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.

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

I admit to an elastic definiton of the left -as you have of the right.

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?

“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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

Your getting tough would be diplomatic? Thats it? The lefts war on terrorism: letters, strongly worded missives, maybe no party invitations.

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.