Pakistan: The Question of Invasion


Registered Member
There is cogent evidence, which supports invasion of Pakistan, particularly the region of Waziristan, to which Ayman al-Zawahiri as well as the infamous Osama Bin Laden, whom many Americans believe is being used as a means to exploit and control the Middle East, are believed to be hiding. Osama (not nearly as big of a threat to national security as Obama) is widely assumed to have passed away sometime in the past. However, considering the hatred Americans have towards this titular head, his name continues to live on as a means to beguile the pliant, technologically dependent, masses of America.

It is true, from a realist perspective, that if we choose to omit the emerging threat of Al-Queda officials who, according to the National Intelligence Estimate, have “regenerated key elements,” then we may be puting ourselves in a vulnerable state. Some may protrude this news as the makings of a Doomsday scenario, in which the Democrats will receive the blame for stalling decisive action. We very well may find ourselves in regret if we refrain from offensive action; after all, the common philosophy of political advisers in our government is that of a good offence, bringing to mind the famous phrase, “the best defense is a good offense”. This phrase also goes along with the theory and principle of war, which states, “if victory can be won, advance; if victory can not be won, assume a defensive posture”. These common lessons, whether true or false, are the subjective ideologies floating around Washington, repressing liberalism, and challenging the pride, or “hubris” as Greek historians would call it, of all thinkers surrounding this seemingly irremediable situation.

Many believe we have reached a “point of no return” which was caused because of a family vendetta, fear of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, without forgetting our avid desire for Middle Eastern oil. All of these fears, insecurities, and questionable actions turned our country into a bellicose, imperialistic, arrogant superpower. We are seemingly approaching our anticipated downfall, which no human prophesier could have foretold prior to 9/11, with the exception of the brilliant thinkers of antiquity, and conspiracy thinkers that no one believes, nor respects enough to take into consideration. But it is true, the core of the capitalist world economy is mutable, and remaining the biggest superpower forever is a mere impossibility, noting the struggles of bringing global order, plus the dangers of remaining in a war based on folly, ineffective leadership, and ambiguity.

Judging from all the illicit behavior in American politics, which has attached another stigma to the reputation of our country, even I, have lost a great deal of faith in the heroism of our nation. This stigma is a product of war mongrels and military advocates such as Rumsfeld and Cheany. Of offensive strategist such as Michael Gerson, to perjurers like Gonzalez, to elusive, would be perjurers, and political maneuverers like Karl Rove, down to the hypocrisy of republican homosexuals including the recent solicitor of gay sex, Craig, in addition to Folley, Haggard and others. Giving these unfortunate stains on the dignity of our nation, I can understand the aversion to American leadership. I also forgot to mention the prominence of fraud, which is being investigated by the Pentagon, the department which gave a nebulous response when asked about the whereabouts of over 19 billion dollars, which has been supposedly giving to Iraq, for improvements in Iraqi security. They claim they simply can’t account for this enormous sum of money, all while the media spends little time focusing on this conspiracy.

Anything negative that pertains to our government is either censored, or hidden inside a newspaper full of unreadable information. The governments or corporals don’t want to bring our culpable Government any more trouble, as negative media that exposes government corruption runs the risk of Americans hearing depravity and rather then remaining content, oblivious, and apathetic as they usually do, strife may appear, strife in which our government is not prepared for.

In regards to the invasion in Pakistan, I think that considering our current standpoint, it would be a fatal mistake, especially if done so without the consent of the Pakistanis. Perez Musharrat may have lost hold of his nation, and his career may be coming to a close, but if we step in, there could be repercussions that we may not be able to handle. Without first clarifying our intentions, or spending time diffusing a more positive, more liberal and peaceful message for Middle East to hearken, we will enter a country that may damage us more crucially then expected. We need to deliver a message that opposes the whole war, one in which forgives Al-Queda and retires the abused word, “terrorism”.

If war is in fact inevitable, we, nonetheless, must try and exhaust all peaceful methods of resolution prior to engaging another country in state of war. We need to promulgate America as a nation that is not cynical, chauvinistic and arrogant, but as a nation that is altruistic, merciful, and progressive towards global prosperity, not poverty. A new wave of thought, that is optimistic of the outcome of providing for countries in need, rather than viewing patronage, and such altruistic endeavors as suggested as the “fastest road to national disaster.”

Being a globalist has more to do with finding ways of turning competition into cooperation, which applies mainly to enhancing the worldwide economic situation that consist of only third world countries, some richer then others... globalist are more active in low policis, but in regards to high politics, such as security, attempts like “collective security” fail, for the diversity of the world creats a dicordant involvement, and when it comes down to it, self help is usually the only dependable aspect to security. A liberal mentality is more likely to reconcile this problem than conservitism.

We can’t let the burning of American flags, nor the invective speeches of foreign speakers offend us, nor inflict us with the disease of hate. Optimism, Love, and deference to one true God is what we should emphasize in our diplomacy efforts, for emphasis on these three things are the only possible ways that we can help prevent potential catastrophes.

Wake up! Don’t be molded into the same regressive state that a one-sided, often shallow media or other form of propaganda puts many in. Don’t be swindled by others… Don’t fall a victim to the brainwash that creates a illusive portrayal of our “national identity,” the same national identity infuriating and instigating the same enemies that we wish to appease. What we need is a contagious, decisive, liberal form of politics pervading our government, not regressive realist politics. Only a liberal mind can restore value to our government. Only a liberal mind can appropriately defend the civil liberties of all. Only a liberal mind can change our offensive power politics. We need to be considering all levels of analysis, and factoring in the effect of ones economic situation on their disposition. Instead of setting a goal of abolishing terrorism, we need to set the goal of changing humans.

The liberal Revolution will prevail, as the ideas that bring harmony to all.

Zachary Scott McBride

Ant On A Log

Man, I seriously had a response written out about Pakistan, but upon further reading in the last couple paragraphs, I have two things to say:

1. you need to stop taking so much ecstasy
2. how the fuck does this have anything to do with pakistan?

actually, three things to say
3. why the fuck is anyone going to invade Pakistan?

you really are the least...nevermind, i don't feel compelled enough anymore to write regarding you and everything to you do to contribute

Chill out, dude. Let's be civil, or try to. -Kaz


Registered Member
ok. I respect that... all I get is derisive comments... I'm kind of use to it.

invasion of Pakistan is one of the main agendas right now, and the point I was trying to make is that their are alternatives to try before we invade their country. When Obama gets elected, and invades the country, which the people do not contend, you will see what I mean, and then, you will respect me.


did any1 read this essay?
Yes, and it was incredibly biased and overexagerated. Here are some problems that I have with it:

1)Your claim that government censorship control's people opinion is completely unfounded. Have you ever read the New York times or Washington Post? If our opinion is that much dictated by the government then why are government approval ratings so low? Why are people allowed to protest? Why is Chris Matthews on Television?

2) Your premise assumes that Iraq wasn't a threat and that the invasion was only for trivial domestic means. This is simply incorrect- even Bill Clinton himself saw Saddam as a threat to American security. To say one party unilaterally forced a nation to submit to that party's will is completely false.

3) You act like America doesn't try diplomatic means to avoid a conflict. Diplomatic means are of the US's top priority, and if you don't think so look at North Korea.

Really, your essay loses all credibility in the fact that it doesn't present both sides. If in fact your purpose was to persuade people who believe differently than you, you should list out what you believe those people think and why you disagree with it. Not come on here and state what you believe to be true (which is objective at best) as fact.


For a Free Scotland
I could see it happening because the US seems to love them some interventionist foreign policy (which as we have seen, rarely if ever works), however given the burst in terrorist and paramilitary activity following the fall of Baghdad, I don't think invading a country to eliminate a terrorist organization can work in practicality.

Besides, if the Pakistanis themselves agree to it, it's not an invasion, we'd supply military and economic resources to achieve whatever goal we wanted; which makes a lot more sense.

Ant On A Log

the united states could do one of two things regarding their overall stance on foreign policy:
1) begin a new era of isolationism due to the massive domestic and foreign outcry towards our aggressive policies.
2) begin more wars and expansionism continuing our reign of terror and oppression

either way, even if the second option is more realistic (i don't know, it all depends really on who gets elected -- personally, anyone i vote for will be a student of option 1) pakistan is seen as such an ally in our "war on terror" that it would make no sense attacking them when we have more of the "axis of evil" to take care of.

now that north korea is disarming, they're wide open. and iran is pretty much giving the middle finger to us and continuing to enrich uranium.

syria is still supposedly giving arms to natives of israel.

pretty much every single country in africa is being ravished by a good healthy mixture of AIDS, abusive foreign investment, hunger, illiteracy and poverty which makes almost all of them subject to rule by despots who openly commit genocide

there really are so many better scenarios for the united states to go to war, and you want to know why? you make the argument that the united states will invade pakistan to take care of al-qaeda and terrorists being harbored there, but that misses the whole point of the united states invading anywhere. there's no natural resources or strategic advantage to having a military prescence in pakistan. the only, i repeat, only way the united states will ever give a shit about some country harboring terrorists is if it will give them a good excuse to go and create a military state which will allow us to get something in return -- be it natural resources or military posturing.

anyway. you also don't have any cites to back up any of these claims. which is enough for me to discredit your essay outright.


Registered Member
ok... thanks for all of your honesty...

Acting so adamently towards preventing Nuclear ambitions is hypocrital for the US, considering their advanced weaponary. We need to, by whatever means possible, establish trust with other nations, by taking blame for our wrongdoings, avoiding accusations, and expressing concern for the citizenry of the alloted region. All our aggressive attempts to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction cause nations to feel threatened, and thus they feel obilgied to develop militarily to sustain their respect and status as a nation, and defend against American imperialism.

Rather than label others "terrorist," we need to be explicit about how our intentions will not merely benefit our own national interest, but also that of others.... You say diplomacy is our top priority, but, is our diplomacy marked by obstinance, and egotism...? Or is it a more compromising and altruistic effort...? Maybe if we lower the moral standard and expectation for other countries, there is a chance that virtue my show through the simplicity of the moral standard that we impose, and the relieved pressure from foreign nations... However, we can not impose restrictions that we, ourselves violate. What we need to do is work to cooperate, not militarily, but economically, equalizing the economic status of the world. We are so quick to scold communism, when it is capitalism that is unethical... My idea is whatever brings happiness to the most people is the best system, and as far as I know, only the rich are actually happy. Where is the spritual leadership that is truly devoted to helping those in need? Where is the cooperation? It is a leaders job to seek mutual understandings between an enemy and ally alike, and work to cooperate for the common good of the people...