tkhayes 348 #1 July 23, 2005 Not that I try to be biased and I generally stay anti-war - but it seems ot me that 1. OBL is hiding in Pakistan 2. the recent London bombings apparentlly got training in Pakistan 3. Many of the Afghan Taliban and other rebels fled to and are hiding in Pakistan. so why are we wasting out time in Iraq? Maybe my facts are wrong, but we seem to offer a lot of support to another dictatorship/regime that puts uperficial efforts into stopping terrorism. Granted I doubt they have the skills/resources to stop a lot of it, but we have hammered many other countries in the past with sanctions and threats for much, much less. I do not get it... TK Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ViperPilot 0 #2 July 23, 2005 From what I've seen in the news, not that I know anymore about this than the anyone else in the general public, it seems that Pakistan is a rather strong ally in the war on terror. Of course they don't have the means that we do, but they're trying hard. Several top Al Qaeda officials have been caputred by the Pakistanis. Not to mention it's helpful when we want someone interrogated, and we aren't allowed to do what we want to get the info, so we just hand the prisoner to the Pakistanis. They'll get the info real quick. These are just observations from what I've seen in the news. The Pakistani govt is not supporting terrorists (as far as we know), so therefore we should be their ally. That's my take. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #3 July 23, 2005 They got Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who engineered the 9/11 attacks. they also got that other Al Quaeda leader with the weird skin condition. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Frenchy68 0 #4 July 23, 2005 Geo-politically, it is strongly in the West's interest to make sure that someone such as Musharaff remains in power. There is a very strong base of Islamic extremism in Pakistan, and since Pakistan does have the nuclear bomb, his secular regime, although dictatorial, is viewed as preferable than having an islamic based regime. His position is not very stable at the moment, as some within his government (as well as the secret police and army) are sympathetic with the islamic opposition. Hence the West's strong support of Musharaff. But he probably does not act as much as he could against AQ and other islamic extremist groups, as he has to walk the fine line between pleasing the West and not over-angering those within his regime who are sympathetic to the islamists. Very, very volatile situation. "For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #5 July 23, 2005 frenhy's right. although I believe that Musharraf himself & probably most of his cabinet would personally love to eliminate Al Quaida, since Al Quaida have tried & are trying to assassinate him. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #6 July 23, 2005 QuoteGeo-politically, it is strongly in the West's interest to make sure that someone such as Musharaff remains in power. There is a very strong base of Islamic extremism in Pakistan, and since Pakistan does have the nuclear bomb, his secular regime, although dictatorial, is viewed as preferable than having an islamic based regime. His position is not very stable at the moment, as some within his government (as well as the secret police and army) are sympathetic with the islamic opposition. Hence the West's strong support of Musharaff. But he probably does not act as much as he could against AQ and other islamic extremist groups, as he has to walk the fine line between pleasing the West and not over-angering those within his regime who are sympathetic to the islamists. Very, very volatile situation. Additionally, many of the mountain regions along the Afghan border are not controlled by Pakistan. These areas are inhabited by tribes who have lived in that area for many generations. The Pakistani Army pretty much avoids that area. this is where it is though OBL is hiding and he recieves support from the tribal leaders. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rmsmith 1 #7 July 24, 2005 Hey, don't forget Pakistan's Abdul Kahn, the father of the bomb, and the shit who sold nuclear weapons technology around the planet! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #8 July 24, 2005 Quoteso why are we wasting out time in Iraq? So, you're against the war in Iraq, but you are in favor of starting a new war in Pakistan? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 348 #9 July 24, 2005 did I mention war? Or perhaps I was just pointing out yet another hypocracy and contradiction that our government has bestowed upon us. Seems we support dictatorships when it pleases us, support whomever we please when it pleases us, with littel thought to consistency or future outlook. I also wonder how long it will be before Pakistan does something to become "our enemy" or God forbid, a member of the Axis of Evil...... TK Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #10 July 24, 2005 Seems we support dictatorships when it pleases us, *** only natural, really. right now the USA and Pakistan, and a whole shitload of other countries (some democracies, some not) have a common enemy: Islamic Extremist Terrorists. only natural that there would be allies of all types in this struggle. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #11 July 25, 2005 QuoteQuoteSo, you're against the war in Iraq, but you are in favor of starting a new war in Pakistan? did I mention war? You didn't mention war in this thread. But you've made your position known against the war in Iraq very clear in other threads. Would you like to answer the question now? You rave about "hypocracy and contradiction", so then you should be in favor of attacking Pakistan, in order to be consistent. Right? QuoteSeems we support dictatorships when it pleases us, support whomever we please when it pleases us, with littel thought to consistency or future outlook. Personally, I trust Ms. Rice to handle things, and I expect she knows more about the situation than tkhayes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 348 #12 July 25, 2005 actually my post says exactly what it says..... we seem to offer a lot of support to a regime that appears on the outside to be harboring the very people we are trying to stop. Hypocracy. Anything else you read into it would be your problem, I do nto trust Ms. Rice to do much of anything except perpetuate this very hypocracy. TK Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
newsstand 0 #13 July 26, 2005 It's that "the enemy of my enemy" thing. "Truth is tough. It will not break, like a bubble, at a touch; nay, you may kick it about all day like a football, and it will be round and full at evening." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
