I've tried to avoid becoming personal in this. The other man refuses to argue merits or stay on point. The best way to solve the problem for me is to simply list my objections to what I see as obvious fallacies and ignore his personal attacks or better yet ignore the poseur altogether. When a commentt he makes stands on its merit,. I won't even acknowledge it.

Herald,

 

If you had stayed on point and merit, then we would not be in this beef. The bottom line is, you seem unable to remain objective ANYTIME Obama is mentioned. You seem to be an ideological Republican extremist. Whether or not that is true is secondary to the way you reply. Example, you call Obama a fool and state that he should not attack his supply lines. Well the current GWB Admin has been doing exactly that for years. The thing is Herald it is not that simply. Stop thinking of Pakistan as this homogeneous entity because it is not. You are right when you say it is unwise to sever your MSR. But it is equally unwise to allow the enemy places of refuge in which to rearm and reorganize. Another lesson from Viet Nam. This is why it is necessary to end OIF as quickly as possible. Those additional forces can secure a lot more than Afghanistan's FOBs.

 

Staying on point and merit would acknowledge the following. There have been many strikes of the kind mentioned by President Elect Obama in Pakistan, In fact here is one of late...

 

h*tp://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=18ac9647-413e-40cc-aa8f-7abc63f2ce63

 

... why are you so critical of the democrat who suggest this action the republicans actually carry out? All Obama is saying, like Bush before him, is that the United States will attack terrorist with or without the consent of foriegn governments if such action is necessary to ensure OUR security. Remember these words...

 

ht*p://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lq-MuEms00w

 

 

-DA

A new report from Asia Times outlines (alleges actually) how the Pakistani ISI intelligence agents recruited and trained these terrorists originally to sortie into Indian Kashmir to conduct operations in Indian Kashmir. The goal was to keep things hot enough to encourage India's negotiators to remain interested in working with Pakistan, hopefully granting concessions to Pakistan to stop the violence. Through a series of administrative changes within the Pakistan Intelligence services this cell of terrorists were reassigned to a mid level manager, who ultimately may have actually been tasked to disband them. Based upon the Asia Times article, the terror cell was instead re targeted at Mumbai and the rest is reported to be history.

 

 

Check Six

 

Rocky

As to this report, is there independent verification, Rocky? I usually try to second source something before I assert an  ISI direct link, so boldly.

 

Sidenote. Obama is not on topic as regards Pakistan except as to the point that you don't make publicly useless threats, or promises and threaten those you need.

 

The "why" has been abundantly demonstrated and explained and needs no further discussion.as does the blatant misunderstanding of the explanation by some who contionue to personalize and try to find personal motive for the point made.

 

It, the fact, just is, to quote William, Jefferson Clinton. 

 

Herald

.

No, your interpretation of the why has been explained. YOU ARE NOT the subject matter expert here. I've also explained WHY YOU DO MAKE PUBLIC THREATS has been exlain, voters have decided on it and policy has been carried out and direct attacks on(inside) Pakistan have been made. So unless you are simply saying you disagree with the strategy of attacking terrorist inside Pakistan proper with or without approval, you don't have a point. THAT IS A FACT.

 

 

-DA

I've cornered him in his illogic. He's ranting. Again he posts an assertion without a fact to back it up and offers it as rebuttal . [Cref underlined]

 

I never said you do not carry out actions. I said you carry them out quietly so as top at least minimize public resistance in both the US and Pakistan to a private policy, as well as minimize your international law exposure.iof you are caught red handed.

 

Misinterpretation of what I write is forgiovable. Deliberately miosrepresenting what I wrote is something else. I will let others judge what that is.

 

 

Herald

.

You really are an arrogant prick to think anybody needs to concede anything to you. Especially when you don't have a clue about the subject matter. Lots of me me me I I I in your post Herald. Get over yourself. You really are lost on these subjects.

 

-DA

Now rather than filling up threads with long winded vitriolic self endorsements, Herald is telling direct lies...

 

 

h*tp://strategypage.com/militaryforums/89-66535.aspx

 

 

Herald, your silly bias invalidates anything you have to say on these matters not to mention a clear lack of understanding.

 

-DA

No second source on this. One should read the article and not take my synopsis of it as any declaration of fact. I was careful not comment on the veracity of this report but only to put it into the information mix. It could indeed be inaccurate only time will tell. It fits the pattern very neatly, maybe a little too neat (as in perhaps a black flag op from India).

 

Read the piece and tell me what you think.

 

 

Darth/Herald
You two flamed that other thread don't flame this one or any more in the future.  Both of you should just ignore each other.

Out of respect for you...in this thread. Any response from Herald directly addresses me outside the context of the thread will be ignored...

 

...anyway, back to the topic. President Elect Obama like President Bush before him must continue with direct attacks on individuals/targets in Pakistan if the Pakistanis are unwilling to do so. India has to be used very carefully in this case as well. Any Pakistan/Indian conflict will take Pakistani troops away from the border tribal areas where they are needed most by us until we can free up more manpower.

 

-DA

 

 

-DA