Ron Paul Predicts a U.S. Invasion of Pakistan
BY Herschel Smith
13 years, 7 months ago
From The Daily Caller:
Paul, in an appearance on Wednesday’s “Morning Joe” on MSNBC, voiced his frustration over the particular incident involving bin Laden’s death. However he blamed the entire U.S.-Pakistani relations as a whole for the way it had to be handled. He explained there had been some successes during the Bush administration and questioned why the Obama administration had abandoned that policy.
However, he made a bombshell prediction and said the United States will ultimately occupy Pakistan.
“I see the whole thing as a mess,” he said. “And I think that we are going to be in Pakistan. I think that’s the next occupation, and I fear it. I think it’s ridiculous, and I think our foreign policy is such we don’t need to be doing this. So when I talk about doing it differently, I talk about in the context of our foreign policy and not in the fact of whether or not we should have gotten him.
He later predicted that it would be an unsuccessful occupation. Oh, to be sure, it would be unsuccessful. Any attempt to occupy cities as large as Karachi, Lahore and Islamabad all at the same time would result in 100,000 – 200,000 U.S. casualties, and we would have to kill one to two million people (given the customary kill ratio of 10:1 we have seen in both Iraq and Afghanistan), some of whom would be a uniformed army. Of course, it isn’t going to happen in this universe (perhaps Paul is living in an alternate one?).
But there’s more. If we are going to occupy Pakistan, then we’ll have to invade.
Later in the segment, “Morning Joe” co-host Willie Geist asked if Paul had any information an actual invasion was in the work. Paul said he didn’t but based it on the past four decades of American foreign policy.
So there you have it. Because this is so jaw-dropping we should cover this ground again just so you’re clear on it. Ron Paul forecasts a U.S. invasion and occupation of’ Pakistan.
Prior: Isolationist Fever: Ron Paul’s Delirious Statements on Bin Laden
On May 19, 2011 at 6:27 am, bob sykes said:
Is it not obvious that Ron Paul is insane? Is it not scary that he occupies a position of responsibility?
On May 19, 2011 at 7:14 am, TS Alfabet said:
Very true, Bob.
I can certainly see a large strike force going into the tribal areas, however, to wipe out AQAG bases if, for instance, the U.S. is hit with a nuke or a dirty bomb of some kind and it can be traced anywhere close to the FATA.
Another likely scenario is the break up of Pakistan into its constituent, ethnic countries: the Pashtun northwest forms either an independent nation or joins with Afghanistan; the Baloch south would be independent; and the Punjab and Sind areas.
This is not something that the U.S. would orchestrate. It is more likely to happen on its own as the internal contradictions of the country force it apart.
On May 19, 2011 at 10:50 am, Warbucks said:
He did exactly what he said he would do: http://tinyurl.com/3dx87gb
Wed Aug 1, 2007 7:26pm EDT: Senator….
“Obama said if elected in November 2008 he would be willing to attack inside Pakistan with or without approval from the Pakistani government, a move that would likely cause anxiety in the already troubled region.
“If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will,” Obama said.”
Ron Paul’s greatest strength is that he seems able side-step CIA planning. In the long run, this characteristic of Ron Paul does not infringe upon my liberties or my freedoms, and for that, I thank Mr. Paul for his “insane” and “crazy” ideas.
Perhaps we should all be so “crazy.”
On May 20, 2011 at 8:24 am, Warbucks said:
The question is, why would a Senator Obama, any Senator for that matter, make such a drilled-down and exactly on point forecast of his actions in a hypothetical scenario? I sense his statement was made from within a comfort zone derived through CIA selective candidate briefings, ie, he received highly influencing briefings other candidates for office did not receive. Why? Think about it; candidates do not make such “hypotheticals”, it’s the old rub on running for office. This candidate exhibited hubris of a thorough briefing.
On May 22, 2011 at 11:18 am, TS Alfabet said:
@ Warbucks:
“Ron Paul’s greatest strength is that he seems able side-step CIA planning. In the long run, this characteristic of Ron Paul does not infringe upon my liberties or my freedoms, and for that, I thank Mr. Paul for his “insane” and “crazy” ideas.”
No, Ron Paul’s isolationist views have nothing to do with side-stepping the CIA and everything to do with turning his back on the many challenges faced by the U.S. internationally. And that will very much infringe on your liberties and freedoms when the world collapses into a kind of Hobbesian hell.
On May 23, 2011 at 2:24 pm, Warbucks said:
Sir,
“…the world collapses into a kind of Hobbesian hell”….As opposed to what?
Given the choice of wearing a continued ring in my nose and fighting what I’ve come to believe are well planned and executed wars by the CIA, or a right to choose my own fate and ignore the manufactured endless need to be on top, I respectfully choose to my the path of self determination.
Until the US Dollar is not longer the reserve currency for international settlements, Ron Paul does not risk Hobbesian hell any more than anyone else.
On May 24, 2011 at 9:11 am, TS Alfabet said:
WB:
As opposed to what? Do you seriously think that the U.S. occupies anything like a “Hobbesian hell” right now? We are the most pampered, spoiled, privileged, insulated, naive nation on the face of the earth (with the exception of those in the U.S. military, among others). If you think things can’t get worse (and I mean MUCH worse) if Ron Paul had his way with his ostrich philosophy, then you may want to stick to reading sites that cater to illusion and fantasy like The New Yorker, LA Times and such.
And how do you think that ignoring the dangerous world we inhabit will leave you with any meaningful choice of self-determination? That road is the sure way to slavery and the proverbial ring in your nose. The solution is neither to ignore the world (as Paul does) nor to kow tow to the CIA or whomever you think is conspiring to keep you in bondage. (If only the U.S. did have some “well planned and executed” strategy as you imagine. All the evidence points in the exact, opposite direction).
And, as for the dollar, have you checked the news lately? The dollar is quickly fading as a reserve currency as Bernanke and the Treasury conspire to devalue it. In any event, what possible evidence do you have that the dollar being the reserve currency will mitigate an isolationist foreign policy?
On May 24, 2011 at 10:49 am, Warbucks said:
Resptfully TS you may be right. May I invite your kind attention to another point of view and why:
http://www.captainsjournal.com/2011/05/24/entitlement-spending-time-for-feds-to-punt-to-the-states/
A different balance may need to be found in our world affairs and I do not want to squash the home-spun wisdom Mr Paul asks us to consider. Finally I would ask you to pause and reflect on you last comment ….. “the dollar is quickly fading as a reserve currency”…. a process the status quo seems to be achieving on it’s own without the help of the home spun values oh Mr Paul.
On May 24, 2011 at 4:44 pm, Warbucks said:
Other perspectives at the USIP: http://www.usip.org/publications/eye-afghanistan-pakistan