Is it really so radical that I think the Democrats should push for us to get tough with Pakistan? Time and time again we hear that Bin Laden, Mullah Omar, etc. are in the hills of Pakistan. Why have our leaders not demanded that the killers of 3,000 Americans be turned over or we be allowed to go in and get them immediately?
I agree. First step is to hold Porter Goss’ feet to the fire over his remarks last month about NOT getting OBL though he claims to know where he is.
Porter Goss or 52 British Citizens.
Now you’re talking, Cypher! The first thing to do in our attack on Pakistan is to go after a Bush administration official. Now that’s a strategy.
Oliver, I’m with you. Let’s tell Pakistan, “Give us Osama, or we turn your whole country into melted glass!”
Yeeeehaah!
Oh, I get it. The liberal master plan. Pull out of Iraq and invade Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. If the next Democratc Admin does that, liberal blogs will promise nary a peep about body bags and dead soldiers. After all, are they really dead if they fight in a war that Democrats like? But what if your GUESS is wrong and OBL is in Albania or Bulgaria: “strap on the gear boys, we’re going to the Balkans!” After that who knows: “Today Pakistan, tomorrow the world!”
Dugger, Where Have all the Flowers Gone?
Technically, the “killers of 3,000 Americans” are already dead: they died in the crashes.
“Going after Pakistan would not be very strategic”. Is it their precious soveriegnty? As much as I loathed the twisted capitalist Saddam Hussein, Musharif is only leader of Pakistan because of a coup, and the monarchy that is Saudi Arabia is soverign because they say so. I am not for sensless bloodshed, but to argue that capturing murders, and in the case of Saudi Arabia, rooting out a government that clearly supports killing Westerners but keeps us around because they can make a “killing” of us buying oil is ridiculous.
Where have all the flowers gone? Classic! Keep holding the feet of our hippy overlords to the fire, Dugger! Speak truth to the powerful peaceniks that run this country! One day you’ll slip up and make a logical error, but clearly it is not this day!
If a Bush administration official who is in charge of investigating such things says Pakistan is where OBL is, then why are we not 1) demanding that Pakistan hand him over and 2) holding the official responsible for letting OBL go accountable?
Because 1) Iraq was perceived as an easier target and 2) Republicans don’t believe in accountability.
The ugly side of capitalism always rears its head with Republicans. I asked my brother in law about this same dilemma: same talking point about strategy (like the one we didn’t bother with in Iraq) but more disturbing is that he said it would effect our economy way too much! This is true, but since when does oil become more important than the death of 3,000 Americans? Dugger has done his best hypothetical to deflect the dreadful behavior of this administration to “sob sob… Democrats are worse!” Plus wasn’t it Bush’s idea to: “travel and hunt down terrorist wherever they maybe”. Just saying Duggie, we are not the ones with the microphones.
Perhaps it is a moment of sanity. Some of us feel that it isn’t in our national interest to replace the current regime with another radical islamic republic.
Sort of the same logic that SHOULD have prevented us from invading Iraq, but …
Do you really think that if we captured OBL, terrorism would stop? Or that there wouldn’t be another attack like London? Get serious.
And even if we did capture OBL, what would you do with him? Put him on trial? Where? Wouldn’t that cause even more terrorist attacks?
TomY,
Can we talk? Do we have a little excitability problem. Four lines – four exclamation points. Yesterday it got so bad that Martha Stewart (well, me pretending to be Martha) had to intervene. (btw, “hippy overlords” – not bad).
And White Whale,
“I am not for sensless bloodshed” meaning, I suppose you are for sensible bloodshed, which would mean that the thousands of casualties we would engender from an invasion of Saudi Arabia, a major trading partner and a country that has also suffered at the hands of terrorists, and the tens of thousands from Pakistan, the latter based on the left wing’s GUESS that that is where OBL is, would all be acceptable in your estimation – while Iraq is not. Did I get that right? That your position, bunkie?
Dugger, Envisioning Whirled Peas
Those states that house terrorists and fund terrorism should be held accountable. Isn’t that what Boy George stated a few times in the past? Why is Pakistan or Saudi Arabia held to a different standard?
Binky,
“Those states that house terrorists and fund terrorism should be held accountable.”
You know, of course, that does describe Baathist Iraq. So then the difference between Iraq and Saudi Arabia? Well, Saudi Arabia is a much more valuable trading partner and has been a regional ally. The Princes ain’t princes, but they are no where near the potential threat Saddam was. Pakistan is a nuclear power; a more dangerous adversary than Saudi Arabia or Iraq and their only “crime” is that they are suspected of not being able to find OBL whom, it is SUSPECTED, is hiding on their soil.
So pragmatically, if you go after any of the three, Iraq makes more sense. So why not admit it. Most on the left are only moaning about Saudi and Pakistan becasue they would like to get Bush. None of the adults in the Democratic party are saying what the “invade Pakistan and Saudi” yahoos are saying on this site.
Dugger, A Man, A Plan, A Canal, Panama
Dugger,
Suggesting that I am for sensless bloodshed is quite a stretch even for you. I am not suggesting an invasion of Saudi Arabia or Pakistan. I mean if I REALLY believed George Bush’s words, then we would be NOrth Korea, Cuba, China, Sri Lanka, Spain etc etc… See I will not jump to conclusions like the current administration, but this dragging of feet and moral posturing is ridiculous. I don’t give a rat’s ass about who, where, geological features, monetary consequences…. I only care first getting the person’s who organized the attack on our country and then solving the root of terrorism, which according to most in my alma matta is “nuke those sand ni##ers”.
No need to guess….errr, GUESS. Porter Goss knows where he is.
That aside, I’ll be the first to line up on the left and say: another invasion would be the stupidest thing this administration has ever done. (And that’s saying a lot–so much competition.) However, Musharraf is so eager for U.S. support and approval, it seems there should be some room for diplomatic pressure, yes?
Dugger, why do you want Osama to go free?
W Squared,
You only specified you were against senseless bloodshed – not bloodshed per se. But lets cut you some slack. Then you are NOT for invading Saudia and Pakistan. By getting tough, then, do you mean how liberals get tough? As in Han Blix writing a letter to North Korea and if Dear Leader doesn’t disarm, then a more strongly worded letter? Or sanctions? If the sanctions mean anything, if they are tough enough to have an impact (after all, we are talking suicide bombers), won’t they kill innocent Saudis and Pakistanis. Leftist groups have charged that such sanctions kill many thousands. How many innocent deaths are aceptable to you? How long would you go with sanctions if OBL is in pakistan as you other leftists swear, but they do not yield? Cause, I bet they wouldn’t.
Dugger, An Island of Logic in a Sea of Confusion
I’m borrowing this construction from the esteemed Professor Reynolds, but: Dugger, why are you objectively pro-Osama?
Because if we use the current method of Bush diplomacy, we leave the world a wasteland of slag and bones.
Dugger, why is it that the word “accountable” means we have to invade?
Holding a country accountable for their actions can take many forms, from simple sanctions to diplomatic pressure from multiple fronts.
Its a “game” of sorts, and where most countries usually use their military strength as a posture, Boy George wanted none of that, even though the rumors of war were pressure enough to get the UN Inspectors access to everything they had been requesting.
Its just that the word “diplomacy” has never meant anything to the Bubble Boy, he had a raging war-hard on from the moment the Supreme Court made him President.
Quaker and Binky,
You are very close to proving Mr Rove correct. Your getting tough would be diplomatic? Thats it? The lefts war on terrorism: letters, strongly worded missives, maybe no party invitations.
BTW, I wander how a foreign nation would be able to tell when we are just mildly upset instead of getting tough?
Dugger
Duggern’t,
I forgot that diplomacy and aggressive tatics are not viable in your eyes, so I guess that leaves… Oh I know! Why don’t we challenge to a debate and then good sir we may face off as gentlemen and have a duel! The long arm of chivalry shall prevail. Man your logic is damned if you do damned if you don’t. THat is typicall of the Party politic first crowd. Dugger, I have lost all hope:( I must know move back to Germany.
You seem to have a rather elastic definition of “the left” in play, Dugger. Weren’t you the guy who criticized that evil liberal John Kerry and his supporters for voting in favor of the war? Aren’t they part of the left?
Unfortuneately, taking the position that terrorism can’t be solved militarily is a lonely undertaking. Nevertheless, that has been and continues to be my view.
The dems haven’t taken this position yet because they can’t. You love to point fingers at the Republican “base”, well, the Dems have one too. Its called MoveOn, and NotInOurName, and many other pacifist organizations. Is taking that stance even possible for today’s democrats? Because lets face it, in order for any “get tough” stance to actually mean anything, your words must be backed with iron, and you have to have the will to cross the border unilateraly and face down the army of a nuclear state. One with its own radical islamists problems to boot. What happens when emboldened by a US invasion of northern Pakistan, the elements of the ISA that are sympathetic to the Taliban decided to initiate a coup de etat, and seize control of the nuclear arsenal? All so we can display a captured Osama? Not too nice a scenario, and all quite real. You have to ask yourself what that would actually gains us outside of a political and propoganda victory, and whether the gains involved justify the risks. anymore.
Dugger seems to be pro-Osama. Damn.
Besides that, Dugger, the Bush administration’s line on Pakistan has been a great deal softer than “no party invitations.”
By the way, wouldn’t our recent military agreement with India count as “getting tough” with Pakistan? Talk about leverage to use against Musharraf. How about some non-partisan credit for the Bush admin doing exactly what you are asking for?
nawoods:
I don’t know the specifics of the agreement you mention, but in general, that’s exactly what I would have in mind as one tool to use in negotiations with Musharraf.
grubi -
Found this highly entertaining.
If a Bush administration official who is in charge of investigating such things says Pakistan is where OBL is, then why are we not 1) demanding that Pakistan hand him over and 2) holding the official responsible for letting OBL go accountable?
Because 1) Iraq was perceived as an easier target and 2) Republicans don t believe in accountability.
I’m surprised that you would believe a Bush administration official if he told you where OBL was, when you clearly believe most of the Bush administration to be liars. And I guess I’m not a Republican, since I appear to be holding you accountable for a minor, and irrelevant, but aggrevating logical slip.
I don’t necessarily believe them (Bush administration) either. But I think you’d be a lot more efficient if you stopped trying to insult all Republicans/conservatives with these sorts of analyses, and stuck with something simpler, like “I hate you, and burn in hell.”
And an open question for anyone, especially Oliver – how is the Pakistan case any different than Iraq? Again, this isn’t a Flame Challenge, but an honest question – if we have no proof that OBL is in Pakistan, and we discover that we were wrong or missed him, how exactly is this different from not finding WMDs?
nawoods:
within the same week we also sold military armaments to Pakistan.
That is, if we’re talking about the same thing.
Again: why does any “tough” policy have to include US military might? Diplomacy is a powerful tool for those that have the intelligence to use it.
you don’t need an open invasion and a failed occupation to capture Osama, if Porter Goss knows right where he is, this should be simple.
I only doubt that he does because, if Goss knows where he is, there shouldn’t be any question of “will capturing OBL be in the Bush Administration’s best interest?” Not even Bush is that slow. Any politician worth his salt knows that an OBL capture would be a great weapon to throw against his opponents.
We should have never invaded Iraq. If Bush thought that they were harboring terrorists or WMD’s we should have sent the B-2 stealth bomber in there as soon as we knew where Sadam was and leveled the entire area taking him out and anyone within a mile of him. Then our message to the rest of the world leaders would be that either they clean up their own countries or we would do the same to them if we even thought they were not cooperating with us. We do not need to take any prisoners either. If they have a chance to capture any of our people, they will not treat them humanely. They just want to cut their heads off.
We should have gotten tough right after 9/11. We are supposed to be the world super power. We must win the war on terrorism no matter how many innocent civilians get killed or injured in the process.
We need to bring as many troops back to the U.S. from all around the world to guard our borders and to protect the citizens here. We need to round up all the illegal aliens and send them back to wherever they came from.
I don’t know why we did not hang Sadam in the middle of Baghdad the day we captured him. If the rest of the world sees that we are getting tough by going after their leaders then they will cooperate. Look at Quadafi. He decided to give up his WMD’s right after we got Sadam. If we had hung Sadam as soon as we got him there is no telling how many leaders would have come over to our side.
I’m not a trained military strategist like you guys, but I do know this: The reason why the 19th Century British, and the 20th Century Russians couldn’t beat the Afhans was because in those mountains where bin Laden is hiding, the natives were superior to foreign ground forces.
Our victory was propelled by bombing, not ground attack
If we go in after bin Laden, we’ll have an angry Pakistani Army in front of us, and whatever tribesmen there are who hate us at our backs. Not a good situation.
If you think nearly 1800 dead in nearly 5 years is bad, wait until you see what happens to ground forces in those mountains.
From Afghanistan Online
* Soviet Union defeated by Afghanistan, total withdrawal by the Soviets occurred on Feb. 15, 1989.
* Experts agree that at least 40,000-50,000 Soviets lost their lives in action, besides the wounded, suicides, and murders.
m surprised that you would believe a Bush administration official if he told you where OBL was, when you clearly believe most of the Bush administration to be liars. And I guess I m not a Republican, since I appear to be holding you accountable for a minor, and irrelevant, but aggrevating logical slip.
It’s not a logical slip. If he claims he knows where OBL is, then we should demand he answer us. If he gives an answer (unlikely), then he should be going after OBL, right? The fact that he has done neither is an indictment.
You seem to think that if I ask a Republican a question, I will disbelieve him and therefore have no right to ask him a question. Which is false. I ask everyone questions because I want them to answer. If they’re lying, then it can be demonstrated as such. And if they’re telling the truth, then the truth is out, no problem there.
Either way, I’m asking questions.
Where’s teh inconsistency? Oh, yes, I forgot: I disagree with you. My bad.
TomY,
You’re getting all emotional again and you really need to chill. Maybe manual, in-home electro therapy. But to answer your question, yes I am pro Obama. Kind of admire the guy despite the political differences.
And BTW, if I let five consecutive posts go by from an opposing poster without responding, then I lose the argument. Thats in the cyber constitution. So keep up the good work! You’re just about there.
Quaker,
I admit to an elastic definiton of the left -as you have of the right. And actually my criticism of Kerry was not becasue of his vote for the war, but (two things) of his supporters who were against the war and harshly criticized Bush but were quiet about Forbesy and (2) for Forbesy trying to say his vote for the war was actually a vote for something else.
White Whale
I am not calling for aggressive tactics against Saudi or Pakistan. Neither are the two major political parties. I think the call for “getting tough against Pakistan and Saudi is, well, idiotic – as put forth here. Both nations are actually allies in the region whose failing grace is that they don’t /can’t fully control the various consituencies they govern – some of whom are sympathetic to Ts. Life in the big city. Adults have to deal with it realistically; children fanatsize about getting tough. Haven’t seen a better idea yet. I guess we could go after the Sauids, wreck the American economy and piss off the Saudi government who would then sell their oil to Europe or Japan. And they would then do even less to discourage terrorism. Real life is so much harder than pretend land.
Dugger, Hard Core and Pragmatic
Pragmatic= Unethical. I guess I now understand you outlook. So how is Iraq, Syria, China, North Korea, etc… different? Maybe we are not seeing the same thing, but this war on Iraq doesn’t look very strategic or ETHICAL. Pakistan, in my eyes is kinda split. I think the people of Pakistan are not terrorist supporters, but thier leader is only partially effective. Mushariff has hunted down terrorist in his country, yet he is hardly an ally. A military dictator and a narcisstic Bush cannot be exactly on the same page. They both would have to exhibit humility. Saudi Arabia openly supports terrorism, teaches hate and death to Westerners, yet they have oil so our country’s lips are permently glued to thier balls. So many of our enemies and our president are these Captian Ahab people who all can’t see the forest for the trees.
WW,
“but thier leader is only partially effective.”
You don’t understand my outlook, but you’re right re the above.
My outlook is that I’m not sure about the wisdom of invading Iraq (I would bet it doesn’t work out in the long run – hope thats wrong), but I believe the architects of the policy and those of both parties who voted for it were well intended. But regardless of Iraq, that doesn’t excuse a stupid policy in Pakistan or Saudi. And by stupid, I mean a policy that gets “tough” with and alienates imperfect regimes (as all are in both regions) that happen to be our best allies in the region and in addition, one is a very valuable economic partner. So far, IMO, the “get tough”, Bravo Sierra I’m hearing on Pak and Saud has no substance behind it and no adult supporters.
Dugger of the Jungle, Friend to You and Me
I think you’ve confused me with someone else.
As for your comment immediately above, are you saying we should “get tough” with countries only if they can’t benefit us economically?
Quaker,
I’m saying to get tough with countries for stupid reasons is stupid. If you/your candidate want to get tough with a country who is a regional ally (an imperfect ally, yes) and a major trading partner, put it out there for the American people. The impact: major recessionary impact on the American economy, loss of a key regional strategic ally and a probable increase in terrorism. The gain?: (you fill it in here).
Dugger
That’s not how I look at it.
If the stated reasons for “getting tough” with a non-ally apply equally well to an ally, what message do we send when we treat the two differently?
Of course taking military action against Saudi Arabia would be catastrophic. So would taking unilateral action that violated the soveriegnty of Pakistan.
Recall, however, that a certain President of the United States (who shall remain nameless) once said that countries that harbor terrorists or fund terrorists would face our wrath. There seem to be some unspoken qualifiers in his bombast that exclude countries that are convenient.