Originally Posted By vbdad55 Okay, I am still trying to digest this all, but quite a disturbing story. sounds like Armitage severely overstepping how this should have been handled. A firm insistence for help yes, ridiculing someone you want to portray as your ally ? <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/5369198.stm" target="_blank">http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/sou th_asia/5369198.stm</a>
Originally Posted By jonvn We should have just bombed them. The country is nothing but a hive of criminals. Just ask India about it. Now, they've gone back to supporting the Taliban and bin Laden, and are being kind of nice to them. We shouldn't have asked for their permission, we should have just taken it. And now that we are "allies," we are hamstrung. Yet one more profoundly inept move on the part of the Bush Admin.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <Just ask India about it< then we should let India handle it, which they haven't.
Originally Posted By jonvn India wasn't involved in 9/11, but Pakistan has long been a tacit ally of people who want us dead. What we should have done is enlist the aid of India in keeping a firm grip on Pakistan. They are much more our natural ally, and they would have simply loved to do it. We should have also just let Israel rip through Lebanon just now, too. And when 9/11 happened, we should have made up with Saddam, because he was the natural enemy of the people wanting to attack us. Every one of these things has been wrecked.
Originally Posted By gadzuux As is often the case within the bush administration, they say one thing and do another. Below is the transcript from bush's press conference earlier in the week, featuring bush's all but incoherent response to a question about why we're not pursuing bin laden. Because, according to bush, we need an invitation from the "sovereign nation of pakistan" - you know, the one they have sooo much respect for. Q: "Well, recently you've also described bin Laden as sort of a modern-day Hitler or Mussolini. And I'm wondering why, if you can explain why you think it's a bad idea to send more resources to hunt down bin Laden, wherever he is? " A: "We are, Richard. Thank you. Thanks for asking the question. They were asking me about somebody's report, well, special forces here -- Pakistan -- if he is in Pakistan, as this person thought he might be, who is asking the question -- Pakistan is a sovereign nation. In order for us to send thousands of troops into a sovereign nation, we've got to be invited by the government of Pakistan. "Secondly, the best way to find somebody who is hiding is to enhance your intelligence and to spend the resources necessary to do that; then when you find him, you bring him to justice. And there is a kind of an urban myth here in Washington about how this administration hasn't stayed focused on Osama bin Laden. Forget it. It's convenient throw-away lines when people say that."
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Blorkle? Mumpphett stroerplestitz? Bleeeeennnzzz. Igplits wapplethrap. Oook.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 I noticed this inconsistency too. On the one hand he says that in order to send troops we'd have to be invited into Pakistan, as quoted above. Then he says: <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060920/pl_nm/bush_binladen_dc" target="_blank">http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/200 60920/pl_nm/bush_binladen_dc</a> "President George W. Bush said on Wednesday if he had firm intelligence that Osama bin Laden was in Pakistan, he would issue the order to go into that country after the al Qaeda leader. His statement drew an immediate response from Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, who said Pakistan would handle such a situation itself. Musharraf is extremely sensitive about possible foreign military intervention inside his borders. Asked in an interview with CNN whether he would issue an order to go into Pakistan to kill or capture bin Laden and his deputy Ayman al-Zawahri, Bush replied: "Absolutely." And these statments were not months or years apart. They were about a WEEK apart, I think. Sounds to me like the second one was an attempt at "sounding tough" for election season, while the other was more an acknowledgement of reality/diplomacy with Pakistan. But they're so starkly different, it certainly doesn't make him sound very consistent.
Originally Posted By woody >> "President George W. Bush said on Wednesday if he had firm intelligence that Osama bin Laden was in Pakistan, he would issue the order to go into that country after the al Qaeda leader. << Bush said he would send troops with "firm intelligence". That doesn't contradict invitation, which Pakistans hasn't yet given; however, how can Pakistans invite the U.S. in without any verification? However, I do realize that Pakistan is very likely to refuse to allow the U.S. to go into their country. >>But they're so starkly different, it certainly doesn't make him sound very consistent.<< Only you can find inconsistency from nothing.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA I like how our latest solution to everything is to just bomb everything. We're a compassionate, caring country -- and if you don't do as we say, we'll bomb you back to the stone age. Nice.
Originally Posted By DlandJB However, I do realize that Pakistan is very likely to refuse to allow the U.S. to go into their country.>>> And Iraq refused us, so we went anyway. What is the difference? Except, of course, that Pakistan is known to have weapons of mass destruction?
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Musharraf has been a friend in the war on terror and has helped us. Because of this, Musharraf has had many assasination attempts on his life. Saddam was about as far from a friend as you can get.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 Musharraf has done some things for us, but I still wouldn't turn my back on him in a dark ally. His allegiance is far from rock solid
Originally Posted By gadzuux Musharraf just released all of the taliban prisoners in pakistani jails - at the behest of bin laden, who he engaged in negotiations for safe haven. Some "friend in the war on terror" he is.
Originally Posted By DlandJB Musharraf has done some things for us, but I still wouldn't turn my back on him in a dark ally. His allegiance is far from rock solid>>> He's about as much of a "friend" as the Saudis are.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 >> "President George W. Bush said on Wednesday if he had firm intelligence that Osama bin Laden was in Pakistan, he would issue the order to go into that country after the al Qaeda leader. << <Bush said he would send troops with "firm intelligence". That doesn't contradict invitation, which Pakistans hasn't yet given; however, how can Pakistans invite the U.S. in without any verification?> But he'd said separately that we couldn't just send troops into Pakistan, because it was a sovereign nation. Presumably we would never send troops in the first place just for the fun of it, and it would only be done if we had firm intelligence that bin laden could be taken. So on one occasion he says he'd absolutely do that, and on another he says he'd have to get an invitation first. <However, I do realize that Pakistan is very likely to refuse to allow the U.S. to go into their country.> That is correct. So his "if we had firm intelligence we're goin' in!" statement was empty at best. Election-season material. >>But they're so starkly different, it certainly doesn't make him sound very consistent.<< <Only you can find inconsistency from nothing.> It's not nothing, and I'm not the only one to notice.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Musharraf has helped us catch many Al Quaida members. Is he perfect? No. But in that region you take what you can get.
