| Submit your comments on this article |
| India-Pakistan |
| Pakistan rejects Bush threat |
| 2006-09-22 |
| Pakistan today vowed to not let foreign forces enter its territory a day after US president George Bush said he would order American military action inside this Islamic nation if Osama bin Laden was found to be hiding there. Bush told CNN that he would authorise military action inside Pakistan if intelligence indicated that al-Qaida leader bin Laden or other top terrorists were in hiding. |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #16 Wow! Trailing Wife in '08 ! |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2006-09-22 23:14 |
| #15 Wow, tw! My kind of woman! (meant in an entirely gentlemanly manner, course) You're much more, er...brash...than I am. |
| Posted by: FOTSGreg 2006-09-22 22:52 |
| #14 It's the thought that counts, tw. |
| Posted by: Darrell 2006-09-22 16:05 |
| #13 Afghanistan was necessary to unseat Al Qaeda from its very comfortable home -- it is much less effective when scurrying from pillar to post. Iraq was necessary to remove Saddam Hussein as a very busy player -- providing training and supplies to a great many Arab and Muslim terror groups besides Al Qaeda, with great fanfare providing cash payments of US$10,000-25,000 to the families of successful Palestinian suicide bombers, in addition to Hussein's little nuclear, chemical, biological and social projects at home. This also ended the unfinished war of 1991, removing arguments about how and whether we should continue enforcing the commitments made by the UN Security Council pertaining thereto, and removed a serious source of world corruption in the Oil for Food program. Finally, now that our troops are firmly settled in Iraq, we have a base of operations to threaten the entire region with immediate unpleasant action. Remember how many months it took to get everything needed over to the region in order to set the armies in motion at the Iraqi border? Iraq is what that famous stock market guru liked to call "a three bagger." Iran, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are next on the list. Were it up to me, I'd cut off Saudi financing, then knock off the Ayatollahs and their military and shake up (literally) the nuclear "research" sites, then finally pound the critical bits of Pakistan to rubble -- say key power stations, the cell phone system, and the home compounds of the top several ranks of the military and the relgious party leadership and cadres... and all the big mosques. But that's just me, and if I were in any way qualified to act upon such plans I wouldn't be sitting quietly in front of my computer screen here in the wilds of the Midwestern suburbs, resting from the day's exertions. ;-) |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2006-09-22 14:44 |
| #12 This should be viewed in light of the other story that initial cooperation was provided because the US threatened to bomb them back to the stone age if they didn't. Perhaps he has been informed that Islam is both compatible and comfortable with the Stone Age. |
| Posted by: RWV 2006-09-22 13:10 |
| #11 Well, chalk me up as another one who thinks we should've taken care of Afghanistan/Pakistan before getting involved in Iraq. Pakistan is harboring and breeding terrorists. I can't believe we've let them get away with it this long. Pakistan and the Magick Kingdom should've been dealt with before going to Baghdad.Taking care of those two would have left Iraq and Iran with a much different perspective than they have now. |
| Posted by: Thoth 2006-09-22 10:02 |
| #10 Why exactly has this toad done a 180 and started kissing tribal ass all of a sudden? The same reason he (temporarily) allied with the US. Self preservation. |
| Posted by: docob 2006-09-22 09:46 |
| #9 Bush's "threat" was a diplomatic message to Pakistan "We will go anywhere to destroy terrorists, irespective of borders". Musharef either will not or can not deal with terrorism, neither matters. Keep in mind Pakistan is a nuclear power, which makes it harder to deal with, which is why we may deal with Iran sooner than later, and before Pakistan. With respect to Iraq, I believe it is wrong to assume that we can fix all the problems of Islamofacism in a single place at a single time. This WOT cannot be a single front war. We dealt with Afghanistan and the Taliban, and now the UN and NATO are involved. We dealt with Saddam and Iraq. We are now moving on to Pakistan and Iran. While the pace would appear slow and undefined, Bush himself has always said this war will take a generation or more to resolve. In reality, the activity is taking place very quickly from a historical perspective. From a strategic standpoint, we are right where we need to be in Afghanistan and Iraq. The noose is tightening around the Axis of Evil. Do not get swayed by the Left wing MSM viewpoint. It may have political value but is never been right about anything. |
| Posted by: john 2006-09-22 08:04 |
| #8 Why exactly has this toad done a 180 and started kissing tribal ass all of a sudden? |
| Posted by: Thaimble Crosh7711 2006-09-22 06:39 |
| #7 Hi Zhang, long time no see. Could it be that they really could control the area but are denying that they can, so that they can provide sanctuary for terrorists there, while plausibly denying that they are doing so? Nope. It's like Lebanon "government" in their South---rage when their pretense of control is threatened. |
| Posted by: gromgoru 2006-09-22 06:28 |
| #6 Where Bush messed up imo was giving up on Taleban/Al Qaeda to concentrate on Iraq. Pakistan is a safe haven for Taleban/Al Qaeda and should have been sorted in front of Iraq and Iran. |
| Posted by: Cheregum Crelet7867 2006-09-22 05:34 |
| #5 |
| Posted by: Elmeamp Threling4014 2006-09-22 03:22 |
| #4 Wanted, dead or alive, stands. We apply the rules of the West |
| Posted by: Captain America 2006-09-22 03:21 |
| #3 FU2048: So... lemme get this straight... they can't control the area, but they're gonna kick our asses if we go in? How's that work again? Could it be that they really could control the area but are denying that they can, so that they can provide sanctuary for terrorists there, while plausibly denying that they are doing so? I think Pakistan needs to sort out the difference between Iraq and Afghanistan. Many liberals and some conservatives think of Iraq as a mistake. Very few of either ideological persuasion think of Afghanistan and the pursuit of bin Laden as a mistake, except perhaps with respect to not putting enough troops in to thoroughly dominate the landscape. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2006-09-22 02:12 |
| #2 Sounds like we're gonna find the a$$wipe on the Afghanistan side of the border after all . . . . |
| Posted by: gorb 2006-09-22 01:21 |
| #1 So... lemme get this straight... they can't control the area, but they're gonna kick our asses if we go in? How's that work again? |
| Posted by: Fleasing Unomosh2048 2006-09-22 00:29 |