Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
We'll bomb you to Stone Age, US told Pakistan
quadrat Wrote:I believe it to be true. Is it not exactly the fine art of American diplomacy we've been appreciating for many decades? War, terror, murder, covert operations, threats, blackmailing? Of course, totally justified in your eyes :lol:
As one of the best world leaders of all time --- US president Teddy Roosevelt --- was wont to say, "walk softly and carry a big stick". Well, as Bush said, "you are either with us or against us" in this war. And if Pakistan hadnt at least done the minimally helpful things they have done so far since 9/11, the "big stick" Armitage is supposed to have warned them about --- bombing them into the stoneage --- would have been justifiably employed.

And as far as conflicts on which a nation's survival or a tremendous defeat or loss of life hinges, NOTHING should be considered unjustified when the alternative is possibly ultiamte defeat. So any means that can be employed and "gotten away with" using can be considered justified if that is the only or best method.

For example, if we know a coming attack will be the nuking of an American population center and we capture a terrorist who we even think might have info that could help us stop the attack, then we should not rule out employing the worst methods of torture, even resulting in the slow dismemberment or death of the subject, if all the lesser methods of "coercive interrogation" fail to yield to desired info. And anyone opposes this, even those who would decry this on religious grounds, are dead wrong.

quadrat Wrote:
Quote:I think Bush needs to send another envoy to Musharraf making the same alleged threats with credibility as he has recently signed a deal to allow al qaeda haven in Waziristan.
You kidding? I've been admonished not to call that creature on top of your republic names, but do you really believe he would have been awarded a second term without Al Quaeda? No, you don't. You are more intelligent than your president (as the overwhelming majority of Americans) is, you see the coherences. We know, the war must go on because it serves so many fine purposes, for example the rerouting of taxpayer money to the pockets of defence contractors. With no enemy, there's no war. Therefore, is it not safe to assume, if Pakistan protects Osama, it does so with American approval? You haven't caught him for so many years, after all.
The main reason the US hasnt gone into the tribal, "protected" areas of Pakistan to get or look for OBL already is because if we did, it would likely destabilize the current leader of Pakistan, likely resulting in a radical Islamic govt taking over Pakistan, which ALREADY HAS a nuclear arsenal!

Sometiemes things are not as cut and dried as they seem, and solutions are not a simple as you might think they should be. I still think we should be trying harder to get OBL, but I think we definitely need to try to keep Pakistan from falling into the wrong hands at the same time.

It is a crappy situation we are in regarding OBL and his probably being in Pakistan's "protected areas".

Messages In This Thread
[No subject] - by Kamil - 09-23-2006, 03:40 AM
[No subject] - by Palladin - 09-23-2006, 02:53 PM
[No subject] - by targo88 - 09-23-2006, 11:08 PM
[No subject] - by Palladin - 09-24-2006, 08:30 PM
[No subject] - by quadrat - 09-25-2006, 03:50 AM
[No subject] - by KenBean - 09-25-2006, 10:24 AM
[No subject] - by clh - 09-26-2006, 03:34 PM
[No subject] - by Palladin - 09-26-2006, 04:06 PM
[No subject] - by Anonymous24 - 09-28-2006, 12:04 AM
[No subject] - by clh - 09-28-2006, 11:45 AM
[No subject] - by Anonymous24 - 09-28-2006, 11:49 AM
[No subject] - by Palladin - 09-30-2006, 03:36 PM

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)