Why no, we dont need your permission...

[[GH-SC]Ryctor]

U.S. strikes within Pakistan — without notice (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23228197/)

In the predawn hours of Jan. 29, a CIA Predator aircraft flew in a slow arc above the Pakistani town of Mir Ali. The drone's operator, relying on information secretly passed to the CIA by local informants, clicked a computer mouse and sent the first of two Hellfire missiles hurtling toward a cluster of mud-brick buildings a few miles from the town center.

The missiles killed Abu Laith al-Libi, a senior al-Qaeda commander and a man who had repeatedly eluded the CIA's dragnet. It was the first successful strike against al-Qaeda's core leadership in two years, and it involved, U.S. officials say, an unusual degree of autonomy by the CIA inside Pakistan.

Having requested the Pakistani government's official permission for such strikes on previous occasions, only to be put off or turned down, this time the U.S. spy agency did not seek approval. The government of Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf was notified only as the operation was underway, according to the officials, who insisted on anonymity because of diplomatic sensitivities.

You can now go fuck yourself Pakistan. Enjoy us doing shit without seeking your approval from now on.

[JediSanf]

Good. The ISI (Pakistan's CIA) is rogue and the most likely candidate to be harboring al-Qaeda in the foothills, including bin-Laden if he's still alive.

Edit: My knowledge of Pakistani political geography is next to non-existent but everything I've read suggests the ISI is sixteen kinds of shady.

[Yellowman]

LOL if you want to find the fastest way to get nuclear materials into the hands of Al Qaeda, piss off Pakistan...

[Johan]

LOL if you want to find the fastest way to get nuclear materials into the hands of Al Qaeda, piss off Pakistan...

Preach it!

I mean, giving them billions and trying to snuggle up has helped prevent Pakistan's pimping of nuclear materials and/or technology to the highest bidder pretty well, right?

/sarcasm (see: N. Korea, Libya, Syria, et al).

[H.Bogard]

Yeah, it'd be nice if one of those planes get shot down one day.

[roboninja]

Ryctor;1275154']U.S. strikes within Pakistan — without notice (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23228197/)



You can now go fuck yourself Pakistan. Enjoy us doing shit without seeking your approval from now on.

Ahh, I love the smell of moral superiority in the morning!

[Heretic Machine]

LOL if you want to find the fastest way to get nuclear materials into the hands of Al Qaeda, piss off Pakistan...

Like they wouldn't give it to them anyway. Fuck Pakistan, hell if we had asked them for permission they'd probably of given these guys the heads up before hand.

[DangerousDaze]

I can't think for the life of me where the US gets this reputation of arrogance from. :confused: BTW, this isn't just a bunch of hapless towel-heads you're dealing with here. They're a nuclear power. But, whatever, you know best, right?

[mr. murphy]

If Pakistan is gonna be a bunch of jerks we're gonna get all up in their shit. Whut.

[Heretic Machine]

I can't think for the life of me where the US gets this reputation of arrogance from. :confused: BTW, this isn't just a bunch of hapless towel-heads you're dealing with here. They're a nuclear power. But, whatever, you know best, right?

And just what do you think they're going to do about it? Yeah, they're nuclear power, do you think they're going to nuke us? I seriously doubt it.

[DangerousDaze]

And just what do you think they're going to do about it? Yeah, they're nuclear power, do you think they're going to nuke us? I seriously doubt it.

I forgot the "might is right" policy. My mistake. Go ahead and bomb whoever the fuck you please but don't be surprised if you lose a few more skyscrapers.

[AspectVoid]

I can't think for the life of me where the US gets this reputation of arrogance from. :confused: BTW, this isn't just a bunch of hapless towel-heads you're dealing with here. They're a nuclear power. But, whatever, you know best, right?

They're a nuclear power without a delivery system. What are they gonna do, Fed Ex the nuke to us?

Okay, with crappy jokes aside, I think its wrong to strike a foreign country without their permission. If Russia or England or someone did that to the US, I would consider it an act of war, so I have to see this the same way. This is just another reason that we have to get Bush out of the White House.

[Yellowman]

Preach it!

I mean, giving them billions and trying to snuggle up has helped prevent Pakistan's pimping of nuclear materials and/or technology to the highest bidder pretty well, right?

/sarcasm (see: N. Korea, Libya, Syria, et al).

Yes I know they gave nuclear materials to those countries, but not to Al Qaeda. Although to be fair I guess Al Qaeda never bothered to ask since they will probably end up controlling Pakistan. Musharraf will be out on his ass fairly soon after that election result and then the shit is really going to hit the fan.

I am not against you on this one Johan, I think the Pakistan situation needs to be dealt with. But nuclear weapons really do change everything.

[Heretic Machine]

Yes I know they gave nuclear materials to those countries, but not to Al Qaeda. Although to be fair I guess Al Qaeda never asked since they will probably control Pakistan pretty soon.

I am not against you on this one Johan, I think the Pakistan situation needs to be dealt with. But nuclear weapons really do change everything.

How do you know that they haven't given Al Qaeda nuclear materials? You can't know that, no one can except them and the terrorists.

[Ludoc]

Somewhere in an office:

CIA Guy: Hey, why don't we piss off the one country in the region that doesn't officially hate us?

State Department Guy: I don't think that's a good idea, they're already pretty unstable. This could be the catalyst that finally drives them over the edge into a violent revolution creating another Iran. Perhaps we should see if there is...

CIA Guy: What's that? I wasn't listening, I was too busy launching these bombs.

[Yellowman]

How do you know that they haven't given Al Qaeda nuclear materials? You can't know that, no one can except them and the terrorists.

True, but I would expect them to have made some sort of move if they had ready access to nuclear materials. Plus Musharraf's weakness in government means he really can't afford to lose American support at this stage so it's unlikely he'd make a bold move like that...

[Sl1pstream]

One more year, what can we do to fuck things up even more?

Horribly bad idea. We'll see what comes next. Whatever it is, it can't be good.

[DangerousDaze]

How do you know that they haven't given Al Qaeda nuclear materials? You can't know that, no one can except them and the terrorists.

Let's focus on something we do know then instead of worrying about things that happen in your imagination. We know that the CIA, the same CIA who executed the Pakistani bombing raid, can't read a map (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,24838,00.html) and would be absolutely useless in a "pin the tail on the donkey" competition:The first mistake occurred when the CIA took the right address and thumbtacked it to the wrong building on a Pentagon-drafted 1997 mapStill think it's a good idea to go bombing nuclear powers without at least checking everything's ok first? I mean, a Chinese embassy for Chrissakes!

[Heretic Machine]

Still think it's a good idea to go bombing nuclear powers without at least checking everything's ok first?

Did you miss that section in red up there in the original post? We tried playing nice, they weren't co-operative. That leaves us two options: Do what we need to do and ignore the Pakistanis; or let the terrorists have a haven where we absolutely cannot touch them.

[Yellowman]

Did you miss that section in red up there in the original post? We tried playing nice, they weren't co-operative. That leaves us two options: Do what we need to do and ignore the Pakistanis; or let the terrorists have a haven where we absolutely cannot touch them.

It's all very well saying this but Pakistan is a very unstable region with a simmering anti-American nationalism, a very weak government and nuclear capabilities. Ignoring their sovereignty is unlikely to aide that situation, I know you Yanks like to solve problems by going in and shooting as many people as possible but doing so in this situation could provoke a nuclear exchange...

[DangerousDaze]

Did you miss that section in red up there in the original post? We tried playing nice, they weren't co-operative. That leaves us two options: Do what we need to do and ignore the Pakistanis; or let the terrorists have a haven where we absolutely cannot touch them.

No, I read it all right. When a country tells you not to bomb inside their borders, you don't bomb inside their borders whether you want to or not!

[Wraith]

From the article, the unmanned plane was launched from a base within Pakistan, and that launches from that base don't require governmental approval. The strike killed "as many as 13 inhabitants." After investing how many millions of dollars and man-hours on surveillance, and you find a high-profile terrorist target that can be taken out with a minimum of effort and casualties, how do you not take that opportunity? What if it had been an even more important target? Do we sit and wring our hands for days, hoping that the target doesn't evade surveillance AND that the Pakistanis give us a big ol' thumbs up?

From the article, it sounds like there hasn't been any outcry by the Pakistani government over the incident.

[Yellowman]

From the article, it sounds like there hasn't been any outcry by the Pakistani government over the incident.

Probably because they are too busy forming a new one. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7253280.stm) This is almost front page news in the UK, are US news agencies covering it?

[DangerousDaze]

From the article, it sounds like there hasn't been any outcry by the Pakistani government over the incident.

I suspect it has bigger fish to fry right now, but don't rely on that always being the case. Killing foreign nationals inside their own borders without permission is not a habit you should be forming. You're already about as popular as a reggae band at a KKK meeting. ;)

[[GH-SC]Ryctor]

This thread needs more American hate. Where's Beelzebub or Irish when you need them...

[xcalibur]

Buncha drama queens in this thread. I don't see the Pakistanis, the country that the incident actually took place in, bitching about it.

Good point above, though. If it had been Bin-Laden himself, should we have just let him go?


-X

[chirz]

Yes! While I'm extremely weary of the CIA and intelligence that relies on bribed natives, I am also very pro executing mass murdering terrorists.

[Crash_69]

Is this part of Bush's master plan to totally fuck whoever is taking over next?

[Wraith]

I suspect it has bigger fish to fry right now, but don't rely on that always being the case. Killing foreign nationals inside their own borders without permission is not a habit you should be forming. You're already about as popular as a reggae band at a KKK meeting. ;)Well, I don't really know what other options are going to work in this situation. What should we have done? Not acting means the target escapes, right?

If we could call up the Pakistani government, say "hey, you've got a terrorist leader at longitude x and latitude y," and they say "hey, thanks, we'll take action right away," that'd be great. But that's not the situation we're in.

[fitbabits]

Good point above, though. If it had been Bin-Laden himself, should we have just let him go?
It wasn't, so your question is moot.

Besides, the US let him get away before - why not let him get away again? Eliminating Bin Laden doesn't solve the problem, not by any stretch of the imagination.

[bKangy]

When you start bombing countries after they ask you not to, you start to create resentment and extremism with the people. It's a shitty idea and if it happens too much you'll pay the price.

[xcalibur]

It wasn't, so your question is moot.

Besides, the US let him get away before - why not let him get away again. Eliminating Bun Laden doesn't solve the problem, not by any stretch of the imagination.

So if it was Bin-Laden then it would be ok, but because it was only a Senior Al-Qaeda Commander, we should let him go? Gotcha.


-X

[fitbabits]

So if it was Bin-Laden then it would be ok, but because it was only a Senior Al-Qaeda Commander, we should let him go? Gotcha.


-X

Wow... Try reading my quote again, preferably when you get off your soapbox.

[xcalibur]

Asking a question = soapbox? Ok.

Yes, killing Bin-Laden wouldn't magically fix things. But it would be one less terrorist in the world, and would help weaken Al Qaeda. Seems like a win-win to me. *shrug*


-X

[H.Bogard]

... but don't be surprised if you lose a few more skyscrapers.


Not to mention unwilling soldiers in battle.

[Morangie]

Asking a question = soapbox? Ok.

Yes, killing Bin-Laden wouldn't magically fix things. But it would be one less terrorist in the world, and would help weaken Al Qaeda. Seems like a win-win to me. *shrug*


-X
One less terrorist, 10 more terrorist recruits for attacking within Pakistan's borders without permission.

Win win indeed.

[fitbabits]

Asking a question = soapbox? Ok.

Yes, killing Bin-Laden wouldn't magically fix things. But it would be one less terrorist in the world, and would help weaken Al Qaeda. Seems like a win-win to me. *shrug*


-X
Your sanctimonious tone is what I was referring to.

Oh, and if you think killing Bin Laden would somehow magically weaken Al Qaeda, then you're simply not paying attention. In the short term, it would be a PR hit for Al Qaeda, but I'm willing to bet my nuts that he's not the only one planning and plotting on behalf of the organization. If anything, it would embolden sympathetic factions all round the world.

Remember, Al Qaeda is more than Bin Laden - it's an ideal. A way of life for many, many people. Something worth dying for.

[duff himself]

guilty until you are proven innocent... right, isn't that how it works?

[xcalibur]

Your sanctimonious tone is what I was referring to.

Oh, and if you think killing Bin Laden would somehow magically weaken Al Qaeda, then you're simply not paying attention. In the short term, it would be a PR hit for Al Qaeda, but I'm willing to bet my nuts that he's not the only one planning and plotting on behalf of the organization. If anything, it would embolden sympathetic factions all round the world.

Remember, Al Qaeda is more than Bin Laden - it's an ideal. A way of life for many, many people. Something worth dying for.

So what do you propose then? Should we not target and take out leaders of Al Qaeda when the (rare) opportunities arise? Do we just throw our hands up in the air and give up? I honestly want to know what you people think we should do about this.

-X

[fitbabits]

guilty until you are proven innocent... right, isn't that how it works?

In the Middle East, yes.

[Roc Ingersol]

Al Qaeda is bad.
But you need to keep them in their proper context: instability in Pakistan is far worse.

[xcalibur]

Please tell me I am wrong, but am I detecting sympathy for terrorists in some of these posts? I hope not, but that would certainly explain alot of the situation the US (and the world) is in nowadays relating to terrorism.


-X

[fitbabits]

So what do you propose then? Should we not target and take out leaders of Al Qaeda when the (rare) opportunities arise? Do we just throw our hands up in the air and give up? I honestly want to know what you people think we should do about this.

-X

Of course we don't, but why expend the resources on one 'target' and not redouble our efforts on the underlying problem?

And that doesn't even begin to touch on the negative impact such targeted assaults have on our traditional 'allies'. We risk losing the cooperation (such as it is) of these allies by acting recklessly going after one target when their are much bigger fish to fry.

[Sl1pstream]

Please tell me I am wrong, but am I detecting sympathy for terrorists in some of these posts? I hope not, but that would certainly explain alot of the situation the US (and the world) is in nowadays relating to terrorism.


-X

Either you're with us (and every stupid move we make), or you're with the terrorists. Great tactic there.

If another country pulled this against a target residing in the US that got US protection, this would be war. Why is it okay to do this the other way around? Sure, he's a terrorist and should be executed (even though that's not going to do a thing to get rid of the organization as a whole), there are ways to do that without launching an attack in a foreign country.

[asimonk]

Ugh. I'm going to hold off any comments.

However, this does seem ironically appropriate, at least in the context...

MSDFzAqss7Y

[fitbabits]

Please tell me I am wrong, but am I detecting sympathy for terrorists in some of these posts? I hope not, but that would certainly explain alot of the situation the US (and the world) is in nowadays relating to terrorism.


-X

If you're detecting that in this thread, then you're doing so because that's what you WANT to see. Nobody here has shown any sympathy for terrorists.

Suggesting the US (and the rest of the world) is sympathetic to terrorists could be seen as a sign of naivety in your own beliefs. There's more to defeating terrorism (and the ideals that foster hatred) than eliminating a few talking heads, no matter how powerful they are.

Let's turn the tables a bit and ask a hypothetical question:

The US president is assassinated by a terrorist (from anywhere). Does that make the US weaker or stronger?

[xcalibur]

Either you're with us (and every stupid move we make), or you're with the terrorists. Great tactic there.

If another country pulled this against a target residing in the US that got US protection, this would be war. Why is it okay to do this the other way around?

I doubt it would be war. That is a bit of an exaggeration.

That being said, where is the Pakistani govt. anger at this event, or is there none? Any links to Pakistani govt. expressing their outrage at this, or is it just other media outlets making a stink out of it?


-X

[Sl1pstream]

I doubt it would be war. That is a bit of an exaggeration.

Are you joking? An Iranian attack on US soil wouldn't be responded to with war?

[xcalibur]

If you're detecting that in this thread, then you're doing so because that's what you WANT to see. Nobody here has shown any sympathy for terrorists.

Suggesting the US (and the rest of the world) is sympathetic to terrorists could be seen as a sign of naivety in your own beliefs. There's more to defeating terrorism (and the ideals that foster hatred) than eliminating a few talking heads, no matter how powerful they are.

Let's turn the tables a bit and ask a hypothetical question:

The US president is assassinated by a terrorist (from anywhere). Does that make the US weaker or stronger?

What was the "guilty until proven innocent" line implying?


-X

[xcalibur]

Are you joking? An Iranian attack on US soil wouldn't be responded to with war?

Not a valid comparison. US and Iran are enemies nowadays. US and Pakistan are (supposedly) allies. A more valid comparison would be Britain taking out someone on US soil. In that case, no there would not be war, imho.


_X

[Oxonian]

If another country pulled this against a target residing in the US that got US protection, this would be war. Why is it okay to do this the other way around?
First, while countries tend to be rather displeased when foreign powers tamper with people inside their borders, that doesn't necessarily mean war. The KGB, a hostile power, assassinated people living in the U.S. and the U.K. during the Cold War. We presumably did the same in the Soviet Union (at least I hope we did).

Second, if Pakistan was actively extending "protection" to members of al-Qaeda as you suggest, that would at the very least place Pakistan in the category of "irritating," if not actively hostile or in a state of de facto limited war. That's pretty much what the Taliban did, and many countries (including Belgium) have deemed that sufficient cause to invade and occupy Afghanistan.

[fitbabits]

What was the "guilty until proven innocent" line implying?


-X

I didn't make that comment, so you should address your question to the person who did.

I did, however, say that it appears to be the case in the Middle East. What that what you were asking?

[xcalibur]

I didn't make that comment, so you should address your question to the person who did.

I did, however, say that it appears to be the case in the Middle East. What that what you were asking?

Those 2 comments, in particular, yes. Like I said, please tell me I am reading too much into those comments. It came across to me like killing terrorists is wrong.


-X

[Devilturnip]

First, while countries tend to be rather displeased when foreign powers tamper with people inside their borders, that doesn't necessarily mean war. The KGB, a hostile power, assassinated people living in the U.S. and the U.K. during the Cold War. We presumably did the same in the Soviet Union (at least I hope we did).

There's a huge difference between assassination and cruise missiles. If the Soviets had dropped a couple of cruise missiles into upstate New York, you honestly think that wouldn't have touched off a hot war?

Second, if Pakistan was actively extending "protection" to members of al-Qaeda as you suggest, that would at the very least place Pakistan in the category of "irritating," if not actively hostile or in a state of de facto limited war. That's pretty much what the Taliban did, and many countries (including Belgium) have deemed that sufficient cause to invade and occupy Afghanistan.

Funny, I thought Pakistan was an ally. It's a pretty sorry state of affairs if we're in a de facto war with our allies.

[fitbabits]

Those 2 comments, in particular, yes. Like I said, please tell me I am reading too much into those comments. It came across to me like killing terrorists is wrong.


-X

You are reading too much into them, perhaps because you're being blinded by your own beliefs. Try to look at it objectively instead.

I have absolutely NO sympathy for terrorists, state funded or not.

[xcalibur]

You are reading too much into them, perhaps because you're being blinded by your own beliefs. Try to look at it objectively instead.

I have absolutely NO sympathy for terrorists, state funded or not.

My only "beliefs" regarding the issue is that terrorists are bad and should be dealt with. Not sure how that would be blinding.

I inferred from those comments, that the terrorist killed in this action might actually be a good, innocent guy, and that by taking him out the US was in the wrong because he had not been tried in a court of law to be found guilty first. How else should the comments be interpreted?


-X

[Oxonian]

There's a huge difference between assassination and cruise missiles. If the Soviets had dropped a couple of cruise missiles into upstate New York, you honestly think that wouldn't have touched off a hot war?
The only difference I can see is that a cruise missile is more obvious. That's the great moral distinction? It would be OK to bomb people in Pakistan if only we were sneaky about it?

It's a pretty sorry state of affairs if we're in a de facto war with our allies.
It's also pretty common. Ever heard of the Quasi-War?

[mr. murphy]

It is so weird to read a conversation when one participant signs their posts. It's like one of the guys thinks he's on a walkie-talkie and needs to say "over" after every sentence.

[fitbabits]

My only "beliefs" regarding the issue is that terrorists are bad and should be dealt with. Not sure how that would be blinding.

I inferred from those comments, that the terrorist killed in this action might actually be a good, innocent guy, and that by taking him out the US was in the wrong because he had not been tried in a court of law to be found guilty first. How else should the comments be interpreted?


-X

You're viewing the whole situation in singular terms, seemingly without taking the larger picture into account. Ask yourself - what did this strike achieve, apart from the removal of a senior Al Qeada leader?

I got no inference from anyone posting here so far that this individual was an innocent guy. Again, how you interpret comments as an individual is influenced by how you view things on a personal level.

[asimonk]

It is so weird to read a conversation when one participant signs their posts. It's like one of the guys thinks he's on a walkie-talkie and needs to say "over" after every sentence.

If only there was something listed, say off to the side of a post, possibly in a much larger font to catch the eye, which could inform people as to the author of the post.

[Devilturnip]

The only difference I can see is that a cruise missile is more obvious. That's the great moral distinction? It would be OK to bomb people in Pakistan if only we were sneaky about it?

I don't think there's any moral distinction at all. Personally, I think that both assassinations and bombings are wrong. However, I never brought up moral distinctions. All I'm saying is that the one is far more likely to touch off a war than the other. Equating a missile strike and an assassination in terms of the potential political fallout is fallacious.

It's also pretty common. Ever heard of the Quasi-War?

Yes, and that comment wasn't meant to be argumentative. Just an observation.

[fitbabits]

It is so weird to read a conversation when one participant signs their posts. It's like one of the guys thinks he's on a walkie-talkie and needs to say "over" after every sentence.

-mr. murphy

Sorry, couldn't resist. :)

[duff himself]

What was the "guilty until proven innocent" line implying?

We don't always have enough evidence to justify some of the things we do. That shoot first ask questions later doesn't float with other countries in the world. I'm all for going after war criminals and what not but it just seems like its an excuse for something else. I dunno call me paranoid.

I don't just follow blindly and expect all things to be as they seem. Its never gonna change because there is no way the public will ever know the truth about these secret events/meetings/people/etc.

[xcalibur]

It is so weird to read a conversation when one participant signs their posts. It's like one of the guys thinks he's on a walkie-talkie and needs to say "over" after every sentence.

Almost as weird as someone posting about someone signing their posts. That has never happened before.

Old habits die hard. What does it matter to you?


-X

[OrangePulp]

It is so weird to read a conversation when one participant signs their posts. It's like one of the guys thinks he's on a walkie-talkie and needs to say "over" after every sentence.

I've come to the conclusion that the post-signers are just cocks; this conclusion is aided by all of xcalibur's posts in this thread.

As far as the actual topic goes, well, thanks alot for proving the rest of the world right about us, assholes. Our tax dollars at work.

Edit:Almost as weird as someone posting about someone signing their posts. That has never happened before.

Old habits die hard. What does it matter to you?


-X

No comparison. Murphy is attacking you for doing something he (and I) percieve as stupid; this is not an uncommon occurance. You're doing something that is very much outside the norm here, and really serves no purpose. We can see your name on the left side of your posts, there's no need for an X. Hell, if you're so set on it, you could even just put it in the quote section.

[Wraith]

Of course we don't, but why expend the resources on one 'target' and not redouble our efforts on the underlying problem?

And that doesn't even begin to touch on the negative impact such targeted assaults have on our traditional 'allies'. We risk losing the cooperation (such as it is) of these allies by acting recklessly going after one target when their are much bigger fish to fry.Even U.S. officials quoted in the article agree that this won't have a large effect on Al Qaeda as a whole. Sort of like pruning a weed. But realistically, how do we dig out the root?

If we were in perfect harmony with the nations in the region, were all on the same page about dealing with terror, we wouldn't have incidents like this (and, obviously, fewer people fewer people joining terrorist groups), but I honestly don't think we'll ever be there. We're going to be pissing someone off, no matter what we do. Is there some sort of balance we can achieve that would cause a minimum of hatred towards us?

[xcalibur]

I've come to the conclusion that the post-signers are just cocks; this conclusion is aided by all of xcalibur's posts in this thread.

As far as the actual topic goes, well, thanks alot for proving the rest of the world right about us, assholes. Our tax dollars at work.

Good one. I am a cock because I disagree on some things with some other posters. Good to know.


-X

[iHap]

Not to mention unwilling soldiers in battle.

"Unwilling" I didn't know the draft was in affect again.

[Sl1pstream]

Good one. I am a cock because I disagree on some things with some other posters.

While accusing the people that don't agree with you of being sympathetic to terrorists. Maybe you forgot that part?

[Deadend]

It is so weird to read a conversation when one participant signs their posts. It's like one of the guys thinks he's on a walkie-talkie and needs to say "over" after every sentence.

I totally understand, as if you don't tag it, then it could be anyone! Like a terrorist! I think the CIA strike may have hurt Musharufs ability to get relected even worse. And it did. Winning against a mindset of the west being evil is not helped by unilaterally shooting a missile into a soverign nation.

-X

[fitbabits]

While accusing the people that don't agree with you of being sympathetic to terrorists. Maybe you forgot that part?

There was no accusation as such, more of an inference or perception. :)

[xcalibur]

While accusing the people that don't agree with you of being sympathetic to terrorists. Maybe you forgot that part?

Read again. I asked (hoped) if I was misinterpreting things. I did not accuse.


-X

[xcalibur]

"Unwilling" I didn't know the draft was in affect again.

I assum he is referring to soldiers like my friend who is currently in his 2nd tour in Iraq - those that think the war should be ended, but still serve their tours out of a sense of duty, honor, and loyalty to their squadmates.


-X

[iHap]

I assum he is referring to soldiers like my friend who is currently in his 2nd tour in Iraq - those that think the war should be ended, but still serve their tours out of a sense of duty, honor, and loyalty to their squadmates.


-X

When you sign your life away to the military you don't get a fucking right to bitch and cry about wanting to leave, it's their fault for signing their name in the first place.

[xcalibur]

When you sign your life away to the military you don't get a fucking right to bitch and cry about wanting to leave, it's their fault for signing their name in the first place.

Hence the whole "sense of duty and honor" I mentioned. Just because you join the military doesn't mean you have to agree with every decision made. You do, however, have to fulfill your obligation to obey orders.


-X

[Rakael]

I think xcalibur listens to far too much talk radio. It is their tactic to accuse anyone who disagrees with them or anything the US government (namely the Bush administration) does as being sympathetic to terrorists. At first it seemed to work when the country was all riled up, but now people are starting to grow weary of it. Time to try a new tactic bub.

[xcalibur]

I think xcalibur listens to far too much talk radio. It is their tactic to accuse anyone who disagrees with them or anything the US government (namely the Bush administration) does as being sympathetic to terrorists. At first it seemed to work when the country was all riled up, but now people are starting to grow weary of it. Time to try a new tactic bub.

We've already established there were no accusations.


-X

[CES]

Did you miss that section in red up there in the original post? We tried playing nice, they weren't co-operative. That leaves us two options: Do what we need to do and ignore the Pakistanis; or let the terrorists have a haven where we absolutely cannot touch them.

It already exists in the form of Syria and Saudi Arabia. Personally, i'm in favour of seeing that American/UN/whoever metal make an apparence over Damascus.

[Johan]

Yes I know they gave nuclear materials to those countries, but not to Al Qaeda.

al-Qaeda is in bed with the Taliban, and the Taliban in Waziristan is in bed with the ISI, which is currently being anally probed by nuclear missiles they keep hidden up their ass until they decide to use or sell them.

So...there's that.

Did you miss that section in red up there in the original post? We tried playing nice, they weren't co-operative. That leaves us two options: Do what we need to do and ignore the Pakistanis; or let the terrorists have a haven where we absolutely cannot touch them.

Terrific point. I agree.

No, I read it all right. When a country tells you not to bomb inside their borders, you don't bomb inside their borders whether you want to or not!

Sorry...when a country allows a safe haven for people who kill thousands of Americans (which is what Waziristan and that region has become in Pakistan) then bombing and the like are perfectly acceptable, as it was in Afghanistan.

Ryctor;1275476']This thread needs more American hate. Where's Beelzebub or Irish when you need them...

:D

[DangerousDaze]

Sorry...when a country allows a safe haven for people who kill thousands of Americans (which is what Waziristan and that region has become in Pakistan) then bombing and the like are perfectly acceptable, as it was in Afghanistan.

This is nothing like Afghanistan. Afghanistan was about regime change and was a knee-jerk reaction to 9/11 (and still is, incidentally, don't be thinking that problem's gone away because it hasn't). What you're doing in Pakistan is displaying yet more arrogance and providing your enemies with yet more grist. Fine, but just remember, no good deed goes unpunished.

[TheFlyingOrc]

I think we should just shoot all the brown people.

There, I said it.

Holy crap I'm joking don't kill me please

[Johan]

Holy crap I'm joking don't kill me please

You're not brown, silly...you're green!

This is nothing like Afghanistan. Afghanistan was about regime change and was a knee-jerk reaction to 9/11

This is such a tremendous pile of horseshit. Seriously.

If any invasion in the past decades can be justified by America, it is the invasion of Afghanistan. Explaining what is crystal clear EVEN TO LIBERAL NATO ALLIES who are currently supporting us (albeit weakly, as befits them) in our mission there is, frankly, a waste of time.

And calling it a "knee-jerk reaction to 9-11" is extremely offensive to me, so fuck you.

[Citizen Philip]

-X

A turrist pretending to be someone else! Drop the F-bomb on'im!

[Disgustipated]

I support terrorists.

-X

[Johan]

I support terrorists.

-X

When you sign your name on a post, the terrorists win.

-J

Oh shit!

-J

Dammit!

-J

[Disgustipated]

When you sign your name on a post, the terrorists win.

-J

Oh shit!

-J

Dammit!

-J

Oh shit, that actually made me laugh.

-D

[DangerousDaze]

any invasion in the past decades can be justified by America, it is the invasion of Afghanistan. Explaining what is crystal clear EVEN TO LIBERAL NATO ALLIES who are currently supporting us (albeit weakly, as befits them) in our mission there is, frankly, a waste of time.

And calling it a "knee-jerk reaction to 9-11" is extremely offensive to me, so fuck you.

Great post. The American public hasn't given't Afghanistan a minute's thought since its leaders turned their war machine on Iraq, and in the meantime thousands of British troops (a large portion of what meager fighting force we have left in this day and age) are fighting and dying ALONGSIDE your troops. And then you have the NERVE to say that we are supporting you WEAKLY?

And what has the invasion of Afghanistan achieved? Or the invasion of Iraq for that matter? So who cares about pissing off one more nation, eh?

You're America. You have lots of bombs so it's naturally your God-given right to go do what the fuck you please to whomever you please. Good for you. Except it's not, is it?

[Johan]

Great post...You're America.

When you call the invasion of Afghanistan a "knee-jerk reaction to 9-11" you betray an understanding and intelligence that precludes any point to further conversation, as you not only are tremendously insulting in saying so, but also incredibly, stupidly wrong.

You have lots of bombs so it's naturally your God-given right to go do what the fuck you please to whomever you please. Good for you. Except it's not, is it?

Shucks...we learned from one of the best in the business, Mr. Colonial Power of the 19th/early 20th centuries Fucking Up the Politics and Borders of the World into the 20th and 21st centuries!

Oh shit, that actually made me laugh.

-D

They won again.

-J

[TheFlyingOrc]

When you call the invasion of Afghanistan a "knee-jerk reaction to 9-11" you betray an understanding and intelligence that precludes any further point for further conversation, as you not only are tremendously insulting in saying so, but also incredibly, stupidly wrong.

I'm going to have to agree here. While Afghanistan was quickly organized and decisively executed, we could have done it knee-jerk-like on September 12th had we so decided.

[DangerousDaze]

When you call the invasion of Afghanistan a "knee-jerk reaction to 9-11" you betray an understanding and intelligence that precludes any further point for further conversation, as you not only are tremendously insulting in saying so, but also incredibly, stupidly wrong.
This coming from someone who doesn't even understand why anyone would have a problem with the CIA bombing nuclear powers without permission (because it's easier to ask for forgiveness, am I right?)

[TheFlyingOrc]

This coming from someone who doesn't even understand why anyone would have a problem with the CIA bombing nuclear powers without permission (because it's easier to ask for forgiveness, am I right?)

The CIA has access to bombers?

[Johan]

This coming from someone who doesn't even understand why anyone would have a problem with the CIA bombing nuclear powers without permission (because it's better to ask for forgiveness, am I right?)

Perhaps you should leave the "national sovereignty has been violated and we are angry" argument to those whose sovereignty it is that you say may have been violated! After all, aren't you actually assuming a "right" that is not yours in such a case? If I have no right to ALLOW for this action, you certainly have no right to DISALLOW it, as you are not Pakistani (nor American)...neither of the two parties involved!

Or...fight the good fight against American "knee-jerk" reactionism!

[Oxonian]

The CIA has access to bombers?
This is what happens when you leave the keys in the ignition. Some street punks come along and BAM! You have a major international diplomatic incident on your hands and some homeless guy goes to the bathroom in the cockpit of your Stealth bomber.

[DangerousDaze]

Perhaps you should leave the "national sovereignty has been violated and we are angry" argument to those whose sovereignty it is that you say may have been violated! After all, aren't you actually assuming a "right" that is not yours in such a case? If I have no right to ALLOW for this action, you certainly have no right to DISALLOW it, as you are not Pakistani (nor American)...neither of the two parties involved!

Or...fight the good fight against American "knee-jerk" reactionism!

So what you're saying is that irrespective of whether it's right or wrong for your government to go bombing people wherever and whenever they please, you're now trying to deny my right to call you on it?

Just think about what you just said because you're an intelligent guy. Does that really sound healthy to you?

[Johan]

So what you're saying is that irrespective of whether it's right or wrong for your government to go bombing people wherever and whenever you please, you're now trying to deny my right to call you on it?

First: Feel free to have any opinion you like. You are welcome to be as incorrect as you would like to be in your opinions.

Second: You are not Pakistani, so your opinions on this action are much less important than would be their own...obviously. If I encroach on my neighbor's property, and ANOTHER neighbor gets all pissy about it when the property owner didn't care, or may have even agreed...then the third party is just being a troublemaking piss-ant who has no damn business being involved or taking offense.

Third: Afghanistan was not a "knee-jerk reaction to 9-11" and saying so continues to deeply piss me off and offend me.

Fourth: If my government has an opportunity to take out people who actively seek to kill me and my family, I'm not at all concerned if it pisses you off. I don't give a shit. I am happy my government is actively seeking to make life short and uncomfortable for the terrorists.

Fifth: Anyone British who attempts to assume the moral high ground in interventionist international policies has a helluva lot of history to white-wash.

Finally: I'm quite healthy, thank you.

[[GH-SC]Ryctor]

Man the limeys are angry today. Someone piss on your tea and crumpets Daze??
lulz

-R

[Generation ABXY]

Debate, it’s what’s for dinner! No, really, I’ve printed out this topic and I’m chewing on the pages right now, because this is good fucking stuff.

I love debates - hell, I think we should have them more often. There should be a “World Leaders” forum, where all these presidents and dictators and the like get together and hash out their problems with off-the-cuff remarks and Internet memes.

Actually On Topic: Assuming this isn’t all overblown, I don’t really approve of what we did...but I have to admit, Pakistan’s past uncooperativeness was ticking me off. Doesn’t make it right, of course, I’m just saying.

[xcalibur]

This is nothing like Afghanistan. Afghanistan was about regime change and was a knee-jerk reaction to 9/11 (and still is, incidentally, don't be thinking that problem's gone away because it hasn't). What you're doing in Pakistan is displaying yet more arrogance and providing your enemies with yet more grist. Fine, but just remember, no good deed goes unpunished.

Afghanistan was not a knee-jerk reaction to 9/11. The Taliban was found to be directly culpable by harboring and aiding Bin-laden and Al-Qaeda. Thus they were dealt with. There was zero resistance from the world powers to the US invading Afghanistan.

Of course, we then shifted our focus to Iraq, during which time Afghanistan/the Taliban has been becoming problematic again.

What do you propose is the correct course of action when the US informs Pakistan that they have terrorists inside their borders that the US can easily deal with in a precision strike, but for some unknown reason Pakistan doesn't give them permission. Are we to just sit on our hands and allow the terrorists to run free, plotting their next attack?

If you were the US, and you had such a dangerous enemy in your sights, that you know has been and will continue to be directly responsible for deaths of your citizens both at home and abroad, do you not pull the trigger and allow more of your people to die?

It is easy for all of us to sit on our high moral horse in our homes and play armchair strategist/politician when none of our decisions will ever affect anyone else. I cannot imagine how difficult it must be for government leaders to have to actually make decisions like this. You are damned if you do, and damned if you don't.


-X

[Wraith]

I love debates - hell, I think we should have them more often. There should be a “World Leaders” forum, where all these presidents and dictators and the like get together and hash out their problems with off-the-cuff remarks and Internet memes.Then they could all tell Hugo Chavez to shut up. Followed by an appropriate image macro.

[Magnanimous Gnome]

Fifth: Anyone British who attempts to assume the moral high ground in interventionist international policies has a helluva lot of history to white-wash.

I guess that means that no one in America can criticize slavery, or the suppression of women's rights...


Fine, but just remember, no good deed goes unpunished.

Fiyero!

[duff himself]

can't we agree to disagree? oh wait then the forum would die... continue on! :)

[Johan]

I guess that means that no one in America can criticize slavery, or the suppression of women's rights...

Slavery is universally viewed as a violation of human rights, and I can think of no one of any kind of conscience who would defend it...as opposed to the issue at hand here, which is the pursuit of mass-murderers across another nation's borders, which many people disagree on as to its legality/allowability...so that's a poor analogy on your part.

As for women's rights, exactly what rights are we talking about? Frankly, if Saudi Arabia as a culture/nation doesn't want to allow women to drive or leave the house without a male relative as an escort, I don't really give a shit, and I'm perfectly willing to butt out.

[Zero]

"Unwilling" I didn't know the draft was in affect again.

I'm pretty sure he might have meant this.

Next best thing to the draft. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop-loss_policy)

The first known legal challenge in American history to the involuntary extension of a soldier's enlistment contract occurred during the American Civil War, when Private Edward A. Stevens filed suit against the federal government for extending his three-month enlistment. The prosecuting party for the government was Edwin Stanton, Secretary of War. [3] Stevens lost the suit and was confined for "mutinous conduct" for a brief period of time.

For some reason, I find it really cool that it was the Secretary of War who prosecuted the case.