Allen West: We can take out Pakistan’s Nukes if we need to



Allen West talks about pulling our funds from Pakistan considering that they’ve been a safe haven, not only bin Laden but for other terrorists as well. And as to their nukes holding us hostage, he says that we can take them out if we need to and that we should stop with this Neville Chamberlain attitude of appeasement. He says we need to present an attitude of strength!

Comment Policy: Please read our comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.

58 thoughts on “Allen West: We can take out Pakistan’s Nukes if we need to

  1. Amen to pulling funds. Say it again! Do it now! We need to stop all foreign aid immediately to all countries, period. We’ve been reviled more than any nation. Let them take care of their own problems. Protect Israel, otherwise bring the troops home, seal the borders, cut spending and begin paying off the debt, drill here, drill now … this is simple stuff. We’ve all figured this out long ago. Our fearless leaders don’t seem to be awake.

  2. Hey! You guys quit being so pro-West! You’re supposed to be a bunch of ignorant racists!

  3. Bravo. Send this man to the presidency.

    Depose the Obama backed rebels in Libya and Qatar

  4. There are two decidedly harsh but very important Congressional modifications on current Federal laws regarding all foreign aid and all immigration:
    1– Reduce foreign aid by 50%, effective six months to one year after passage. — Set a cap on all future aid, derived from an annual review of reductions on out federal debt– but not to exceed 25 Billion USD, total. How in the name of God can an intelligent nation consider it rational to nation give away $250 billion per year– to nations, many of which do not give a rat’s ass about America or its people– when we are teetering on the very edge of the chasm called BANKRUPTCY? One trillion dollars every four years is financial lunacy, when the recipients consider us as primed for vengeance. At what costs are we slaves to the Mid-East. If they stop trading with us, good!! Then we might be required by survival to utilize our own energy–oil, gas and coal, which knowledgeable scientific experts report would last us, at least, 350 years–1/3 of a millennium. Would that period provide enough time to develop alternate energy sources?2– Call a complete moratorium for two years on all immigration. We cannot afford to require American taxpayers TO SUPPORT MILLIONS OF MORE HISPANIC OR OTHER IMMIGRANTS, arriving here broke, looking for jobs– WHERE THERE ARE NO JOBS. FORCING AMERICANS TO SUPPORT MORE INDIGENTS WHEN 15% (ACCURATE) OF THE AMERICAN LABOR FORCE HAVE, THEMSELVES NO JOBS??? WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO FEDERAL SANITY? THIS MORATORIUM GIVES THIS NATION TIME TO DETERMINE A KIND DISPOSITION OF CRIMINAL IMMIGRANTS. AS BAD AS I HATE TO ADMIT IT THIS NATION WILL NEVER DEPORT MEXICAN MOTHERS OR CHILDREN. AND WHO WILL SERVE FOR DEPORTED FATHERS? MASS DEPORTATION–THIS SEEMINGLY SIMPLE ANSWER CONJURES UP AN ENDLESS LIST OF SOCIAL, MORAL AND LEGAL ROADBLOCKS THAT RENDER IT ABSOLUTELY WRONG FOR FREEDOM LOVING AMERICANS. THE ILLEGALS (LIKE DOMESTIC LAW VIOLATORS) SHOULD BE SUBJECT TO LAWS, ONLY FOR THEM; SUCH AS AN 18- 20 YEAR WAITING PERIOD BEFORE THE ARE ALLOW TO VOTE. (I RECOGNIZE THAT OBAMA AND THE SOCIALISTS BACKERS WILL ADORE THIS IDEA.) THESE PEOPLE ARE FEDERAL AND MORAL LAW BREAKERS; THEY MUST ACCEPT SOME DISCOMFORT AND POLITICAL LOSSES FOR THIS, BUT NOT UN-AMERICAN PUNISHMENT OR HEARTLESS DUMPING. THE MORATORIUM WOULD ALLOW TIME FOR A DEEP STUDY INTO THE QUESTION: DO WE NEED TO DROP MUSLIM ENTRIES TO LEVELS APPROPRIATE FOR THE MUSLIM FUNDAMENTAL REQUIREMENTS OF BELLIGERENCE TO INNOCENT JUDEO/CHRISTIAN AMERICANS? THIS IS NO TIME OR JUSTIFICATION TO RAISE THE FLAG OF POLITICAL CORRECTNESS. MY DESIRE FOR MY CHILDREN IS TO REALIZE THAT FACT THAT BEING POLITICALLY IN-CORRECT IS BETTER THAN BIOLOGICALLY DEAD.

  5. Pakistan should’ve known better. The last country that gave outright aid and comfort to bin-Laden was Afghanistan, and look what happened to them. The US Army Special Forces, sometimes on horseback, lead a bunch of rabble (the Northern Alliance) to topple their illegitimate terrorist ‘government’ in just about ONE MONTH (“Masters of Chaos”, by Linda Robinson, pgs. 155-158). A HANDFUL of United States Army Special Forces special operators galvanized groups that, previously, couldn’t even TALK together, much less fight together, and managed to lead them to overthrow Kabul and drive out the terrorists (hopefully, once and for all). (And just to let the ignorant know: the SeALs ARE NOT Special Forces. SeALs, Force Recon, Rangers, etc. are all Special OPERATIONS [Ops] Forces; ONLY the US Army has SPECIAL FORCES.) If they could do in about a MONTH what the full might of the SOVIET UNION couldn’t do in a DECADE, what makes Pakistan think they couldn’t do it to them, just as quickly, if not FASTER?

    Pakistan’s armed forces are more advanced and organized?: So, what? Their air forces are outdated, and some of the planes they scrambled after the SeALs kicked ass (sorry: KILLED ass) were bought from US. Probably the majority of it’s funding COMES from us. If their big SOF (Special Operations Forces) types were so good (the Special Services Group), why haven’t they been able to beat India? Any attempt by them to get aggressive with us would just be material for an Infinity Ward (http://www.infinityward.com/) and/or Ubisoft Red Storm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubisoft_Red_Storm) first-person shooter based on actual events. Not to mention Ridley Scott’s next military action movie.

    Nukes?: We’ve ships at sea with the power to shoot down any nuke they could be stupid enough to try launching. Do the Pakistanis have anything like the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegis_Combat_System)? Somehow, I’m doubting it. Maybe they could part them out to their al-Qaeda and Taliban buddies. Yeah, but who knows how many safehouses WE’ve got in Pakistan, now, considering the American taxpayer was next-door neighbors to bin-Laden’s own safehouse. Any attempt to get nukes into the hands of our enemies for use against us, or our allies, would, again, just be more material for an Infinity Ward (http://www.infinityward.com/) and/or Ubisoft Red Storm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubisoft_Red_Storm) first-person shooter based on actual events, and Ridley Scott’s next great military action movie project.

    Obama the terrorist sympathizer and crypto-muslim fellow traveller?: Not even he would be stupid enough to let Pakistan get away with that, unless he wanted to tarred and feathered before standing before a joint session of Congress and the Supreme Court to face unprecedented criminal charges.

    I don’t know what the Pakistanis were thinking, to do this. Maybe they thought the Dalai Obama would just give them a pass, like he did the Russians, but now that he’s got the Conservative freshmen hunting him down and threats like Big Daddy (Herman) Cain breathing down his neck, that’s a lot less likely. The US, right now, is like the friend that has two friends that can’t stand each other, after a bloody falling out and fight. Each would do well to keep that mutual friend in their good graces, but now we have one of those “friends” (i.e.: PAKISTAN) being not so friendly, and setting the stage for the mutual friend to become a lot less mutual.

    Hey, Pakistan: behold your future:

  6. West won’t run for president, but we need him in the White House.
    Sarah Palin can convince him to run as her VP and they will stomp OB.
    They will make one heck of a ‘dream team’ in the White House to bring this country into a future that we would all like to be living in.

  7. Let me tell you what I think is cool for a guy in his uber 40’s. The temperature has finally hit the high 50’s, but the sun makes it feel warmer, so…I am sitting out back with some delicious items on the grill. I have my kindle, my tiny high-def vid cam/camera, my cellphone, and obviously, my laptop. I could type here from my kindle, but it would be cumbersome. The trees do not yet have leaves in N. Michigan. Can anyone appreciate that?

    I fired up the riding mower for the first time today. It didn’t fire up, even after charging the battery. New battery, varooom. My cutie beauty should be back with the adult beverages momentarily. Life is good. Osama is dead, and soon at booths everywhere, so shalt Obama’s tenure be, his rhyme-mate. Weeeeeee!

    At Church we call this, a Praise Report.

      1. I reccognize the song sir and, Oh am I ready. I’m ready like spaghetti. You ain’t even got to worry ’bout dat!

        I make Sponge Bob’s readiness look like Sleeping Beauty’s. It’s just that my pants aren’t quite as square 🙂

  8. I get the sense that Allen West actually reads the reports put out by the DNI. Very refreshing to know someone is paying attention.

    Pakistan is not our friend. They play ball with us because of India. They know that if there were a serious war even a nuke exchange we would side with India. I think West want to take them to the wood shed and spank them for their support of al Qaeda. Reduced the aide until they show they are serious about helping us. West very cleverly notes that China is more than willing to come in and control the area. We can’t just pull up stakes and leave.

    If not POTUS, he would make a great Secretary of Defense.

    1. A few thoughts here.

      I am not quite sure you thought out the process of us not sending money to Pakistan. If we don’t send money to them(in your thought process), they will finally see their bad ways, and capitulate to us because of the money? I ask this kind of hypothetically, but, what if we stop sending and China fills in the gap? Isn’t that the same as pulling up stake? So, your thought process fails to consider that China is WAITING for us to pull out, so THEY can fill in the lost money. I think West is right, we need to take our money and run. I personally don’t see what need we have with Pakistan or Afghanistan. Your thought process assumes we have something important in one of these countries(out side our troops, and those can be removed rather quickly). Can you explain why Pakistan is of vital importance, that we keep China from taking it over(all hypothetical of course)? Understand, this nation is broke. I can’t fathom why we help a nation who isn’t willing to help us in any form. Israel is about the top of my list of those we need to back, then Great Brittan, after that, it becomes murky to me. I just don’t see the “need” to hold on to “friends” like these. Kind of follows the old saying, “who needs enemies, when you got friends like these.”

      Outside that, LETS DO A WRITE IN FOR Lt. Col. ALLEN WEST!!!

      1. “Reduced the aide until they show they are serious about helping us.” Red carefully. I don’t want to cut aide, I just want to cause them a little pain.

        Why is Pakistan important?

        1. They have nukes.
        2. They have some of he most radical Muslim groups in the world operating freely inside their borders.
        3. Did I happen to mention they have nukes? And their nukes actually work.

        Allen West and a handful of others truly understand foreign policy. Forget the rocking chair generals on cable TV. The ones who know aren’t talking and the ones who are talking don’t know.

        1. I think you didn’t read very carefully. I said, if we take even a tiny bit, to get them to “capitulate”, then how do WE(whether it be Allen West, or even you) guarantee that China isn’t there doubling what we remove? You are going on the assumption that this will work. It is an understood, that China IS waiting for us to cut our money(no matter how small), to fill in the gap.

          I still have trouble understanding why everyone is all of the sudden scared of nukes!? Your assumption says they are threatening to fire nukes at us, if we back out of aid. I haven’t heard this, but, if that is the SOLE reason to stay there, then how come we haven’t aided all the other nuke nations(including Iran), so they won’t fire on us? And even then, do you honestly believe that India will allow these fools to try to fire one? How about Israel, will they? Great Brittan? I think there are plenty of friends out there to back, if a situation arises, that will keep WWIII from occurring. Everyone is under some strange “scare tactic” that nukes are gassed up and ready to fire at us, if we decide to get out of a country(monetarily). If, and this might seem like a big if, but lets say we are out of money(hypothetically), what happens then? We are at that point, broke and prey to everyone, right? I am trying to understand your logic. If nukes is(from what i can tell) the sole reason to be friends with an enemy, then we are more screwed than I EVER thought we were.Your second point, is a no brainer, but I fail to see that as even a reason to stay there, and not have an end game. Get rid of the Geneva Accords, let the military go in and take out anything that stands in the way, and get out. That is a plan, staying and being shot at, without a purpose, isn’t a win, it is a loss, no matter how you look at it.

          1. Again you need to stop watching the rocking chair generals on cable news.

            Pakistan has nukes. Pakistan has radical group who would love to get their hands on their nukes. You have no problem with al Qaeda having nukes?? Did I miss something?

            Really?

            1. I think I have a problem with China having nukes, Russia having nukes, Iran having nukes, Saudi Arabia having nukes, Syria having nukes…………do I need to go further?!?!?!?!? They all have radical groups, and, well, lets see, I dont see us smooching ass to all of them!

              al Qaeda is a problem, but i dont see this president, the last 5(including Reagan who helped build some of these guys), or the future showing us anything different. They have been, in some form, around for longer than this nation has been around. They will be around whether we are there being shot at, or, here minding our own damn business. Either way, there will always be some sort of evil over there.

              1. To be clear: you don’t have a problem with al Qaeda acquiring nukes? Using your logic “Everybody else has nukes, what’s the big deal if al Qaeda has nukes.”

                Do I understand your position?

                1. let me understand YOU correctly then, Pakistan is a bigger threat(al Qaeda) than the cold war ever was? you sure do think these radicals in this country(Pakistan) are a monsterous threat, versus other possible threats. i take ever country equally, and that being said, i seriously doubt they would be the “first strike” threat you are making them out to be.

                2. The radicals are governed by a very radical religeous doctrine that says all non muslims must be killed. It is not like the Cold War where it was a political thing. Politicians may get radical but it is nothing like a religeous belief that encourages pure hatred and destruction of all infidels – especially Israel and the West.

            2. But Nick, do you think that Pakistan is stupid enough to give Al Qaeda some of their nuclear weapons, which they could turn around and threaten them with as well?

              1. Give? Take? Sell? If Pakistan looses control, it won’t matter.

                What’s the motto of Iran: if we nuke Israel we wipe out nearly every Jew on Earth. If they nuke us, they wipe out less than 10% of all Muslims in the world.

          2. Another aspect is Pakistan’s natural resources.
            China is interested in exploiting those…at rock bottom prices.
            Our involvement there adds a level of ‘safety’ that helps Pakistan with their commerce.
            If we pull out, they lose that.
            China would be able to negotiate at a better advantage, because of the risk.
            If China wants to give them aid, so be it.
            Let China tie themselves to that sabre.

            And if Pakistan is so horrified that we would do an extraction within their borders…let them see how much China cares about offending their delicate sensibilities.
            I doubt that China is intimidated by Pakistan’s nukes, either.
            If Pakistan wants to waive their rumpled little nuke card, and play with the big boys…they will quickly see how insignificant they are in the scheme of things.

            I think that LtCol. West understands this.
            😉

  9. Just another example of how stupid we have been to sniffle around and pander to craphole countries and shower them with money and beg then to not hurt us. Not one more thin dime to them , and they will show up at the WH front door with the other 40 terrorist we are hunting. And you or North Korea want to open your pie hole and threaten us and we will turn you into a parking lot. Any questions?

  10. Take away Pakistan’s nukes and they devolve into just another pre-feudal Islamic hell hole.

    1. I guess we’re supposed to be intimidated by their coziness with China.
      We shouldn’t be.
      They must not know what they’re getting themselves into…China has no patience with Islam.

      1. It’s China who should heed the warning. If they cozy up to the nest of vipers in Pakistan they’ll regret it. West is totally correct. Kiss them off. Raid their nuke sites. Then let China clasp the Islamic adder to its breast.

        We need to strengthen our bonds with India, a real democracy and a potentially greater economic power than China. We only weaken ourselves allying with the Islamic barbarians in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

        1. Yep, it has the makings of a great relationship…
          They can compare notes on fascist repression, totalitarianism and how to best maintain their status as ‘developing nations’.

        2. What gives your precious government and military the right to “raid [the] nuke sites” in the lands of other people? Do you really think that would change anything for the better?

          Wake up.

          1. Pakistan did not get nukes on their own. They would not have them except for our long series of arrogant misplaced intervention in that region. We cannot put that genie back in the bottle but it would be the height of stupidity an irresponsibility to walk away and leave them in the hands of the Brotherhood.

            Like it or not we are in up to our eyeballs. West just told us how to get out.

            1. In other words:

              “Intervention d*cked everything up and made the situation much much worse.
              Therefore, we need more of it (intervention).”

              1. It is not Pakistan that lies in wait – it is Islam.

                Treating Islam with a blind nonintervention policy will prove to be as naive and self defeating as treating it with a blind democracy-building policy.

                Isalm is not an sovereign nation state. Islam is the sworn mortal enemy of western civilization, America, and the Judeo-Christian foundations of our freedom. Turning over nuclear weapons to Pakistan a nation of Islam, is tatamount to unchaining your executioner, handing him the sword and kneeling before him.

                1. In other words:
                  “1. I’ve bought into the distraction narrative about why they want to kill us.
                  2. That scares me.
                  Therefore, we have the right to swoop in, kill people that haven’t personally attacked us, and “seize” (steal) things that aren’t ours.”

                  Perhaps you could enlighten me. What was the last Islamic country or group to use a nuclear device on anyone? What are the most effective reasons/motivations give by Islamic terrorists for wanting to kill Americans? What was the last group of ANYONE to actually use a nuclear weapon on anyon?

                  There are a lot of people in “America” that say a lot of unfriendly things about China and want action taken. If that starts to scare them does that give them the RIGHT to come and seize the nukes hear and kill off the people in the way?

                  You’ve been fearmongered into thinking your fallacious foreign policy thinking is logical. Take a look at my syllogistic examination of your case above, nowhere in it did I mention Pakistan, because it’s irrelevent. Intervention destablizes regions, and incites INDIVIDUALS as much as it incites “nations.” Islam is not some monolithic singular entity, it’s a mass of individuals.

                  You foreign interventionists are just as bad as domestic welfare proponents. You identify a problem, and then insist that an expansion of the cause is the solution. How did Einstein define insanity, again?

                  You also have either strawmanned, been lied to, or misunderstood Non-Interventionism, because it is hardly blind. The blind, I would say, are the interventionists who avert their gaze from the real effects of their arrogant superhero fantasies.

  11. Hell yeah!
    I totally agree about scaling back and using more strike force teams, instead of nation building.
    And Pakistan has gotten an overinflated sense of worth lately.

    Greta seemed nicer to him tonight, that she was before.
    I wish he had gotten to speak longer.
    I could listen to LtCol. West for hours…even though his brevity is one of the cool things about him.

      1. Of that I’m sure, as well.
        He always seems to say as little or as much as is necessary, to articulate what he is wanting to say.
        Such directness is so refreshing.

        Unlike the career politicians who blather on and on, and say nothing, really.

        1. Not only is his directness refreshing, but is diplomacy as well. He seems to know when to be direct and when to be diplomatic; the true sign of a leader of high caliber

  12. We should end all foreign aid since we have so much debt. But people like Graham and McCain will look to further the war into Pakistan. The dollar is on the ropes, our debt threatens our future and these arrogant idiots are further threatening our future with their misplaced chest bumping. You can’t convey a true sense of strength when you’re broke. India and Pakistan could obliterate each other for all I care. It’s not and it will never be our responsibility to intervene. Our economic situation should take precedent over anyone’s desire to play God in the Middle East.

  13. This man is spot on target. Simple, focused and well reasoned. Every time I hear Allen West lately I just stand up, stomp my foot and ay “DAMN RIGHT!”

    He summed up a few minutes what decades of DC circle jerks cannot even fathom.

    1. “DAMN RIGHT!”

      I second that!

      And I think that those in DC fathom it…they’re just too cowardly to say so.
      @22227:disqus

    1. If you want a real understanding of military policy read “The Pentagon’s New Map” Forget the “cable TV version” of foreign policy. It’s not even close to the reality.

      I suspect West has read it. The author says our troops should not be involved in nation building. They should just focus on “killing people and braking things.” We should have a completely separate branch of the military that specializes in nation building with a different structure and different skill set.

      Allen West 2012!!!!

          1. quote from you nick:

            If you want a real understanding of military policy read “The Pentagon’s New Map” Forget the “cable TV version” of foreign policy. It’s not even close to the reality. I suspect West has read it. The author says our troops should not be involved in nation building. They should just focus on “killing people and braking things.” We should have a completely separate branch of the military that specializes in nation building with a different structure and different skill set.

            What I was getting at, and others obviously got it, is we need to rip up the Geneva Accords(convention papers), which denote that no one is allowed to fire at someone without being shot at first. In theory, this means no shot is ever fired, conventionally. Also, the Geneva Accords had us add in that we must follow all these ridiculous rules of engagement. I say, get rid of the U.N., Nato, and the Geneva Convention Papers, go in there like we did in Germany, blow EVERYTHING UP, and then get out, leave them licking their wounds.

            Did that help?

            1. “go in there like we did in Germany, blow EVERYTHING UP, and then get out, leave them licking their wounds.”

              Your history of Post WW2 Germany is inaccurate at best. The US did not get out after the end of ww2. Read up on Post WW2 Reconstructionism.

              1. it was meant in jest at best, i know we stuck around…………..hell, we are still there. just making the point that we didnt have to wait to be shot at to kick ass, that help some?

                try to realize that i can be sarcastic at times, i am not a dolt, lol

                1. @Barton we didnt rlly get in there until they attacked us first(Pearl harbor) if u lookl at history you will see that nobody wanted to goto war in the 40’s but we did when they hit us first, and if u look at the geneva accords then u will most likely agree with their implementation, yes there are draw backs but in the end it protects us from being attacked on our own soil by another country

                2.     

                  the “they” you refer to, mr. historian, were japanese not germans.  Secondly, “they” weren’t germans, and we DID get involved on the eastern front, directly after the attacks, HOWEVER, “they” werent germans!!!!!! THIRD, HELL NO I DONT AGREE WITH JACK DOO DOO WITH THE GENEVA ACCORDS………..correct me if I am a bit wrong here, but “those papers” DIDNT STOP DOO DOO FROM BEING ATTACKED ON 9/11(yes, not a country, but, point is, rip up the accords, and we could take ass and kick names!!!!!)What you are SO SERIOUSLY FAILING TO ACKNOWLEDGE is the fact these terrorists dont follow “rules of engagement”, so i ask WTF ARE WE FOllOWING THEM FOR!?!?!?

            2. Just to point something out on the Geneva Accords, the US has never signed or ratified the conventions. We were a participatory nation not a signatory, we voluntarily go along with them as long as who we are engaged against do so. While are troops have on occasion been given an order “not to fire unless fired upon” it is in no way SOP for our armed forces, in fact it’s not even mentioned under the International Rules for War.

Comments are closed.