Blowback and the invasion of Pakistan

Posted: February 3, 2010 in News, Politics
Tags: , , , ,

Webster defines Blowback as this: an unforeseen and unwanted effect, result, or set of repercussions.

Regardless of what you want to call it, the Obama administration is conducting an illegal invasion of Pakistan.  Without Congressional consent, President Obama has been given the free rein to commit the United States to any military action that it deems fit.  Let us not forget that Pakistan is the same country that George W. Bush paid off by borrowing billions from China; a debt that will never be paid off.

At this very moment the conflict in Afghanistan is costing the American taxpayer to the tune of over $57,000 a minute.  Also, at this very moment the United States government is “tightening the noose” on Iran which will lead to ramifications that will be near impossible to turn back from.  Another invasion, another occupation, more debt on our economy and the American people.

President Obama has been criticized for a mounting debt which will soon exceed $14 trillion dollars – either by way of health care reform or some other means, it will reach that plateau.  When that happens every American will owe $45,000.  This pales in comparison that regardless of what party is in the White House these measures stay the same. 

Americans who voted for Obama have lost heart because the change we have been promised wasn’t change at all, but a continuation of the Bush policies.  The Obama hater – Bush lovers – whatever you want to call them are being lead by a very skilled level of propagandists that get paid millions for their service.  Lead by these pundits, they are forced to believe in a falsehood of American politics.

But here is the last word – like I have said before, everyone wants something done in the Middle East, but no one wants to pay the tab.  At the rate of spending over a trillion dollars a year on our overseas presence, it is impossible to fund the entire thing with taxation.  Thusly, borrowing is needed.

As reported by the International News in January U.S. forces in Afghanistan carried out twelve across the border invasions of Pakistan.  Ten of them went wrong.  Out of those twelve missions conducted by Predator drones; 123 civilians were killed while only three al-Qaeda leaders were killed.  Does anyone doubt that the victims families of the innocent slain will grow to hate the United States?

http://www.infowars.com/us-drones-killed-123-civilians-three-al-qaeda-men-in-january/

Advertisements
Comments
  1. Nate says:

    I hate to say this, I really do, but it all boils down to the simple fact that I don’t want to pay $10 a gallon for gas. Anything that we have to do in the Middle East to make that happen, needs to happen, because it’s not just me who doesn’t want to pay $10 a gallon, it’s the entire population of America. Until we can figure out how to run our economy (and my car by extension) without being elbow-deep in the Middle East, we have to do whatever it takes, no matter how expensive and how bloody, to keep the supply of cheap oil flowing from there. End of story, and anyone who tries to tell you they’d gladly pay $10 a gallon if we could only get out of the Middle East and not get involved in global politics is a flat out lier (or they have more money than the rest of us). Want us to stop spending billions in Iraq? Want us to stop loosing lives in the war in AStan? Then find a way to run my car cheaper, do that and no one will even give those backwards desert fiefdoms a second look.

    • waylon1776 says:

      When we ran out of gas in 1978 under President Carter we had a powerful Middle Eastern presence. Granted we weren’t invading and occupying nations, but we were doing deals under the table and behind the scenes. America’s interventionist foreign policy in the Middle East isn’t so much as oil, I think, but the security of Israel. Now I don’t think that this has anything to do with religion. But I can see your premise that our presence is solely on behalf of oil, but think of it this way: doesn’t war take more oil? And why in the hell is it that during Bush’s years we were seeing prices near five dollars a gallon? If we had started a friendship with all nations from the beginning, wouldn’t that have been just as, or more beneficial?

      The fact is, is that a prolonged war policy takes a toll on the economy. It requires more money to be printed and loaned out by the Federal Reserve, borrowing from other foreign banks, and borrowing from foreign nations (China). Bush borrowed billions from China just to give it to Pakistan, a nation that is in turmoil. Eventually Pakistan will work its way onto our enemies hitlist and we will invade them all out. The full circle is complete. Of the top fifteen nations that we buy oil from three are Middle Eastern, one is African. Canada tops the list. Here is the link: http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html

      In short, I believe that the out of control and vastly un-Constitutional borrowing and spending of the U.S. government will do more harm to our nation’s economy than the theory that we would pay ten dollars a gallon if we weren’t invading.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s