Why wasn't this bigger news?

Discussion in 'Miscellaneous' started by Bradical, Sep 12, 2008.

  1. Bradical

    Bradical Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2008
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    So now the War moves into Pakistan?

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/11/washington/11policy.html?_r=1&em&oref=slogin

    Apparently Bush has decided that conducting unauthorized military assaults on the soil of an ally is good policy. By the way, Pakistan (our ally) is a legitimate nuclear power and has said in the past that if the US does just this, they will cause trouble.

    But really, is the tabloid entertainment value of the election enough to bury this type of news? This is very important news and very troubling. It should be discussed in the debates.
     
    #1
  2. HatterDon

    HatterDon Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2006
    Location:
    Peoples Republic of South Texas
    Hmmmm; I guess now that there's been "regime change" in Pakistan and the president's favorite military dictator is no longer in charge, we don't have to worry so much about the nice now.

    As to why this isn't bigger news ...

    a. The invisible man in American politics right now is George W. Bush. Nobody in either campaign is acknowledging that he exists.
    b. This is associated with our "committment" to root out Al Qaeda, Bin Laden, and the other loonies in Afghanistan. BOTH candidates are pretty much in complete agreement about this need. As a matter of fact, it was just about a week ago that Pettyfog was calling Obama dangerous and naive for recommending just the policy the president put into effect.

    Just my opinions of course.
     
    #2
  3. Clevelandmo

    Clevelandmo Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2007
    Huh, I'm sure I dont know as much about this as either Don or Spencer, but I dont like the idea of military action in another country without their permission. Why is the fact that they cant control their tribal leaders enough of a reason?
     
    #3
  4. HatterDon

    HatterDon Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2006
    Location:
    Peoples Republic of South Texas
    it isn't, Mo. As we used to say while riding the pine, "good eye!"
     
    #4
  5. FulhamAg

    FulhamAg New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2008
    Location:
    San Antonio, Texas
    Factions of the Taliban are purportedly using the Pak border as a safe haven to attack from and retreat to. Pakistan hasn't shown much desire or ability to stop this but hasn't wanted us to pursue into Pakistan either. Of course the difficult part of this is that it's not the country of Pakistan doing the attacking. So what you're left with is trusting our leaders' judgement. Draw your own conclusions from there.
     
    #5
  6. nevzter

    nevzter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2007
    Location:
    A City by a Bay
    Frankly, I don't care if Pakistan is a so-called "ally." We feed them billions every year and it's a country that is on the brink of revolution. If any country has the capability to allow nuke technology to fall into the wrong hands it's Pakistan, not N.K., or Iran, or some other wannabe. As a country, it isn't capable of the military actions required as is the U.S., and thus, this country should use it's last remaining vestiges of hegemony and root out the combatants hiding in Pakistan.

    I agree that it's a politically sticky situation. However, practically, we should've been bombing and conducting incursions into this area of Pakistan 7 years ago. As others have stated, it is essentially a "no-man's land" that begrudges traditional political observations. In my opinion, the government (however it shapes up) of Pakistan is not to be trusted. Further proof is the assassination of Bhuto.

    If "dead or alive" (not the Bon Jovi song) were truly a mantra, this type of military activity should've been implemented long ago. But as this administration has proven, Bin Laden is a strawman to be used at its convenience or discarded as may be the flavor of the month. The dude should've been dead a long time ago all things considered...if he isn't already, or in the case of conspiracy theorists, he never existed in the first place.
     
    #6
  7. Spencer

    Spencer Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2005
    From my point of view; these guys are supposed to be our allies, mutual partners in the war on terror. I've read in various places, that we give them 10 billion a year plus other undisclosed amounts, and I've read and heard in other places that the numbers more like 15billion plus other undisclosed amounts. In other words a lot, and we have no idea where that's going. Thus one would hope for some assistance in such matters.

    Al Queda hides out in these northern reaches of Pakistan with no pressure, than they come across at their leisure and do another car bomb, another prison break, kill more Americans, Canadians, Frenchmen, and cause the general deterioration of Afghanistan, and then they go back to Pakistan where they are until now basically untouchable.

    As far as I can see we've been doing everything we can to get Pakistan to put on the pressure, and they won't. And if that weren't bad enough throw in this, long suspected and touched upon at the end of the NYT report;

    Its not just this, its seemingly everything that comes up. Consider AQ Khan, Pakistan's bomb pioneer and later on nuclear black market king maker; selling information and components to Iran and North Korea. Pakistan hasn't allowed us to interrogate him(unless it happened secretly at some point, which personally I doubt) and have recently considered setting him free.
    http://www.fulhamusa.com/index.php?name ... pic&t=4100

    I can't begin to understand all the dynamics of Pakistan. But I do know that if we intend to fight this fight in Afghanistan this problem needs to be taken care of, and if their not going to do it, we need to do it.
     
    #7

Share This Page