it would mean a medium term
presence at least.
|1.23.09 @ 10:51AM|#
RC,
Because he actually never said the word "invade", you
see.
Nor expressed any intend to engage in any actions that fit the
definition of "invasion" so helpfully provided above.
Query: when Israeli troops crossed the border into Gaza, were
they "invading"? Israel went into Gaza for the purpose of
gaining concessions from their government, so yes, that was an
invasion.
Fluffy|1.23.09 @ 10:51AM|#
There's a pretty little political narrative you want to tell
- Barack Obama is just like George Bush, he's going to do in
Pakistan just what George Bush did in Iraq
Who's saying that? Not me.
So instead of making a legitimate, defensible argument, you
play word games, use vague and inaccurate terms to make unlike
things look alike, truth be damned.
Give me a break. You're the one using word games, by trying to
insist that as long as we don't duplicate the Normandy landing and
Operation Market Garden in Pakistan, it's not an "invasion". Even
though by your own statement you don't think unilateral military
attacks on Pakistani targets is wise, you are committed to making
sure no one can claim that Obama's previous denial of the
possibility of aggression in Pakistan was false.
Sure, joe, whatever. We're engaging in non-covert military
operations in Pakistan, and the Pakistani government doesn't want
us to do so, but as long as you can parse the difference between
"invading" and "raiding" it keeps Obama's halo shiny so that's good
enough for you.
I'm going to be a dick and argue by dictionary now, since you want
to play word games too:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/invading
[blockquote]in⋅vade /ɪnˈveɪd/ Show Spelled Pronunciation
[in-veyd] Show IPA Pronunciation
verb, -vad⋅ed, -vad⋅ing.
-verb (used with object) 1. to enter forcefully as an enemy; go
into with hostile intent: Germany invaded Poland in 1939.
2. to enter like an enemy: Locusts invaded the fields.
3. to enter as if to take possession: to invade a neighbor's
home.
4. to enter and affect injuriously or destructively, as disease:
viruses that invade the bloodstream.
5. to intrude upon: to invade the privacy of a family.
6. to encroach or infringe upon: to invade the rights of
citizens.
7. to permeate: The smell of baking invades the house.
8. to penetrate; spread into or over: The population boom has
caused city dwellers to invade the suburbs.
-verb (used without object) 9. to make an invasion: troops awaiting
the signal to invade.
Definition #3 is a subset of definition #1, and not a
delimiter of definition #1.
Seward|1.23.09 @ 10:53AM|#
joe,
BTW, we've been doing incursions into Pakistan for a couple of
years now.
I don't believe we've seen U.S. troops across the border; it has
been operations like this one.
|1.23.09 @ 10:54AM|#
Has anybody else noticed that nobody is even attempting to
defend the notion that Barack Obama intends to invade - using the
accurate definition provided above - Pakistan, the way we invaded
Iraq and Afghanistan?
That, instead, the people once making this claim are now working to
defend the idea that some very different actions can SO be called
an invasion?
|1.23.09 @ 10:54AM|#
Spin and parsing aside, I'm struck by one thought. You take this
office, enjoying sitting in the White House and thinking grand
thoughts about the good--and, possibly, depending on your
character, ill--you plan to do, then a few days later you
officially have blood on your hands. I can have my hawkish moments,
but to actually be the guy who is ultimately responsible for that,
whether it's the right thing to do or not, that's a tough, would be
a hard pill to swallow.
Okay, my moment of sympathy is over. Better get used to this, Mr.
President. And the criticism, and joe making excuses for you ☺
|1.23.09 @ 10:54AM|#
joe,
"Actually, Fluffy, it's knows as a "raid" or an "incursion," rather
than an "invasion," unless you state that you intend those troops
to stay, rather than perform a mission of limited duration then
leave."
We never invaded Iraq.
BDB|1.23.09 @ 10:57AM|#
You're right, joe, he's not like George W. Bush on Pakistan. He is more hawkish than GWB on Pakistan.
|1.23.09 @ 11:00AM|#
I though Obama indicated a little too much willingness to operate in Pakistan without any concern about what that would do to our relationship with the Pakistani government, but that was campaigning. I'm willing to wait to see what his actually policy will be.
|1.23.09 @ 11:02AM|#
joe, I remember his Pakistan blunder clearly from the campaign. I thought it very odd at the time. He was getting beat up by Hillary over National Security, and needed to sound tough. He spoke before he thought. Hillary made many of the same points people are making here, and his remarks were reported widely in the press as referring to invasion. He clarified them later, fine. He was probably misunderstood, and didn't intend to indicate he was ready to invade, fine. But he definitely made those remarks, kind of hard to avoid that.
Seward|1.23.09 @ 11:03AM|#
joe,
That, instead, the people once making this claim are now
working to defend the idea that some very different actions can SO
be called an invasion?
At best one person made that claim, and even that is
debateable.
BDB,
Actually, that does appear to be case.
Pro Libertate,
Well, it isn't as if the guy was "drafted"; he volunteered for the
job and spent many hours pursuing it.
|1.23.09 @ 11:04AM|#
Episiarch having to STFU: now THAT'S change I can believe
in.
It just gets better. joe backing himself into a corner: now THAT'S
entertainment I can enjoy.
I'm kind of bored, so please don't stop letting Fluffy use you for
a pinata.
|1.23.09 @ 11:05AM|#
Fluffy,
Who's saying that?
Mad mike fisk. SIV. Abdul. "Gotcha joe loses thread." J sub D.
TMOF. RC Dean. Is that enough?
I agree, though, that you have been making reasonable,
reality-based, accurate arguments, and not just mouting that
line.
You're the one using word games, by trying to insist that as
long as we don't duplicate the Normandy landing and Operation
Market Garden in Pakistan, it's not an "invasion". I'm using
the accurate definition of the term.
Even though by your own statement you don't think unilateral
military attacks on Pakistani targets is wise, you are committed to
making sure no one can claim that Obama's previous denial of the
possibility of aggression in Pakistan was false. Barack Obama
has never denied the possibility of aggression in Pakistan, and
I've never stated that he didn't support aggressive actions in
Pakistan. He specifically denied that he intended an INVASION of
Pakistan, and I accurately pointed that out.
It's not "word games" for me to point out the substantive
difference between an invasion and other military actions. The
difference between taking over a place, defeating the local forces
in the field, and holding it vs. striking a target are substantive
and considerable, and blowing that difference off to make a
political point is irresponsible.
We're engaging in non-covert military operations in Pakistan,
and the Pakistani government doesn't want us to do so, but as long
as you can parse the difference between "invading" and "raiding" it
keeps Obama's halo shiny so that's good enough for you.
I'm sorry you can only consider the difference between launching
another Iraq War, and not launching another Iraq War, in partisan
terms.
I'm going to be a dick and argue by dictionary now You
have fun with that. I'm going to continue to use the term as it is
defined in the sphere of military policy and international
relations, since that's the relevant standard.
If you want to draw a conclusion about how terrible I am for doing
so, ignore the rather important substantive differences between
sending in a force to take over a hostile territory and not, and
proclaim some kind of victory because you can find a less precise
set of definitions that show the word "invasion" can be used in
different ways in different circumstance, you have fun with
that.
|1.23.09 @ 11:10AM|#
On the flip side, I do think there is a reasonable distinction to be made between an incursion and an invasion. Turkey regularly sends troops across the border into Iraq to kill PKK terrorists - the press describes that as an incursion, since Turkey's targets are not controlled by the government of Iraq. There seems to be bit of a double standard here though, since attacking a countries citizens within their own borders, regardless of cause, is universaly considered an act of war.
Neu Mejican|1.23.09 @ 11:11AM|#
As usual, people here are focusing too much of lexical
semantics.
Words don't have stable definitions.
Their meaning is determined by the context in which they are
used.
This process involves interpretation by humans.
Differences in interpretation may occur.
|1.23.09 @ 11:12AM|#
domoarrigato,
We've been in Iraq for the past six years, you know. We defeated
its army in the field, overthrew its government, and occupied its
territory. That's an invasion.
On your second point, Obama did indeed state that he would take
aggressive actions towards al Qaeda targets in Pakistan. He's never
denied that, and I've never denied that. Once again, just to make
sure we're all on the same page, we're not debating whether he
stated or intended to take military action against targets in
Pakistan, but whether he intended to invade that country.
BDB | January 23, 2009, 10:57am | #
You're right, joe, he's not like George W. Bush on Pakistan. He is
more hawkish than GWB on Pakistan. On what grounds do you say
that? George Bush has authorized dozens of these raids into
Pakistan.
But more relevant to this discussion, Obama is less hawkish on
Pakistan than Bush was on Iraq. Unlike Bush's intentions towards
Iraq, Obama has never indicated a willingness to invade
Pakistan.
|1.23.09 @ 11:12AM|#
*shake head*
joe, joe, joe:
I was only trying to help you avoid appearing as a petulant little
jerk. Apparently you still would rather parse words than admit to
an error.
*shrugs*
Reasonoids:
Hey, I tried in good faith and failed. My proficiency in the art of
gentle persuasion is obviously lacking.
|1.23.09 @ 11:13AM|#
domoarrigato | January 23, 2009, 11:10am | #
On the flip side, I do think there is a reasonable distinction to
be made between an incursion and an invasion.
Uh oh, now Episiarch is going to call you teh partisan!
Ep, just take some more Oxy and STFU if you have nothing to
say.
|1.23.09 @ 11:13AM|#
Seward,
I don't really mean it that way. I'm just imagining having the job
myself. Although I'd love to implement my
top 100 things to do as president and otherwise exert my will,
the moral burden for me, personally, would be incredible. Unlike
most power-hungry people--like, say, Episiarch--I have a
conscience.
domoarrigato,
A point of commonality here is that when a country doesn't exert
enough control within its borders to stop terror outside its
borders, the afflicted will do something about it. If you can't
keep your dog in your backyard, I'll deal with it for you.
|1.23.09 @ 11:14AM|#
J sub D,
Let's work out a little code: when I want your help, I'll type a
series of commas and dashes, like this:
,,,--,,-,-.
Watch for it!
Fluffy|1.23.09 @ 11:16AM|#
You have fun with that. I'm going to continue to use the
term as it is defined in the sphere of military policy and
international relations, since that's the relevant
standard.
Fine. Then produce a link to some authoritative body that defines
terms as they are used in international relations and military
policy.
Oopsie, can't do that.
The UN lumps pretty much all military action under the heading
"aggression" and makes no fine distinctions.
http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/GAres3314.html
|1.23.09 @ 11:17AM|#
Ep, just take some more Oxy and STFU if you have nothing to
say.
The more you back yourself in, the more desperate you become. So
much fun.
(I wish I had some oxy. Just hydro right now.)
|1.23.09 @ 11:18AM|#
Fluffy,
Here you go:
Then produce a link to some authoritative body that defines terms
as they are used in international relations and military
policy.
But Seward already did.
|1.23.09 @ 11:20AM|#
BTW, I waaaay overestimated the time it would take Obama to start bombing dudes. 18 months?! WTF was I thinking?
Neu Mejican|1.23.09 @ 11:21AM|#
joe | January 23, 2009, 9:26am | #
Barack Obama has never said a word about invading
Pakistan.
This is the sentence that SIV claims to refute.
It's author, joe, had an intended meaning. His meaning, which he
has clarified with a number of posts, indicated that he was
referring to a specific type of military action that would be far
larger and more sustained than the type that Obama has
indicated he might support.
Focusing on what does or does not count as an acceptable use of the
word "invasion" does not resolve the dispute, because usage
standards do not define the intended meaning of joe's message, joe
does.
Communication is cooperation not competition, in other words.
SIV can't win a conversation. He can only perpetuate a
misunderstanding.
|1.23.09 @ 11:26AM|#
Once upon a time, there was a substantive point on the subject
of invasion: that Barack Obama's intentions towards Pakistan were
comparable to George Bush's towards Iraq - that is, that he
intended to invade that country.
Only surprise is that they didn't go after Pakistan's
leadership... after all, he's shown his proclivities toward
invading Pakistan.
So we go from one black hole of a military incursion to another,
potentially. Great.
Once the falsehood of this claim was definitively established, it
became a bunch of petulant whining about how terrible I am.
Are you all really so determined to be able to yell gotcha at me
that you can't acknowledge the difference between what we did in
Iraq in 2002-2009 (and counting) and, say, what we did in Libya in
1986?
|1.23.09 @ 11:30AM|#
What does that say about your oh-so-superior humanitarianism and concern about foreign entanglements, that you can't bring yourself to acknowledge a difference between mounting an operation to take over and occupy a country and, you know, not, if it means failing to score a point about partisan politics against some guy on a blog thread you've never laid eyes on?
|1.23.09 @ 11:33AM|#
joe,
"Once again, just to make sure we're all on the same page, we're
not debating whether he stated or intended to take military action
against targets in Pakistan, but whether he intended to invade that
country."
I'm not drooling over this argument, but this is not correct as far
as I'm concerned. We are argueing over whether he stated he would
invade (as the term is properly used) Pakistan.
Obama's quote was:
"There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered
3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again . . . If we have
actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and
President Musharraf won't act, we will."
I think Pro Lib's point about "keeping the dog in the back yard" is
spot on. Obama is justified in striking at those targets - not the
point at all. It's still an act of war against Pakistan. If you
could support the idea that he never said he would send troops
across the border and his quote referred to airstrikes - I'd
probably be forced to agree that he never advocated an action which
constitutes an invasion.
Dictionary.com|1.23.09 @ 11:38AM|#
in·va·sion
noun
1. The act of invading, especially the entrance of an armed force
into a territory to conquer.
2. A large-scale onset of something injurious or harmful, such as a
disease.
3. An intrusion or encroachment.
joe loses the thread.
|1.23.09 @ 11:38AM|#
Pro Lib, I forgot to close the quotes in an [a] tag. I sucks
at teh htmls.
Didn't you do that while mocking joe's HTML skillz?
Come clean.
|1.23.09 @ 11:40AM|#
domo,
Using the term "invasion" as it is used in the field of foreign and
military policy, sending the guys from Predator across the border
to shoot bin Laden and leave is not an invasion.
Using general-usage definitions, it can be classified as such. But
then, using general-usage definitions, those hippies going to
Woodstock could be classified as an invasion, too.
To my thinking, the most important distinction is not whether we
kill bin Laden with a hellfire missile from a helicopter vs. with
automatic weaons fire from a platoon of rangers (in fact, there's a
good case to be made that we're a lot less likely to kill innocents
if we take the latter route). The important distinction is whether
we're hitting an al Qaeda target or trying to take over and occupy
all or part of Pakistan.
|1.23.09 @ 11:41AM|#
Epi
nope, that was Pro Lib - I never throw stones in that department.
glass houses and all.
|1.23.09 @ 11:42AM|#
But, then, what does it matter how many civilians are killed or whether we're keeping several tens of thousands of American troops on occupation duty in yet another hostile country, when you can look right below the definition A large-scale onset of something injurious or harmful, such as a disease. and find something that, if you ignore that there are substantive points to make, allows you to write the sacred words "joe loses the thread."
Prima Facie|1.23.09 @ 11:43AM|#
Interesting semantic argument going on.
Of course joe's statement "Barack Obama has never said a word about
invading Pakistan." is wrong on it's face, since Obama did say "I
never called for an invasion of Pakistan or Afghanistan." according
to the ABC News blog link posted above.
Obama did say a word about invading Pakistan. He said he didn't
intend for his earlier rhetoric to be taken that way.
|1.23.09 @ 11:48AM|#
"Using general-usage definitions, it can be classified as such.
But then, using general-usage definitions, those hippies going to
Woodstock could be classified as an invasion, too."
I think that's a bit hyperbolic.
"The important distinction is whether we're hitting an al Qaeda
target or trying to take over and occupy all or part of
Pakistan."
I think you are right as far as the substantive real world issue to
be dealt with. As to whether or not Obama said some stuff that came
out kinda scary - I think he did. To be honest, I'm not really
interested in the semantic discussion. I think this goes back to
the discussion from the other day about the left v. rights approach
to stateless terrorists. Lets agree that it's a good thing that
Obama seems to get that distinction - I'm not sure Pakistans
leadership will. Not that they'll be able to do anything about
it.
|1.23.09 @ 11:53AM|#
Obama did say a word about invading Pakistan. He said he
didn't intend for his earlier rhetoric to be taken that
way.,/i>
Lol! OK, point granted. Refuting a point IS saying something about
it.
|1.23.09 @ 11:56AM|#
I have made a number of incursions in HTML's territory, but I clearly have not established control over it, or gotten it to comply with my wishes.
|1.23.09 @ 12:01PM|#
'Twas I who mocked joe's HTML problems, then was attacked by
domoarrigato's unclosed tag. HTML abuse is much more common than
most people realize.
joe,
Perhaps you should move to the blockquote tag? Probably harder to
muck up.
|1.23.09 @ 12:04PM|#
Pro Lib, I was just about to complain that your post invaded
mine - Internet Crime, sir! consider us formally at war.
*slaps Pro Lib with white glove*
SIV|1.23.09 @ 12:13PM|#
SIV can't win a conversation.
I can sure win a thread.All I have to do is hand joe a coil of rope
and stand back and watch:)
|1.23.09 @ 12:16PM|#
Did Israel just invade Gaza?
Did Russia invade Georgia last year?
All are invited to answer the above and explain why or why not.
|1.23.09 @ 12:18PM|#
joe,
Perhaps you should move to the blockquote tag? Probably harder to
muck up.
You misunderestimate me.
I'm pretty sure I can screw up the brackets on a blockquote tag,
too.
|1.23.09 @ 12:21PM|#
Sorry, domoarrigato, I don't stoop to dueling with peasants
☺
joe,
Not brackets, less-than and greater-than symbols!
|1.23.09 @ 12:23PM|#
Did Israel just invade Gaza?
Did Russia invade Georgia last year?
An invasion is a military offensive consisting of all, or large
parts of the armed forces of one geopolitical entity aggressively
entering territory controlled by another such entity, Check
and check.
generally with the objective of either conquering, liberating
or re-establishing control or authority over a territory,
Check for Russia i/r/t South Ossetia, Israel in Gaza depends on
what "control" means.
altering the established government or gaining concessions from
said government, or a combination thereof. Check and
check.
Both were invasions.
Now, imagine Israel sending a dozen or two IDFers into the Strip to
attack a gang that was setting up a rocket, and throw some satchel
charges into a warehouse full of other rockets, then hightail it
back to Israel. Invasion?
|1.23.09 @ 12:35PM|#
altering the established government or gaining concessions
from said government, or a combination thereof.
So, if Obama sends troops over the border with Pakistan without
intending to conquer it, but does so without any diplomatic
engagement with the Pakistanis at all, that's not an
invasion.
But if he sends troops, etc., and asks/tells the Pakistanis that he
will keep doing so until they establish real control over those
areas, that would be an invasion, yes? Because he is seeking
concessions from the Pakistanis?
|1.23.09 @ 12:40PM|#
R C Dean,
I would parse it that way.
*steps on Pro Libs slowly cooling body on the way by*
|1.23.09 @ 12:41PM|#
Like when Mal tried to give the money back to Niska's henchman
in "The Train Job." The second guy accepted, after Mal kicked the
first one into the ship's intake for not accepting.
domoarrigato,
I'm not that easy to kill.
|1.23.09 @ 12:44PM|#
RC,
In both cases, what Obama would be "seeking" is the destruction of
whatever al Qaeda targets he has in mind, not any concession from
the Pakistanis.
...generally with the objective of...altering the established
government or gaining concessions from said
government...
The objective of such a raid wouldn't be to get anything from the
Pakistanis, but to hit the al Qaeda target.
..|1.23.09 @ 12:45PM|#
Missiles fired from a suspected U.S. spy plane killed seven
people Friday on the Pakistan side of the Afghan border
Maybe it was a mistake. Like the oath of office. Or Joe Biden.
|1.23.09 @ 12:45PM|#
Or when Mal got in that duel using swords and then Inara
distracted his opponent just before he was going to kill Mal.
domo, your first shot puts him down. Then you gotta put one in his
brain. Then you know he's dead. Then we go home.
Fluffy|1.23.09 @ 12:47PM|#
I'd like to take a break from haggling with joe over whether
Seward's wikipedia definition is more authoritative than my
dictionary.com definition to say:
An important thing to keep in mind is that no one else gives a shit
about this.
Did you notice that?
The press doesn't care about this. They can't be bothered.
Here's the press' big issue today: there was no video of the second
swearing in. There was audio, but no video. So the press is
complaining that this means Obama is not governing
transparently.
Got that? Bush can lie about rendition, invoke national security
privilege, refuse FOIA requests, etc. - and it doesn't matter. But
Obama releases audio and not video of an event, and that's not
transparent enough.
Can the press make it any more obvious that they don't care about
the facts of what the government is doing at all, they just care
about having video to show? No one in the press corps thinks that
there's any information about the second swearing in that they
don't have [and it's an unbelievably trivial issue anyway] but they
don't have a picture and that drives them insane.
Discussing conducting an invasionary raid on a nuclear power - not
so important.
Press didn't get video of an inconsequential event they know all
about anyway - very important.
Fuckers.
Fluffy|1.23.09 @ 12:49PM|#
The objective of such a raid wouldn't be to get anything
from the Pakistanis, but to hit the al Qaeda target.
But this would mean that the US didn't invade Cambodia.
Blah blah blah we will never get anywhere on this subject.
|1.23.09 @ 12:51PM|#
Forgot the damn safety round. Pro Lib, good luck with that sucking chest wound.
|1.23.09 @ 12:55PM|#
Can the press make it any more obvious that they don't care
about the facts of what the government is doing at all, they just
care about having video to show?
That's not really it, Fluffy. The press never really cared about
what the government is doing. They care what Obama is doing, but
not in a reporting kind of way, but in a MTV Real World
kind of way.
Obama's what's fascinating them right now, and they're pissed off
that every second isn't being videoed. Pakistan? What? Oh look
Michelle is picking out White House china!
|1.23.09 @ 12:57PM|#
Fluffy,
Let's hope nobody gets bit by a shark. Especially a blonde.
an invasionary raid I'll kill you! I'll kill you! I'll
kill you! I'll fucking kill you! ;-)
But this would mean that the US didn't invade Cambodia.
You mean when we bombed it? We didn't invade Cambodia. We bombed
it.
|1.23.09 @ 1:01PM|#
The press never really cared about what the government is
doing. They care what Obama is doing, but not in a reporting kind
of way, but in a MTV Real World kind of way.
Yep.
|1.23.09 @ 1:05PM|#
I love this! How quickly things turn. Obviously it's not just
Joe, but semantics matter so much when you're defending someone at
any cost. Bill Clinton "did not have sex with that woman".
Joe, when you say that Obama "never said a word about invading
Pakistan", take your own advice! Words do "mean stuff". He has said
many words about it, but that's not to say he's called for it. You
made a mistake, and said something factually untrue. It's ok, we
all make mistakes! You'll gain more by admitting it and moving on.
We won't think less of you.
Pick your battles, lest you become just like the reflexive Bush
defenders that sound exactly like you just did.
|1.23.09 @ 1:07PM|#
joe,
"We didn't invade Cambodia. We bombed it."
That I know you are def wrong
about. Incursion/Invasion argument aside, we did a hell of a lot
more than bomb it.
|1.23.09 @ 1:26PM|#
Occupying a country, not occupying a country - semantics! Mere
semantics.
Only teh partisan would consider such a distinction
substantive.
He has said many words about it, but that's not to say he's
called for it. Oh, ok, just as you're not niggling about
semantics.
|1.23.09 @ 1:29PM|#
domoarrigato,
Well, that's why I asked. I was unfamiliar with that episode.
Something like 10,000 troops there for two months - sounds like an
invasion to me.
|1.23.09 @ 1:56PM|#
Sometimes you have to bomb people in pakistan, it helps sucker my political opponents out intot eh oppen so that my NSA opponents database can fill in some question marks.
|1.23.09 @ 2:12PM|#
So when a thread gets to comparisons to Hitler, it's called
Godwin's Law.
What do we call it when a thread gets to semantic arguments of
misinterpretation of previous posts? Joe's Law?
Paul|1.23.09 @ 2:55PM|#
Barack Obama has never said a word about invading
Pakistan.
Why would you bother when you can just fire missiles over the
border?
2Pakastanis|1.23.09 @ 3:10PM|#
-- That damn Obama, no different from Bush!
-- Wait a second Hamid, Obama does not plan to invade us. He is
just sending drones inside of our borders to rain bombs on our
civilians.
-- Oh, (chuckle), you are right, my friend. I overreacted. What was
I thinking! I just lost sight of the trees for the sake of the
trees.
-- Obama is a good man. He will snipe at us from afar. He might
even go all out Gaza on us, in time, but he will never actually
invade.
-- what is that sound?
-- one of Obama's drones, over there is a nice ditch, lets go jump
in it for cover while continuing this conversation.
|1.23.09 @ 3:21PM|#
Paul,
You'd launch an invasion when you have objectives that go beyond
hitting a target - when you want to capture and control territory,
or destroy a military force, or overthrow a government.
|1.23.09 @ 3:43PM|#
"OK, you're right, joe. 'Invade' has a specific meaning, and
Obama has given no indication that he intends to do that. Using his
statements about strikes into Pakistan to claim he's looking to do
something comparable to the invasion of Iraq are wrong.
Still, I don't think his ideas about even limited strikes are wise,
because..."
Is that really so hard?
|1.23.09 @ 3:56PM|#
If your goal is to make substantive point about Pakistan and
Obama's policy, it's not hard at all.
If your goal is to convince yourself that spending several months
posing as wordly by writing "Meet the New Boss" and then seeing
what's happened over the past two days doesn't make you look like
an idiot, it's very hard.
If your goal is to write "Gotcha, joe! I am avenged for all the
times you made me look bad," then it's well-nigh impossible.
Seward|1.23.09 @ 4:29PM|#
You know, every new administration, Democratic or Republican, does seem to come with some dramatic, but limited, attack on some foreign locale. It depends on who the current new "bad guy" is of course. Which makes me wonder whether this is as much political theatre as anything.
|1.23.09 @ 4:34PM|#
It's a branding thing. You don't want the public to confuse your war with another president's, would you?
Geotpf|1.23.09 @ 4:39PM|#
If Bin Laden (or other senior Al Queda leaders) are tracked down somewhere in Pakistan, and the Pakistani government won't (or isn't able to) do anything about them, I not only approve of, but I would in fact demand that Obama take them out.
|1.23.09 @ 7:41PM|#
"""It is possible that a lot of the people who voted for Obama
because they expected him to have a less aggressive foreign policy
than Bush will be sadly mistaken. """
Trying to finish the job Bush started in Afghanistan, which most of
us knew would probably require moving into Pakistan, is not
evidence of a aggressive foreign policy equal to Bush.
I agree with Geotpf. But it would not be a new war, just an
expansion of the current one.
SIV|1.23.09 @ 8:21PM|#
But it would not be a new war, just an expansion of the
current one.
Like Iraq in 2003
joe|1.24.09 @ 2:48PM|#
Seward | January 23, 2009, 4:29pm | #
You know, every new administration, Democratic or Republican, does
seem to come with some dramatic, but limited, attack on some
foreign locale. It depends on who the current new "bad guy" is of
course. Which makes me wonder whether this is as much political
theatre as anything....
Pro Libertate | January 23, 2009, 4:34pm | #
It's a branding thing. You don't want the public to confuse your
war with another president's, would you?
The military has been launching targeted strikes like this against
al Qaeda targets in Pakistan for over a year now. This is, like,
the thirtieth such strike.
If you've a gripe here, it's that Obama HASN'T implemented a
change, HASN'T reversed Bush policy.
joe|1.24.09 @ 2:51PM|#
Don't you guys remember that, in the middle of the uproar over Obama's statement in that Democratic primary debate about launching such strikes, Bush launched one? That was, IIRC, the summer of 2007.
economist|1.25.09 @ 2:08AM|#
"Don't you guys remember that, in the middle of the uproar over
Obama's statement in that Democratic primary debate about launching
such strikes, Bush launched one? That was, IIRC, the summer of
2007."
That would be a damning indictment of our inconsistency IF this
were a site for Bush admin. shills.
economist|1.25.09 @ 2:09AM|#
"This is, like, the thirtieth such strike."
I always enjoy the teenage valley-girl-isms inserted into
writing.
economist|1.25.09 @ 2:11AM|#
"If your goal is to write 'Gotcha, joe! I am avenged for all the
times you made me look bad,' then it's well-nigh impossible."
Joe, I've caught you making contradictory statements just days
apart numerous times. When I occasionally deign to point it out
(when I can actually remember the threads the two or more
statements were on and find them) you get pissed off and complain
about play Gotcha.
|1.26.09 @ 9:54AM|#
That would be a damning indictment of our inconsistency IF
this were a site for Bush admin. shills.
Instead, what that comment is is a correction of the factually
inaccurate statement that appears immediately before it. You know,
the ones quoted?
I didn't think that was so hard to follow.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245