U.S. demands Pakistan act against militants, threatens intervention - Page 10 - Mercedes-Benz Forum

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #91 of 108 (permalink) Old 07-20-2007, 12:55 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Punjabi's Avatar
 
Date registered: Mar 2005
Vehicle: Bandwidth
Location: In Virtual Reality
Posts: 3,256
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Designo_E320
GOOD QUESTION! You DO have a point but then we are talking about Bush, the same man who started an immoral, illegal, and and unethical war based on lies instead of going after the real culprits in Afghanistan. George Bush is the reason why Al Qaeda and the Taliban is strong again as BUSH let them relax by starting the other war while only deploying and anemic and an impotent force in Afghanistan.
As far as our troops going in there, it would be one of the biggest blunders since Vietnam. Pakistan is a country of 250-300 million people. I personally believe and I don't have the data (on my personal observance since I lived there for a few years) is that roughly 30-40% of the population are very hard-line Muslims with over half of these nearing fanaticism coupled with ignorance and lack of knowledge. If we were to go to Waziristan/Pakistan these people will DEFINITELY see it as another attack on a Muslim country and therefore Jihad will be called. I would NOT at all be surprised to see 1-3 MILLION of these Pakistanis show up to fight the Americans. It would be a disaster for our country.
I believe that Bush's policies are the root cause of where we are and frankly I do not believe that the war on Terror can or will be won now, ESPECIALLY now. We have only Bush to thank. Instead of sending 250K troops to Iraq and only sending 30K-45K troops in Afghanistan we now as educated citizens KNOW what Bush was thinking. He never really cared about terror, he just wanted to attack and occupy Iraq and used 9-11 as an excuse to do it. If he had been REALLY serious about the war on terror, he would have sent 250K troops in Afghanistan and they actually WOULD HAVE been able to kill/capture ALL the terrorists there and would have caught Osama and Co. and the leadership of the Taliban, Mullah Omar and his cronies.
Our country cannot fight 2 wars at the same time as we don't have enough soldiers nor resources for that. Bush should have finished the war in Afghanistan and THEN could have gone to Iraq and by then it would have most probably been proven about the absence of WMDs and would have avoinded the lgreat loss of life/Holocaust in Iraq. I believe this whole effort now is useless and in vain.
Yes, Bush in fact COULD send his troops into Pakistan because HE has nothing to loose. None of his family members are on the ground fighting. I actually believe Bush IS stupid enough to try it.
Another thing you forget is that when the war in Afghanistan started, most of the Pakistani troops were on the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. There were 2 reasons for this. One reason was that they would annihilate/kill/capture any Talibanis or Al Qaeda that fled Afghanistan into Pakistan and the other reason was to cover the Americans' backs by holding off millions of radical Pakistanis from crossing into Afghanistan to slaughter our troops. You remember, it was in those exact same days that Pakistan caught the most of the Al Qaeda and Talibans and handed them over to the States.
It would be a disaster and would cause an extreme loss of life on our side if we went in there, sadly Bush doesn't give a damn.

heh, heh....in short, Designo, Bush Admin & Co ain't got the balls to attack Pakistan! Literally! heh, heh...So don't punish the keyboard unnecessarily! heh, heh......looks like India, Pakistan, China, Iran and now Russia have him by the short n curly.....curries! heh, heh......
Punjabi is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #92 of 108 (permalink) Old 07-20-2007, 12:55 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
mcbear's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2004
Vehicle: E500Es
Location: The BlueGrass State
Posts: 29,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Designo_E320
I DID NOT say Pakistani troops. I was talking about 1-3 million Pakistani citizens, most probably armed with AK-47s!
There is a very big fuzzy line between Pakistani troops, Pakistani militia, Pakistani citizens who support the Taliban…

McBear,
Kentucky

Being smart is knowing the difference, in a sticky situation between a well delivered anecdote and a well delivered antidote - bear.
mcbear is offline  
post #93 of 108 (permalink) Old 07-20-2007, 01:03 PM
Designo_E320
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Mentioned: Post(s)
Quoted: Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcbear
There is a very big fuzzy line between Pakistani troops, Pakistani militia, Pakistani citizens who support the Taliban…
And that is EXACTLY why it would be a mistake for Bush to send in our troops unless he wanted them dead!
post #94 of 108 (permalink) Old 07-20-2007, 01:05 PM Thread Starter
DP
Moderator
 
DP's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2002
Vehicle: 190E, 400E, SLK350
Location: Chesapeak Bay
Posts: 64,125
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 991 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
(Thread Starter)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcbear
There is a very big fuzzy line between Pakistani troops, Pakistani militia, Pakistani citizens who support the Taliban…
That applies to Iraq too Have we learned anything?

DP is offline  
post #95 of 108 (permalink) Old 07-20-2007, 01:54 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 2014 E250 Bluetec 4-Matic, 1983 240D 4-Speed
Location: USA
Posts: 9,257
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Quoted: 256 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayhawk
I know you are desperate to "believe" that President Bush is the root of all evil and that he caused terrorism worldwide, but even an idiot like you has to know that this war is not of his making. The difference is that when the terrorists attacked us on 9/11 President Bush said we are going to return the favor by taking it to them--which he has done, in spades. I think they terribly underestimated what our response would be. Bush took it to a whole new level and that has produced shock and awe throughout the Muslim world--providing terrorists worldwide and liberals in the US w/ ammunition to personally attack the President of the United States. Everyone here and in the Muslim world (all over the world) was expecting a Clintonesque response--two missiles up a camel's ass.
Our response has been a futile thrashing about in the sand, at the expense of thousands of American soldiers' lives, tens of thousands of maiming injuries to American soldiers, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives and god knows how many Iraqi injuries, as well as the expense of hundreds of billions of dollars, rapidly approaching a trillion dollars, all to provide a net result of better trained and more capable Al-Qaeda fighters with broader world wide support than they had before 9-11-2001. All in all, a total, tragic failure. So, Bush didn't "start" the cycle, he merely poured gas on the fire and spread the problem far and wide. He is not the source of all evil as there are many ills in the world he could make worse if he got involved, but even he can only wreak so much havoc in two terms as President. Not to say he has reached his limit, but he seems to be focused on implementing a fatally flawed foreign policy and singlehandedly destroying our armed forces. I am sure if he got involved in more things to any degree he could ruin them too.

As for what Al-Qaeda might have expected for a response? You are right, they never thought they would hit the biggest Jackpot of all - a recruiting tool from Allah, the United States in a unilateral, unsupported and illegal invasion of a Middle Eastern country that is attracting thousands and thousands of young Muslim men to join Al-Qaeda and fight to repel the Yankee invaders.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayhawk
Well that isn't what happened, is it? And as a result is the terrorists--abroad and in this country--have jumped on the Bash Bush bandwagon--the terrorists abroad to inflict their brand of culture and religion on the world and the terrorist (sympathizers) here for purely partisan political reasons to destroy the President and win the WH and Congress in '08. Are you w/ me so far?
No, Jaybaugh, you are off your rocker. Bash Bush bandwagon? I have no idea what you are talking about. I have said many times, Bush is likely a decent guy if you meet him in a bar and have a few beers with him while you shoot the shit with him. But, just like most of the other guys in the bar, he is not qualified to be President of the United States.

It is Bush's policies that are damaging this country. Unfortunately he is unwilling to take any advice from anyone with a different view of the world. The one he has, apparently developed from long term watching of old Western movies, is not based on reality and is very obviously not working.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayhawk
As a result, the cockroaches are coming out of the "woodwork" here and abroad. At least the terrorists abroad have evil but "honest" reasons for their actions. The same cannot be said for the political partisans in this country. Their motives are equally evil, but politically motivated. Politics has twisted the fact that our enemies started this war long before 9/11. Terrorists bombed the World Trade Center in 1993. They hit the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia in 1996, U.S. Embassies in East Africa in 1998 and the USS Cole in 2000. All the while, Osama bin Laden was advocating war against the US and building a terror network from camps in Afghanistan.
And, in this America, we used to be capable of providing the proof we needed to take defensive actions that could not be construed otherwise. The Cuban Missile Crisis is a modern example. We had the Ruskies nailed and presented data to the UN that was damning for the Russian argument. In case you forgot, the invasion of Iraq was based on the declarations that the next evidence of Al-Qaeda's intent would be a mushroom cloud over some American city enabled by the close ties between Ossamma and the WMD developing and hoarding Saddam who had to be obsessed with taking America down. All of it, every shred of evidence, was fabricated. We have much greater monitoring capacity today than we did in the early 1960's, yet we didn't even use those resources to identify all these WMD stashes. Jaybaugh, when Bush failed to find WMD and began to change the reason for sending troops to Iraq he lost me. Before that I was sure he would never invade another country without solid, irrefutable evidence. When it became clear he lied, and then continued to bungle establishing a reasonable environment to foster a new government in Iraq, and lied about that, well, this American patriot concluded Bush and his team was either criminally motivated by greed and partisan politics. Your arguments carry the same stench.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayhawk
The most astonishing argument is the claim the US or the Bush administration is responsible for this terror wave. Terrorists are responsible for terror, period!
True, the terrorists are responsible for their actions, and, whether you can see this through your thick, malodorous, belligerent partisan politics, America is responsible for America's actions. We have taken a nation that was functional, perhaps not your favorite flavor of functional, and brought hell down upon it for no reason. And then you and your partisan dogs, including your adored President, have the gall to deny that is what happened. There is nothing more offensive than the philosophy of taking Iraq from what it was and turning it into a place for Bush to invite hordes of inhuman, vicious, hate filled religious fanatics to engage in ruthless fighting against each other and against America's presence in Iraq, so "we can fight them over there instead of fighting them over here." Why couldn't we just fight the people who attacked us and were being granted safe haven in Afghanistan? Why couldn't we just do the job by actually defeating the Taliban and capturing or killing Ossamma and his immediate chain of command?

We are responsible for the consequences of our actions. Regardless of what your poisoned partisan outlook might suggest.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayhawk
Only you ane Rosie believe President Bush started this ...
Be honest about this. Who said Bush "started" this? I think Bush has had the greatest hand in nurturing the horror we have on our hands now from the aftermath of unprecedented international support and sympathy after 9-11-2001. No small accomplishment - cost us thousands of soldiers and approaching a trillion dollars to turn most of the world into America haters from America worshipers. Just not what I wanted our President to do with the power and authority he has, in the name of the American people. But, you apparently find this a noble cause worth pushing further, essentially because of your partisan outlook, since that is the only thing that is consistent and verifiable in any of your posts - your partisan political agenda.

Jim
JimSmith is offline  
post #96 of 108 (permalink) Old 07-20-2007, 02:05 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 2014 E250 Bluetec 4-Matic, 1983 240D 4-Speed
Location: USA
Posts: 9,257
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Quoted: 256 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruce R.
What's even more ludicrous is your refusal to recall the events that DID happen, and that the previous administration refused to act on. What's clear Jim is that if the previous administration had acted decisively, and not only in a manner calculated to deceive the public we wouldn’t be in the place we are today. The only thing that is clear is that they dropped the ball far too many times to say that they were correct about anything.
Ah, the old stand by when you run out of real "points" to support your argument - Clinton! Clinton! Clinton!

What GWB did after 9-11-2001 has nothing to do with anything Clinton did or did not do. It is clear GWB's view of Saddam's WMD and Al-Qaeda connections, if Clinton shared them or not, resulted in a wildly unjustifiable response. Which displays a fundamental lack of judgement for a man empowered to be commander in chief of America's armed forces. Let's try to keep this on track. It is America's foreign policy under GWB that is the topic, and how that foreign policy is fatally flawed. Demonstrate how it is not, by discussing the features of the foreign policy that make it other than fatally flawed. Blaming Clinton does nothing but show you have nothing to say but don't know enough to shut the fuck up.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruce R.
Please point out where I stated anything about the Germans.
The French did not support the invasion because they didn’t want anyone to find out that they, along with the Germans, were helping to rearm Iraq. I guess you’ll say that didn’t happen either huh?
Your denial of events is just as ridicules to me as my supposed false recollections are to you…
So that's the reason the French did not support the invasion? You got that from the French or Rush Limbaugh? No one but the poor Brits supported the invasion, and at this point even the Brits don't want to be called on to defend the decision.

Sorry, I misread your post and added the Germans. In this instance, hey, Germans, French, what's the difference?

Jim
JimSmith is offline  
post #97 of 108 (permalink) Old 07-20-2007, 02:19 PM
Always Remembered RIP
 
cascade's Avatar
 
Date registered: Nov 2006
Vehicle: 1991 560SEC AMG
Location: Grass Valley, N. Calif. / Gardnerville, Nevada
Posts: 10,146
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to cascade
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayhawk
What would you know about "coherent arguments?"
Coming from you that would be a compliment. Thank you

Jim
<--- superschnelle 300 hp 10:1 ECE euro HV, Hochverdichtung = high compression (11/2011) ... Wie im Freien Fall. Nur horizontal.


"I swear to god, it's like I live in a trailer of common sense, and stare out the window at a tornado of stupidity." >'='<
cascade is offline  
post #98 of 108 (permalink) Old 07-20-2007, 02:54 PM
Designo_E320
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Mentioned: Post(s)
Quoted: Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimSmith

America is responsible for America's actions. We have taken a nation that was functional, perhaps not your favorite flavor of functional, and brought hell down upon it for no reason.......
There is nothing more offensive than the philosophy of taking Iraq from what it was and turning it into a place for Bush to invite hordes of inhuman, vicious, hate filled religious fanatics to engage in ruthless fighting against each other and against America's presence in Iraq, so "we can fight them over there instead of fighting them over here."

Jim
Another thing Jayhawk,
The sad thing is that after we have been defeated and our soldiers have come home with their tails in between their legs and humiliated, we WILL eventually have to AGAIN fight them OVER HERE on our soil IMO. Do you think that they would be all happy when we leave? NO. They will want to do the SAME thing to America as America has done to Iraq. (You couldn't blame them either) Ten to fisteen years down the road, the hundreds of thousands of children that Bush has now orphaned will mostly become mini-Osamas and they won't be planning on giving us a "Big Hug." Bush and his policies have created ANOTHER GENERATION of terrorists and in doing so has ALSO made the country more dangerous and unsafe for our children!
The only justice would be reparations to Iraqis, bringing all the orphans here to the States and placing them with MUSLIM families and them getting citizenship and free education through college, and restoring every bit of infrastructure. In addition, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the rest of the cronies should be turned over to the Iraqi people just as Saddam was and should be tried by their courts and punished according to their law, even it it means going to the exact same gallows as Saddam. Bush and CO have commited crimes against humanity and against ALL Iraqis and there is no excuse for the Holocaust that they have caused. EVEN THEN, Iraq and Iraqis would not have been compensated. There should be an international law against America being able to buy any Iraqi oil for the next 100 years as a punishment.
post #99 of 108 (permalink) Old 07-20-2007, 02:58 PM Thread Starter
DP
Moderator
 
DP's Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2002
Vehicle: 190E, 400E, SLK350
Location: Chesapeak Bay
Posts: 64,125
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 991 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
(Thread Starter)
And have them build a Muslim nation here? I don't think so!
What we need to do is butt out and then play fair with the Palestinian problem, that is all we owe them. I don't look forward to "athan" at 4:00AM near my house Designo

DP is offline  
post #100 of 108 (permalink) Old 07-20-2007, 03:09 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Bruce R.'s Avatar
 
Date registered: Aug 2002
Vehicle: 2002 SLK 32 AMG, bone stock. 1987 190E 2.3-16 valve (destroyed). 2005 E320 new toy.
Location: Near Washington, DC
Posts: 14,926
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 41 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimSmith
Ah, the old standby when you run out of real "points" to support your argument - Clinton! Clinton! Clinton!
What GWB did after 9-11-2001 has nothing to do with anything Clinton did or did not do. It is clear GWB's view of Saddam's WMD and Al-Qaeda connections, if Clinton shared them or not, resulted in a wildly unjustifiable response. Which displays a fundamental lack of judgment for a man empowered to be commander in chief of America's armed forces. Let's try to keep this on track. It is America's foreign policy under GWB that is the topic, and how that foreign policy is fatally flawed. Demonstrate how it is not, by discussing the features of the foreign policy that make it other than fatally flawed. Blaming Clinton does nothing but show you have nothing to say but don't know enough to shut the fuck up.
Blow that smoke up someone else’s butt Jim, it didn't work before, and it doesn't work now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimSmith
So that's the reason the French did not support the invasion? You got that from the French or Rush Limbaugh? No one but the poor Brits supported the invasion, and at this point even the Brits don't want to be called on to defend the decision.
I guess you're having trouble with comprehension again, let me reiterate:
The French did not support the invasion because they didn’t want anyone to find out that they, along with the Germans, were helping to rearm Iraq.
Proof? Go back in the archives of the New York Times, they are the ones that reported finding weapons dated AFTER Gulf War I

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimSmith
Sorry, I misread your post and added the Germans. In this instance, hey, Germans, French, what's the difference?
The Germans don’t have holes in their bayonets to stick a white flag through, the French do…………….

"Negotiating with Obama is like playing chess with a pigeon, the pigeon knocks over all the pieces, on the board and then struts around like it won the game."
Vladimir Putin

"They have gun control in Cuba. They have universal health care in Cuba. So why do they want to come here?"
Paul Harvey 8/31/94


"The only people who have quick answers don't have the responsibility of making the decisions."
Justice Clarence Thomas
Bruce R. is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  Mercedes-Benz Forum > General Mercedes-Benz Forums > Off-Topic

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Mercedes-Benz Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











  • Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
     
    Thread Tools
    Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
    Email this Page Email this Page
    Display Modes
    Linear Mode Linear Mode



    Similar Threads
    Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
    Lieberman's Demands for War in Iran are Cowardly GeeS Off-Topic 14 06-12-2007 07:28 AM
    Israel Threatens UN Peacekeepers rstone Off-Topic 12 08-09-2006 01:30 AM
    UN Demands Iran Suspend Nuke Program Qubes Off-Topic 17 08-01-2006 10:26 AM
    Murtha again demands withdrawl from Iraq FeelTheLove Off-Topic 9 01-16-2006 06:22 PM
    Need an intervention gerkebi W123 E,CE,D,CD,TD,TE Class 18 01-10-2006 08:43 PM

    Posting Rules  
    You may post new threads
    You may post replies
    You may not post attachments
    You may not edit your posts

    BB code is On
    Smilies are On
    [IMG] code is On
    HTML code is Off
    Trackbacks are On
    Pingbacks are On
    Refbacks are On

     

    Title goes here

    close
    video goes here
    description goes here. Read Full Story
    For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome