Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by Rufus_1611, Jul 16, 2007.
There are two countries I cannot figure out why we are so gentle with: and that is Saudi Arabia where most of the 9/11 terrorists come from, and Pakistan, where on the border with Afghanastan, is major training for terrorists. These two countries seem to be a puzzle to me. If Pakistan is so dedicated to the "war on terror, " why not go after these border training camps and wipe them out.
Another question that comes to mind is, since we have no hesitency in going in other borders of sovereign nations, (Iraq) in the name of terrorism, why do we hold back from obliterating this area? Why are we afraid to go to the source of the problem and put an end to this?
You can add to the 9/11 thing, the LA Times is reporting that Saudi Arabia is the number one source of foreign insurgents in Iraq.
Seems like a rather peculiar, inconsistent foreign policy.
"And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. (Applause.) From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime." - George W Bush (Source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...010920-8.html)
A lot of hot air, sounds like now. Seemed good to hear then, though.
This is a warning for the 2008 election. We as Christians must be more discerning about the people we vote for, and I am the worst offender, voting for this wind bag twice.
If we Christians would all stick together we could choose a couple of candidates to endorse for the Independent Party. We could pick & choose a couple, get in touch with them, and say "go for it ~~ you've got our support!"
The elite in Saudi Arabia are very tight with the elite in the US, and the Bushes in particular.
Pakistan is a different matter. The border, where the terrorist camps are, is a mountainous area only nominally ruled by Pakistan -- the real power lies in the local chiefs, which are quite radical. NATO hasn't yet been able to clear the mountains of Afghanistan after these years, so Pakistan isn't really much of an option at the moment. Now of course if Iraq hadn't been invaded...
Billions in American dollars to Pakistan would dry up if there were no terrorists there to hunt down.
Couple a reasons that come to my mind...Pakistan has a nuke and American dollars would dry up if there were no terrorists there to hunt down. Same in Iraq with the Saudis (Al Qeada?) only they haven't got a nuke yet that we know of. But, if and when they do we've probably paid for and helped make that possible too.
So, do you guys favor cross border American military operations in Pakistan to root out al-quaeda?
Can't speak for everyone, but I don't.
I don't but I do favor some consistency. Invading a country that did not harbor OBL but respecting the wishes of a country that is, is pretty bizarre in light of the presidents statements on the matters.
I agree, except the obliteration. I would like to see war conducted in Iraq with no holds barred. And if Pakistan is indeed harboring these insurgents, and it looks so, then go in there. Saudi Arabia is a horse of a different color and no one knows what to do there, including the saudi's. The house of Saud, is built on sand.
What is your solution?
Well you know my world view. I'd bring all military personnel home and have them protect the borders of the United States of America and get out of everyone else's business. I'd create an independent investigation of the events of 9/11 with G Edward Griffin as the chairman. All parties deemed responsible for the events of 9/11/2001 would be prosecuted and if OBL was one of the individuals found guilty, I would expect Pakistan to cough him up and if they didn't, I would stop giving them billions of dollars in aid (I would pretty much stop this anyway but for now it would serve as a nice carrot). If they found OBL to be more valuable than $3billion+ then I would turn that into a $1.5 billion bounty for OBL and a $1.5 billion bounty for Musharaff. Blackwater or any of the other mercs could take care of the details.
You're in favor of amending the Constitution?
That's what you call "consistency"?
It is constitutional to amend the constitution but an amendment would not be necessary. A congressional declaration of war on the state of Pakistan for not giving up a convicted murderer would meet the constitutional criteria. Mission objectives within that declaration would be precise (to include targeted extractions or termination of OBL and Musharraf) and once attained, the US Military would leave. Of course, none of this would be necessary, as we would be busy targeting the actual evil-doers of 9/11.
So you are in favor of a pre-emptive attack on a country that harbors terrorists? Do you really think the Pakistanis care who any other country's courts convict?
You call that "consistency"?
You'd have to amend the Consttution to enable our armed forces to guard the borders.
You're mixing fruit. The story goes, Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11, and allegedly OBL did. If OBL is guilty and if Musharraf is harboring him, then the leadership of Pakistan has engaged in an act of war. Preferably the sabre rattling and aid issue would compel them to give up OBL. However, if they did not, then striking against Musharraf and OBL would be justified (shocking and awing the citizenry of Pakistan would not be nor would occupying their country once the mission was accomplished).
First, the U.S. Government has already demonstrated that they care nothing about posse comitatus as evidenced at Waco, and the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina so don't go all constitutional on me and act as though you or your liberal president cares anything about it. Second, it is perfectly legal for the states of this union to use national guard troops to protect their borders from invasion. Finally, it would be within the domain of the Federal gov't to sanction foreign governments who encourage their citizenry to invade our country (Mexico also has a history of not extraditing criminals). There are many ways to skin this cat but before you skin it, you've got to want it. Since W is a globalist who is selling out this nation to internationalism, this cat won't be skinned.