[version]

Of course, this is with the blessings of Musharrif. How long do you reckon till we see Bush telling us how the US must go into Pakistan to em, 'protect' them?

Bin Laden who was propped up by the US, and allowed to remain alive all these years despite nations such as Sudan wanting info. from the US to capture him, but were declined, and also the Taliban who offered to hand him over; and yet we see the bogeyman of Al-Qaedda being used as the instrument for US aggresion, invasion, and a free reign for them to go where they please

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...qaedaoffensive

[GG Allin]

Originally posted by version:
Of course, this is with the blessings of Musharrif. How long do you reckon till we see Bush telling us how the US must go into Pakistan to em, 'protect' them?

Oh hell, I give up. Let's just do it. Let's do it all. I'm serious. I have now switched sides in the war debate.

I want to go into each country and clean house. World War III. If were gonna do let's do it and get it over with!

I'll even enlist. I am bored as hell anyway. I need a mission. A purpose. Kill Who's with me?!

[daimoni]

No offense to my Pakistani friends, but I wouldn't mind somebody protecting us from Pakistan's government... or the lack thereof.

The problem is that our government is in bed with Pakistan's government. A cunning plan, huh?

It's worse than Bennifer.

[version]

I know, it's such a dubious intention. I've spent quite a bit of time in Pakistan, and to be honest, they are only a threat to themselves, no-one else. The US needs to control that country, for various reasons such as the oil pipeline into the Arabian sea, and also to, one day, move in and eliminate any Islamic opposition to the US, and its plans. It's so obvious, we'll see the citizens of Pakistam labeled as terrorists soon, if they 'aren't with em' (ie US.
It's all small moves at first, then the vulture will descend.

[Saddam H.]

Their western borderlands are a serious problem. It's like a house infested with cockroaches. They need someone to go in with serious firepower and wipe out that militant Islamic infestation.

[FeLiZeCaT]

Personally, I believe we should leave them alone.

Then, offer a helping hand, after they have an acceptable form of democratic election.

Whatever their religion.

In the meantime, the US could invade themselves if its government and army are so bored; I mean, when you deal with your neighbours problems, I suppose that's because you do not have any right?

Like since everything is fine at home, you should be able to lecture the others.... right?

;o)

I think once countries will clean home, put their affairs in order to the satisfaction of their inhabitants, they will only offer their help, and avoid lecturing others, simply because it seems to be quite an "introspective" and customized job...

[tie]

Originally posted by version:
Of course, this is with the blessings of Musharrif. How long do you reckon till we see Bush telling us how the US must go into Pakistan to em, 'protect' them?

Hopefully soon, since Pakistan is the one who gave (is giving?) nuclear weapons to everyone else. Also they sponsored the Taliban.

The doctrine of preemption is dead, since our intelligence agencies don't have any intelligence. But we can still go on punitive strikes.

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by tie:
Hopefully soon, since Pakistan is the one who gave (is giving?) nuclear weapons to everyone else. Also they sponsored the Taliban.

The doctrine of preemption is dead, since our intelligence agencies don't have any intelligence. But we can still go on punitive strikes.

Now that we have a base to work from, they
can all go to hell. Pick-em off one-by-one.

Buy-bye!

[olePigeon]

Originally posted by FeLiZeCaT:
Personally, I believe we should leave them alone.

Then, offer a helping hand, after they have an acceptable form of democratic election.

That's what we did in Hawai'i, Grenada, Cuba, Israel, Afghanistan, and the Philipines. Our helping hand is the CIA, and an acceptable form of democratic election is anyone who'll make us money.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
Now that we have a base to work from, they
can all go to hell. Pick-em off one-by-one.

Buy-bye!

From Sept. 16, 2003:

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
How would the neocons achieve their goals?

I envision a three prong approach...

prong one: control all three branches of the government, and the intel community. Rumsfeld has already created his "CIA within the CIA" group, and the office of Homeland Security puts everything under the purview of Tom Ridge. More and more power controlled by less and less people.

prong two: quell with extreme prejudice the rights of citizens to protest by removing their access to due process, paving the road for political prisoners, like there used to be in South Africa. Sure, now its "suspected" terrorists, but how long until its anyone who disagrees with the administration? without access to legal counsel, the outside world and being held indefinitely and executed without trial, the US will have the ability to "disappear" citizens who are vocally antiadministration, and there won't be any way to prevent it since it will all be done in secret, with no protections.

prong three: rubber stamp the middle east, and then the world, in the US image. with prongs one and two in place, prong three will proceed without interference.

I know I'm extrapolating a bit, but you have to admit, everything is heading in this direction.

now, how will we know this plan is in place, or working in the coming days?

--elimination of civil liberties, weakening the ability of the citizens to stop the juggernaut
-- reshaping of the present character of the checks and balances system (like trying to stop filibustering), in such a way to advantage the executive branch over the other branches.
-- More and more "disappeared" people, along with executions in Guantanamo.
--

Also look for:
-- scenario: Bush loses the popular vote, again, and wins the electoral vote, but the chasm is wider, making it obvious the electoral college has been manipulated.
-- the rescinding of the two term presidency.
-- the permanence of US bases in Iraq as a base of operations, with the dropping of the MOAB on Syria or Iran, to "make a strong case" for submission to the US.

[GG Allin]

Originally posted by olePigeon:
That's what we did in Hawai'i, Grenada, Cuba, Israel, Afghanistan, and the Philipines. Our helping hand is the CIA, and an acceptable form of democratic election is anyone who'll make us money.

With all the rational informed people in here now I am left wondering what my role is.

Who am I supposed to go off on now? I'm bored again. Just goes to show you; be careful what you wish for.

I hope you all represent a majority of the population. Who am I kidding.

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by Saddam H.:
Their western borderlands are a serious problem. It's like a house infested with cockroaches. They need someone to go in with serious firepower and wipe out that militant Islamic infestation.

..so that we can cry our hearts out again, when they fly another plane into one of our public buildings....

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
From Sept. 16, 2003:

wow, i didn't catch that one.

i agree with you 100%. i have also talked to several other people from various different countries (some of them even former politicians), and they all seem to agree that that is exactly what's going on...but not only in the us.

neoconservativism is the fascist imperialism of the 21st century. there is no doubt about it.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by phoenixboy:
wow, i didn't catch that one.

i agree with you 100%. i have also talked to several other people from various different countries (some of them even former politicians), and they all seem to agree that that is exactly what's going on...but not only in the us.

neoconservativism is the fascist imperialism of the 21st century. there is no doubt about it.

but what is intriguing, is that they have successfully become a parasite on the republican party, and have coerced the host organism into adopting willingly policies that are diametrically opposed to traditional republican platforms of fiscal responsibility, smaller government, isolationism and free trade.
Not only have they coopted the GOP, they've made the GOP not only accept but champion the neocon cause, and vociferously defend it against anyone who mentions the word "neocon".

What you see is the repubs will first deny there are neocons at all, then when you show them there are, they deny their influence completely, then when you point out the neocon disciples entrenched in the administration, they deny the influence is that great, and then when you point out the neocon agenda and the administration agenda match exactly, they go back to denying there are actually neocons.

Its an interesting phenomenon. If you're interested, I made this side by side comparison of the latest SOTU speech and the Project for a New American Century Manifesto:

this link downloads the pdf

[Saddam H.]

Originally posted by phoenixboy:
..so that we can cry our hearts out again, when they fly another plane into one of our public buildings....

Kill or be killed. I'd be happy to put an AK-74 round right through Osama's skull.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Saddam H.:
Kill or be killed. I'd be happy to put an AK-74 round right through Osama's skull.

maybe you should find him first.

[swrate]

Originally posted by Saddam H.:
Kill or be killed. I'd be happy to put an AK-74 round right through Osama's skull.

did you ever read the ESTABLISHMENT OF A NUCLEAR-WEAPON-FREE ZONE IN THE REGION
OF THE MIDDLE EAST
Report of the Secretary-General, you signed it if I am wrong,
but the clauses in it were not fulfilled by some other part.


bomb the PAK NUKES? lol
what next???? do you know exactly how much they have????

[eklipse]

Does this mean Bush now knows the name of the Pakistani president? - Or is it still just 'General'?

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by eklipse:
Does this mean Bush now knows the name of the Pakistani president? - Or is it still just 'General'?

He will be briefed just prior to the SotU Address in which he announces the bombing.

-s*

[Fanatic]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
He will be briefed just prior to the SotU Address in which he announces the bombing.

-s*

And yet, he will still stumble over the pronunciation.

[Saddam H.]

Originally posted by swrate:
did you ever read the ESTABLISHMENT OF A NUCLEAR-WEAPON-FREE ZONE IN THE REGION
OF THE MIDDLE EAST
Report of the Secretary-General, you signed it if I am wrong,
but the clauses in it were not fulfilled by some other part.


bomb the PAK NUKES? lol
what next???? do you know exactly how much they have????

As usual to your posts, I say, 'Huh?'

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Fanatic:
And yet, he will still stumble over the pronunciation.

It will probably sound suspiciously like "Omar Sharif"....

On a different note: A top Pakistani nuclear scientist has exculpated Musharraf of any responsibility for the sale of nuclear information to Iran, Libya, and North Korea.

Abdul Qadeer Khan met President Pervez Musharraf on Wednesday and later went on TV to accept full responsibility for all nuclear transfers.

Dr Khan, regarded as a national hero, told the nation he had acted without authorisation and begged forgiveness.

-s*

[Twilly Spree]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
He will be briefed just prior to the SotU Address in which he announces the bombing.

-s*

Shadows of the Undrentide

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
It will probably sound suspiciously like "Omar Sharif"....

On a different note: A top Pakistani nuclear scientist has exculpated Musharraf of any responsibility for the sale of nuclear information to Iran, Libya, and North Korea.


-s*

"Fall Guy" was a great tv show with Lee Majors.
Hmmmm...dunno why that suddenly popped into my head.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
"Fall Guy" was a great tv show with Lee Majors.
Hmmmm...dunno why that suddenly popped into my head.

"'Cuz I'm the unknown stuntman/That made Pervez such a czar."

-s*

[macvillage.net]

Problem with going in is that it would open a can of worms we *don't* want.


Remember Pakistan is a nuclear-nation. It's also slightly volitile.

Going in, would have very serious implications, mainly the fall of the Pakistani government. A major fear during the Afgan campaign.

If Pakistan were to fall, there is a signifigant risk of nuclear weapons falling into the wrong hands.

THAT is a giant risk.


So far, Pakistan has been able to aid us, while still ensuring it's stability and security.

But how could such an operation be done, and keep the current government in place? They would clearly be overthrown if it happened. Otherwise, it would have been done years ago. Remember that same area has been plaguing the Pakistani government for years as well. Most of the fugitives in that nation, as well as the ones most prone to overthrow reside there.


The risk of nuclear weapons falling into the wrong hands exist. How do you secure an entire nation?

We can't even keep Iraq secure. How do we handle yet another nation?


I agree there's a problem in that region. Pakistan does as well. But nobody has said how you secure the Pakistani government's power? They aren't going to use them, they are a mere deterent. But their opposition would be VERY willing to use it. Especially on the US, and it's allies.


Sounds like a March into the firey pits of hell.


Going into Pakistan, means that the oppoisiton is going to need to take new steps to secure it's place. Gaining those weapons would do so.

Also, us going in, would tip the scale of US opinion in Pakistan. Something that so far has been ever so slightly in our favor.


This is like democrats bombing the whitehouse to win the election. It's the wrong method for the problem.

Ideally, the US should have been working for 2 years already, to train and equip the Pakistani military to do this job.

That would ensure longterm security of it's government (secure those nukes), make another secure nation in the region, and cleanup that corner of their country.

USA going in there will be a real mess. it's a place where we really don't need to be. There's nothing we would accomplish besides causing instability and trouble.

That's the complete opposite of what's in the best intrest for ourselves, as well as the region.

[Ayelbourne]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
"'Cuz I'm the unknown stuntman/That made Pervez such a czar."

-s*

Heh - I just busted out laughing at that one, SH!

And now I have that damned song in my head, ya bastid!

[GG Allin]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
"'Cuz I'm the unknown stuntman/That made Pervez such a czar."

-s*

So who was Pervez? Did Majors sing that song? Who did?

Man everybody wanted to be Burt Reynolds. Smokey And The Bandit. Best movie ever.

OMG we went from war in Pakistan to Smokey And The Bandit.

Sorry.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by GG Allin:
So who was Pervez? Did Majors sing that song? Who did?

Man everybody wanted to be Burt Reynolds. Smokey And The Bandit. Best movie ever.

OMG we went from war in Pakistan to Smokey And The Bandit.

Sorry.

*psst*

"Pervez" is Musharraf's first name.

Lee Majors sang the song.

The original line is "I'm the unknown stuntman/That made Redford such a star."

-s*

[GG Allin]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
*psst*

"Pervez" is Musharraf's first name.

Lee Majors sang the song.

The original line is "I'm the unknown stuntman/That made Redford such a star."

-s*

My friends always tell me how slow I am to get a joke. I guess I think to literally.

Now it is funny!

[tie]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Problem with going in is that it would open a can of worms we *don't* want.
...
That's the complete opposite of what's in the best intrest for ourselves, as well as the region.

Didn't that all apply to Iraq as well? We were able to secure Iraq's WMD arsenal without them being used or dispersed, and I'm sure we will be equally capable in our military action in Pakistan.

Simey, where are you? Help me out here!

[FeLiZeCaT]

Actually, you NEVER attack a country with WMDs.

period.

you could get hurt.


Ideally, you attack a country with a very tired and underequiped army.

If possible, you make sure they engage with a neighbour before hand as well, to ensure a good stretch of their resources.

THEN you go for the kill.

Then, you can go home with a minimum of losses. hopefully.

Especially if you hope for the a winning on the next elections.

Note: this is sarcasm.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by tie:
Didn't that all apply to Iraq as well? We were able to secure Iraq's WMD arsenal without them being used or dispersed

secured what? we couldn't find it in the first place to secure it in the second place. BECAUSE IT WASN'T THERE!

(all caps here not signifying anger but incredulity)

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by tie:
Didn't that all apply to Iraq as well? We were able to secure Iraq's WMD arsenal without them being used or dispersed, and I'm sure we will be equally capable in our military action in Pakistan.

Simey, where are you? Help me out here!

Lerkfish hit it right on the head.

What was there to secure?

Even Bush never said they had Nukes. Bush said they had an advanced nuclear program (developing). Bush did mention that there were bio/chem weapons. None of which have been proven yet.


And if they really exist like the Whitehouse claims... that's legitimate proof that we are NOT capable of securing them.


Nor is there *any* evidence that we could ensure the safety of the Pakistani government. Which is crucial to the security of the region.


The only reason Pakistan doesn't tame the region itself is because it would cause to much instability.

Any attempt at this time, will lead to an uprising that Pakistan can't handle.

The instability would cause other countries such as Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and others whom have cooperated with us in the region to reconsider any cooperation.

50% cooperation is always better than 0%.



I don't see any explanation of why 0% cooperation from the region is better than >0% cooperation.

AFAIK, it would be better to have them working with us, and us working with them... Rather than generating yet another rift in the global relations we enguage in.

It's not wise to turn crucial allies against us. Pakistan is perhaps the best country to have cooperating with us:

- Secure the nukes, and avoid problems in the region.
- Has adequate intelegence, and welcomes ours to gain insight into the regions groups
- Perfect location
- Willing to aid, in return for security from the US.

The PM has been walking a thin line. Steps one way, and Bush barks at him. Step the other way, and be overthrown.

The fact that he's still in power is a good thing. He's not going to use his nukes, and he's willing to cooperate with the US. His goal is to improve his country (wants more trade with the US), and security.


Destabilizing the region does nothing to benefit us. That's what caused problems in the first place.

[Spliffdaddy]

huh?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
huh?

except for the percentages, I thought the post was pretty clear. What part went over your head?

[dialo]

The big concern is whether Musharraf can withstand the backlash from this attack. Apparently steps are being taken to ensure he makes it through this, but this will certainly be a struggle. First you have the recent assasination attempts, now followed by what good chunks of the pakistani public see as attacks on national heros with the investigations into nuclear scientists.

I have not heard about who the US has decided to push into his place in case anything happens, but it would be very interesting to know.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by dialo:
The big concern is whether Musharraf can withstand the backlash from this attack. Apparently steps are being taken to ensure he makes it through this, but this will certainly be a struggle. First you have the recent assasination attempts, now followed by what good chunks of the pakistani public see as attacks on national heros with the investigations into nuclear scientists.

I have not heard about who the US has decided to push into his place in case anything happens, but it would be very interesting to know.

Problem is he's barely surviving now. He's had multiple attempts on his life, and his military is reported to have destroyed multiple coup attempts.

HIS death would be the most pivital of any leader at this point. He goes, the region will turn sour.

It's clear he doesn't want violence. In his country, or any other. He's got the power/resources to cause it if he wanted. Instead he's looking for forward progress, peace, and relations with the west, including the US.


He goes, and the region will be in serious trouble. Nuclear weapons available to fall into the wrong hands, India overreaching it's boundries, angry muslim countries, hesitant countries no longer willing to work with the US.


We have all to loose, and nothing to gain.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
He goes, and the region will be in serious trouble. Nuclear weapons available to fall into the wrong hands, India overreaching it's boundries, angry muslim countries, hesitant countries no longer willing to work with the US.

And how is this different than the status quo?

While Saddam was brutally murdering and eliminating radical Islamists, Musharraf coddles them and gives them free reign over big swaths of the country.

While Iraq was dismantling his WMDs and programs in the hopes of getting the UN off his back (albeit with the long term plan of starting them up again once free), Pakistan was selling nuclear technology to anyone willing to buy it.

Ironically, reports now indicate that Pakistan tried to sell uranium enrichmnet technology to Iraq but Iraq turned them down out of fear they were being set up.

Can someone please tell me again how Bush's "bold new strategy" on the War on Terror is different than the old decadent strategy of coddling dictators who play ball, allowing proliferation when it profits us, and pursuing gross injustice against the weakest and poorest of Arab states in our never-ending quest to be the most hated nation on Earth?

The more things change, the more they stay the same. Too bad we all have to repeat all the history that Bush didn't learn while he was snorting coke, playing golf and bankrupting his oil company in the 70's and 80's.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
And how is this different than the status quo?

While Saddam was brutally murdering and eliminating radical Islamists, Musharraf coddles them and gives them free reign over big swaths of the country.

Pakistan has also turned in many radicals, as well as tried some themselves.

Remember, we harbor quite a few criminals wanted in other countries for various crimes. Every country does. How are we different? Why can't someone enter the US and take back their fugitives? We have many wanted to stand trial in their home countries for crimes.

Covered by status quo?

While Iraq was dismantling his WMDs and programs in the hopes of getting the UN off his back (albeit with the long term plan of starting them up again once free), Pakistan was selling nuclear technology to anyone willing to buy it.

That was 1 scientist. If you recall correctly, we've had our scientists do the same in the past. Nothing unique here.

Ironically, reports now indicate that Pakistan tried to sell uranium enrichmnet technology to Iraq but Iraq turned them down out of fear they were being set up.

Heard that too, but nothing more than speculation, so not really something we could fairly comment on.

Can someone please tell me again how Bush's "bold new strategy" on the War on Terror is different than the old decadent strategy of coddling dictators who play ball, allowing proliferation when it profits us, and pursuing gross injustice against the weakest and poorest of Arab states in our never-ending quest to be the most hated nation on Earth?

The more things change, the more they stay the same. Too bad we all have to repeat all the history that Bush didn't learn while he was snorting coke, playing golf and bankrupting his oil company in the 70's and 80's.

I agree.



My biggest fear is that it's clear we are paving the way for 9/11 2.0. It's clear this is what's happening. Even terror groups are saying this. Conditions are worse now, than pre 9/11. That's well understood. Terrorists now have more motivation than ever.

I just wish Bush would do things in *HIS* name, rather than as "America", that way, perhaps Terrorists go after him personally, rather than John Doe, just going to work so he can feed his family.

If Bush has a personal hatred he can't control, let him conduct it in a way only puts himself at risk.


There's really no advantage to going in. All we would do is cause instabillity and create yet another haven for terrorists.

Iraq is now the new luxury community for terrorists. Now that it's virtually lawless, it's easy there. That's why they are flocking to Iraq.


The best thing for the US, would be to build allies in the region. The more we have, the less allies the terrorists have.

Encourging the region to believe that the US wants to cause chaios, death and instabillity is asking for trouble.

Remove the cause, and the effect doesn't exist.

Create a cause, and there will always be an effect. It's a reflex.

[gadster]

Originally posted by Saddam H.:
Their western borderlands are a serious problem. It's like a house infested with cockroaches. They need someone to go in with serious firepower and wipe out that militant Islamic infestation.

Let's see how you like it: Their eastern borderlands are a serious problem. It's like a house infested with cockroaches. They need someone to go in with serious firepower and wipe out that militant Jewish infestation.

[gadster]

Originally posted by Saddam H.:
Kill or be killed. I'd be happy to put an AK-74 round right through Osama's skull.

And again, let's see how you like it. Kill or be killed. I'd be happy to put an AK-74 round right through Sharon's skull.

[macvillage.net]

I'd like to tie them back to back, so I only waste 1 bullet and get it through both of them.

Then we can create some peace.