Welcome to PatsFans.com

A question at the heart of this "War on Terror"

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by PressCoverage, Jan 9, 2007.

  1. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,609
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    i have a question... actually, i have always had a particular question about this whole crusade, ... it routinely goes unanswered by the "loyalists" i've asked on other boards... i often get a muddled response along the lines of "it's complicated"... or "do you want WW3????"... or my favorite, "bin Laden's in China!!"... but never anything of substance that ever truly answers the question, why aren't we going after the symbol of our enemy in Pakistan, where he is?

    if we, the U.S., "will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these evil acts, and those who harbor them," why, then, haven't we gone into Pakistan en masse, after them? or forced the Pakistani military to do it themselves or sever all diplomatic ties? there's no secret where the heart of al qaeda sleeps... and they're not far over the Afghanie border... heck, if they were comfortable with 3-5 thousand US casualties, why did they focus them for loss in Iraq, and not for a major offensive into western Pakistan where we KNOW they're risiding? ... what's the matter? is our Rumsfeld-crafted military not equipped for mountains? what happened to "smoke em out"? .... is the mightiest military power in the world beaten by mountains? ... or is there some kind of political agreement keeping us out? we already sided with India recently on that nuclear info sharing pact, and left Pakistan unprivy... so what's going on?....

    [​IMG][​IMG]



    why is the enemy who burned and crushed 3,000 US civilians to death being allowed to survive and thrive, even mock us? heck, we're even LOSING major ground inside Afghanistan!!!

    why aren't we "smokin' 'em out" of Pakistan? they're there... Zawahiri is in Peshawar... huge swaths of areas in western Pakistan are being gobbled up by the Taliban, as if it's a whole new country...

    if you don't believe it, watch "Return of the Taliban" on PBS' frontline tonight at 9 ...

    but instead, are leaders need to fumble around in Iraq and secure those oil contracts, among other things...
    Last edited: Jan 9, 2007
  2. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,672
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    Here's some possible answers you'll get from the ball-washers:

    Q: if we, the U.S., "will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these evil acts, and those who harbor them," why, then, haven't we gone into Pakistan en masse, after them?

    A: Because Musharrif is on shaky ground and any US invasion will destabilize the situation and cause our "friend" dictator to be toppppled by Islamic extremist terrrorists who will eat our babies

    Q: if they were comfortable with 3-5 thousand US casualties, why did they focus them for loss in Iraq, and not for a major offensive into western Pakistan where we KNOW they're risiding?

    A: Saddam Hussein funded terrorism and knew a guy who knew a guy who dated Bin Ladin's sister = CONNECTION WITH 9/11! Besides, we'll catch Bin Ladin in Afghanistan sooner or later or we'll stay there until he dies. Besides, we can't leave because the Afghan government is on shaky ground and any US withdrawal will destabilize the situation and cause our "friend" dictator to be toppppled by Islamic extremist terrrorists who will eat our babies and not allow the locals to make an honest living growing heroin. Why do you hate Afghanis?

    Q: is our Rumsfeld-crafted military not equipped for mountains? what happened to "smoke em out"? .... is the mightiest military power in the world beaten by mountains?

    A: Don't blame Rumsfeld! The Russians couldn't handle it there, either, not to mention the British and Alexander the Great.

    ...just some examples of what you can expect to hear.
    Last edited: Jan 9, 2007
  3. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,609
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    LOL.... no doubt...
  4. BruschiOnTap

    BruschiOnTap Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2005
    Messages:
    448
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    How about 'because al-Quaeda doesn't exist'?
  5. All_Around_Brown

    All_Around_Brown Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,098
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    These are the questions people with objective minds ask. Please, lets stick to the right wing media outlets to ease your mind and remind you that Bush is in charge and he knows more than you. Fox news and Sean Hannity are the 'wubbies' of the right. Its clear that these people can't answer your question because it flies in the face of everything they've been told...and they simply can't handle the truth.
  6. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,800
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

    Al Quaeda, the CIA and the drug trade are an unbeatable tripple threat. I think they figure..."if it ain't broke....."
  7. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,819
    Likes Received:
    144
    Ratings:
    +306 / 4 / -2

    Guys, the answer is simple, it's called reality. I've explained 20 times in this forum. Pakistan, and the entire surrounding region, are very fragile area's. We all the know the Taliban & AQ were business partners, hence our operation in Afghanistan post 9/11. I think we all pretty much agree with the action taken there. Mushareff, who is pro-western, but who's country is made up of a volatile mix of hard liners and reformists, chose the west over AQ. The problem is, his alliance with the "infidels" has created some discomfort in his own nation. Remember, the radicals have tried to assasinate him multiple times since 9/11. PAkistan is a nuclear nation, as is its arch enemy, billion population & nuke nation India. If we undermine Mushareff by demanding more than he's already done, we could push radical Pakistani's to power there. Were that to happen, then we'd have a nuclear radical islamic state, who would probably end up fighting a war with India. Incase you don't know, Pakistan has about 160 million people, while India has over a Billion. A war between the two could very well go nuclear. Beyond that issue, is where said nukes would end up under a radical regime. A radically run Pakistan could arm AQ with nukes rather easily. There is so much more to it than most want, or are willing to understand.
  8. All_Around_Brown

    All_Around_Brown Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,098
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    There you have it. Press, I think what Real World is trying to say in a nutshell is that although Bush said those things, he really didn't mean them. We're not really going to fight the people who attacked us if its potentially dangerous. That would be political suicide! INstead, we'll pick on a nation stripped of its defenses and beaten down by sanctions and 60 years of infighting, even if they had nothing to do with 911.

    Silly of you to take the man on his word. You been duped by a barrel of neo-conservative monkeys.
    Last edited: Jan 9, 2007
  9. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,819
    Likes Received:
    144
    Ratings:
    +306 / 4 / -2

    It's not my fault if you can't understand how things work in the Real World. When FDR was president, he knew the US had to get involved on the Allies side, even though the public was greatly against it. He publically put forth that he was not going to get involved, even though he knew we would. Why didn't Roosevelt just say we had to? When this country was founded, Jefferson wrote in his letters that he knew Slavery would be an issue that would tear at the country. He knew blacks deserved the same "equality" which white men seeked. Yet, he, nor any of his peers, pushed to make every man equal. Why not? Probably because he knew that to large a portion of the country he hoped would support the cause to independence wouldn't. Or once independence was gained, they knew that such a course would certainly result is the disintegration of the union. Nothing is ever as simple as yes or no, black or white, coke or pepsi. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, there is a fine line between lying and leading. Ultimately, each individual decides when it's which.
  10. BruschiOnTap

    BruschiOnTap Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2005
    Messages:
    448
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    The sad truth... only because the public at large is too selfish/shortsighted/uneducated to see what's in its best interests

    Doesn't absolve Bush, though, he lied and it served NO PURPOSE except his, Cheney's, and Halliburton's...
  11. All_Around_Brown

    All_Around_Brown Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,098
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    In the Real World fairy tale you mean its okay to lie to the American people so long as you get what you want politically? That its okay to deceive people into thinking there are enemies where there are not, and no enemies where there are even though that severely jeopardizes national security?

    I see. Thats okay as its Machiavellian, a hallmark of the neoconservative school under Strauss.

    I thought you were simply saying that the reason why we wont attack Pakistan although they harbor our enemies and refuse to give them up, is because they are a nuclear nation.

    Kinda explains why North Korea and Iran are racing to develop nukes huh?
  12. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,819
    Likes Received:
    144
    Ratings:
    +306 / 4 / -2


    I never said it was ok to do anything. I merely tried to explain to you, with examples, the how and why of lying versus misleading. I think every logical person would concede that every cause has an effect. Leaders have to weigh those prior to making a decision. When your dealing with a population, or in the United States' case, a world audience, you cannot be as honest as you might like to be. Again, ultimately the public becomes the judge and jury when such decisions are made.

    Pakistan refuses to what?

    [​IMG]

    As for Iran and North Korea, they've been trying to manufacture nukes for decades. You know what a decade is right?
  13. All_Around_Brown

    All_Around_Brown Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,098
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Can we have AQ Khan then?? We have to ask him a few questions.

    http://www.deccanherald.com/deccanherald/dec82006/foreign2156302006127.asp
  14. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,819
    Likes Received:
    144
    Ratings:
    +306 / 4 / -2

    [​IMG]

    Pakistan's bomb program took years to mature, but in 1998, on the back of Khan's labors, the country detonated five underground nuclear bombs. At a time of high tensions with India over the disputed region of Kashmir, the event turned Khan into a national hero. His glowering, wavy-haired portrait was hand-painted on the backs of trucks and buses all over the country. He was twice awarded Pakistan's highest civilian honor, the Hilal-e-Imtiaz medal. Celebrated in textbooks, he was probably Pakistan's most famous man.

    http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1025193-3,00.html


    The man is a national hero there. If he ever passed him over to the US in a criminal manner, the public would revolt. It's obviously a less than desirable situation. The Paki's have been questioning him, but that obviously should be taken for what it's worth, although some of the info has been fruitfull. At any rate, it's not like the US is ever in any rush to allow foreign governments to question Americans of any kind, so should we be surprised when other countries do the same? Either way, the Paki's have been very helpfull when it comes to TWAT. Some feel they aren't as helpfull as they could be, others feel that they've been more helpfull than we could expect. When they give you the ok to bomb a Madrassa because it was housing AQ operatives, and 80people die, ask yourself how people here would react to the same.
  15. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,672
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0


    Is that NEM right after the Pats lost to Denver last year?
  16. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,672
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    every time I hear a comparison between Bush and Jefferson, Washington, or FDR, I throw up in my mouth a little bit.
  17. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    39,103
    Likes Received:
    124
    Ratings:
    +334 / 1 / -9

    Thats common sense, thats reality, Bush Haters are blind to it, all they can see is that Bush made them look like fools, not once but twice.

    Todays Liberal Democrat is filled with a "Vicious Burning Hate" that has never before been seen in this country, it is far worse than even the hatred held for Japan or Hitler was. Todays Hate Filled Liberal Democrat is as much of a threat to America as Al Queda is if not more.

    The Liberal Democrat would be willing to see America FALL as long as it meant "Getting Bush".

    TED KENNEDY SHOULD BE TRIED FOR MURDER--ROBERT BYRD SHOULD BE HUNG WITH HIS HOOD AND SHEET ON--CRAZY GORE SHOULD BE LOCKED UP IN A FREEZER--HARRY REID SHOULD BE FORCED TO HAVE SEX WITH JANET RENO.
  18. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,609
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    and you should be banned for not once contributing any relevant intellectual thought to any thread i've seen yet...
  19. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,819
    Likes Received:
    144
    Ratings:
    +306 / 4 / -2

    None of the above were perfect you know. Obviously GW doesn't compare, but some would argue the same about FDR. Lots of people have argued with me that he knowingly misled the public when it came to WW II. At any rate, Washington & Jefferson were special individuals, who does compare to them favorably? No one really. I've read alot of books about the creation of the constitution. My two favorite are Founding Brothers, and a Leap in the Dark. My only problem with the Founding Fathers is their tolerance of slavery. Obvioulsy, when you consider both the times, and the fragility our fledgling nation, you can see where tolerance may have been a necessary evil. Regardless, it still bugs me.
  20. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    39,103
    Likes Received:
    124
    Ratings:
    +334 / 1 / -9

    Come to think of it, I don't think I have ever had a "relevant intellectual thought", I'll have to think about it, if I think I have, I think I'll post it.
    :bricks:

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>