warpedskydiver 0 #51 August 10, 2007 Well then I guess if we just take ourselves back home they will just stop attacking us huh? Yep AQ is only a theater OP, therefore they will all just stay in pakistan or afghanistan. Bill, I think you understand what I mean, and I am not saying you are unaware of what is going on. I just think you would prefer that all things are the way you want to see them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #52 August 11, 2007 >Well then I guess if we just take ourselves back home they will just stop >attacking us huh? Quite literally yes. If we are not there they cannot attack us there. >Yep AQ is only a theater OP, therefore they will all just stay in pakistan > or afghanistan. We were talking about Al Qaeda in Iraq. (That's where our troops in Iraq are.) Will we see more attacks worldwide by Al Qaeda overall? Yes, they are growing stronger the longer we stay in Iraq. If our goal is to strengthen Al Qaeda, then by all means, stay in Iraq and ignore their base in Pakistan. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #53 August 11, 2007 Bill you are mistaken if you think they will not become emboldened by us pulling out of Iraq, and continue to attack us even more severly at home. Wait and see, BTW you might wanna stockpile some ammunition. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #54 August 11, 2007 Quote>Well then I guess if we just take ourselves back home they will just stop >attacking us huh? Quite literally yes. If we are not there they cannot attack us there. Which, of course, is why there was no attempted attack on JFK, or Ft. Dix, right?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #55 August 11, 2007 I think you all should take a closer look at the Pakistani situation. Several recent articles in The Economist and Foreign Affairs have highlighted the situation there, as have a couple of recent books. I believe this talk of action within Pakistan sans support of the Pakistani government and military is absurd - little more than a political stunt to play upon the ignorance of the electorate, many of whom couldn't even spell ISI much less comprehend its role. What is amazing is that the same people lambasting GWB for basing his invasion of Iraq upon the best intelligence available (which turned out to be false) and are giving Hillary a free pass for voting in favor of the war for the same reason, now wish us to launch military action into Pakistan based upon intelligence. Dimes to dollars these same people have no idea about Pakistan's military structure, political structure, and more than likely don't even know if B. Bhutto is man or woman or anything else about Pakistani national politics. Do a bit of reading on the subject, drop the cookie cutter paradigm of foreign policy and use of military forces, and think on the matter for a bit. I'd love for forces to clean out Waziristan and other border areas, but right now it is not possible without severe repurcussions. In general, I think presidential candidates, regardless of party, should steer clear of foreign policy statements such as the leftists are making now. The DoState recently had a high level GS make such a statement as well, I do believe. It's bad for America to show a dichotomous hand with regards to foreign policy - a main reason that Rep. Pelosi's venture into Syria and the other leftists who met with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt were so damaging and goat-fuck stupid. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #56 August 11, 2007 It's bad for America to show a dichotomous hand with regards to foreign policy - a main reason that Rep. Pelosi's venture into Syria and the other leftists who met with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt were so damaging and goat-fuck stupid. The bad thing about all of this is the simple fact many americans think there was nothing wrong in these actions. To circumvent the DoS and intensionally engage the Syrians in some type of back room deal is simply treasonous and without regard for any diplomacy at all. Diplomacy is a weapon and should not be utilized by a senator from any state in this union without the expressed consent of DoS and Potus. Treason charges should have been brought. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #57 August 13, 2007 QuoteThen please explain how come we are fighting killing, or detaining AQ operatives in Iraq? I gotta hear this one... Because they are there now, thanks to us. Fresh new ones too. The old guard is still where it has been for the last six years. That's the great thing about Bush's war policy. It's self fulfilling. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
