Pakistan

[Dago]

Originally posted by MORAY37
I didn't even click the story..... your source is FOX.  About as fair and balanced as Aunt Jemima on a seesaw by herself.

This is about as stupid a response as I have seen in a long time on this board.  Typical left wing head up the arse response, reminds me of David Letterman talking to Bill O'Reilly and telling him he didn't agree with what O'Reilly says on his show, then later admits he doesn't watch O'Reillys show and never has.  What a fool.

Put you head in the sand Moray, listen only where you are sure you will hear what you want to hear, and do not risk an opposing view, lest you discover that there might be two sides to any story, don't risk that.  

[Dago]

Originally posted by Thrawn
lols, the only thing you are consistent in is your inconsistency.

While Trawns only consistancy is acting like a jerk, and speaking about things he only knows about from MSM coverage, while pretending to be an expert.

[bj229r]

There REALLY isnt much difference between Fox and CNN on the 'straight' news, its the discussion/ NON-NEWS shows where there are political bias's, but if you're an avowed leftist, (and scientist;) ), you cannot be exposed to the Fox News Channel under any circumstances

[crockett]

Originally posted by Thrawn
A military secularist takes control of the government and becomes dictator.  He brutally suppresses armed uprisings by Islamic fundamentalists and has been militarily aggressive to his neighbours.

Wait!  Oh noes!  Are we talking about Mussharaf or Saddam?

Yea we have pretty much opened a big can of worms over there. The Taliban left afghan when we attacked there and has been slowly working on taking control of Pakistan.

Who needs to develop a nuke when you can take over a country that already has them. Now we have a military commander whom knows what up, and seems to be in the middle of a illegal military Coop.

We had a country whom held elections, but because of our actions in the region, they were likely going to turn to a pro extremest state with a heavy influnced Taliban govt. Maybe not by choice of the people but sure seemed like it was heading that way by intimidation factor.

However, instead their military leader takes control in a coop last night, or at least it seems that's what is going on. No one knows because all the media has been turned off and marshall law has been put in place.

So now we have what's the lesser of two evils? Do we support a military dictator whom took control illegally? Or do we support a pro Taliban regime that was likely to be voted into office.

Now Mussharaf is claiming that elections will likely have to be held off for a year. Humm guess who will be in charge of Pakistan for that year under heavy military control. (yea right) Or will we now see a civil war break out in a state which has nuclear weapons.

So do we cross our fingers and hope he does the right thing and really cares about his people and country? If it does turn into a  Civil war yea damn sure know it's going to involve Afghanistan and will likely spill in to India.

[SkyRock]

Originally posted by bj229r
, but if you're an avowed  ( scientist;) ), you cannot be exposed to the Fox News Channel under any circumstances

Why would you say this?

[crockett]

Originally posted by bj229r
There REALLY isnt much difference between Fox and CNN on the 'straight' news, its the discussion/ NON-NEWS shows where there are political bias's, but if you're an avowed leftist, (and scientist;) ), you cannot be exposed to the Fox News Channel under any circumstances

I don't watch any of them anymore. Pretty much all the big American news agency's have turned into nothing more than Tabloid TV.. Fox being the worst. They are all pretty much nothing more than entertainment news.

I tend to get my news via the BBC.

[Bronk]

Originally posted by crockett


I tend to get my news via the BBC.

[bj229r]

Originally posted by SkyRock
Why would you say this?

Which part?...ya snipped out 'leftist'

[bj229r]

Originally posted by crockett
Yea we have pretty much opened a big can of worms over there. The Taliban left afghan when we attacked there and has been slowly working on taking control of Pakistan.

Who needs to develop a nuke when you can take over a country that already has them. Now we have a military commander whom knows what up, and seems to be in the middle of a illegal military Coop.

We had a country whom held elections, but because of our actions in the region, they were likely going to turn to a pro extremest state with a heavy influnced Taliban govt. Maybe not by choice of the people but sure seemed like it was heading that way by intimidation factor.

However, instead their military leader takes control in a coop last night, or at least it seems that's what is going on. No one knows because all the media has been turned off and marshall law has been put in place.

So now we have what's the lesser of two evils? Do we support a military dictator whom took control illegally? Or do we support a pro Taliban regime that was likely to be voted into office.

Now Mussharaf is claiming that elections will likely have to be held off for a year. Humm guess who will be in charge of Pakistan for that year under heavy military control. (yea right) Or will we now see a civil war break out in a state which has nuclear weapons.

So do we cross our fingers and hope he does the right thing and really cares about his people and country? If it does turn into a  Civil war yea damn sure know it's going to involve Afghanistan and will likely spill in to India.

Crockett, are you trying to say Pakistan is Bush's fault TOO?

[AKIron]

Crockett, are you suggesting we should not have invaded Afghanistan and destroyed the stranglehold the Taliban held there? Do you honestly think the Taliban would have then been content to leave democracy in their neighbor Pakistan unmolested? You really need to give those looney left web sites a break.

[FrodeMk3]

Originally posted by crockett
Yea we have pretty much opened a big can of worms over there. The Taliban left afghan when we attacked there and has been slowly working on taking control of Pakistan.

Who needs to develop a nuke when you can take over a country that already has them. Now we have a military commander whom knows what up, and seems to be in the middle of a illegal military Coop.

We had a country whom held elections, but because of our actions in the region, they were likely going to turn to a pro extremest state with a heavy influnced Taliban govt. Maybe not by choice of the people but sure seemed like it was heading that way by intimidation factor.

However, instead their military leader takes control in a coop last night, or at least it seems that's what is going on. No one knows because all the media has been turned off and marshall law has been put in place.

So now we have what's the lesser of two evils? Do we support a military dictator whom took control illegally? Or do we support a pro Taliban regime that was likely to be voted into office.

Now Mussharaf is claiming that elections will likely have to be held off for a year. Humm guess who will be in charge of Pakistan for that year under heavy military control. (yea right) Or will we now see a civil war break out in a state which has nuclear weapons.

So do we cross our fingers and hope he does the right thing and really cares about his people and country? If it does turn into a  Civil war yea damn sure know it's going to involve Afghanistan and will likely spill in to India.

Now, going after Osama bin-Laden was something we should have done, after 9/11. That meant an invasion of Afghanistan, and of course a fight with the Taliban that were in power there. There was gonna be spillover, Musharraf should have known that things' could come to this. He should have been more active and persistent, and kept the Taliban out from day one (In other words, he could have been ALOT more helpful.)

I'm not saying turn back every single Afghan refugee...just carefully screen out the radicals. Pakistan's security service should have been up to the task(We relied on them for our info, right?)

And lastly, I guess, we shoulda made sure the job was done before we picked up sticks and left. Oh, I know there are still troops on the ground over there-A majority of them NATO, but we still have some presence. We don't have enough to do what we need to do at this very minute-run over and clean the radicals' out of Pakistan's border areas, before they topple the Musharraf gov't. This thing is leaning more and more towards a worst-case scenario.

[SkyRock]

Originally posted by bj229r
Which part?...ya snipped out 'leftist'

The part that I quoted.  I know why you would use leftist, but are you saying that all scientists are leftist?

[bj229r]

Pakistan's army got their arse handed to them going into the mountain areas near Waziristan...this article gives a nice summary of it all:
link

The fall of North and South Waziristan and the rise of the Islamic Emirate of Waziristan was an event telegraphed by al Qaeda and the Taliban. During the winter of 2006, Osama bin Laden announced his strategy to establish bases and pockets of territory along the Afghan-Pakistani border. The Taliban and al Qaeda (virtually indistinguishable in this region at this point in time) had been fighting a long term insurgency against the Pakistani Army after President Musharraf put troops in the region shortly after 9-11.

But two developments accelerated al Qaeda's plans to conquer the agencies of North and South Waziristan: the airstrike against Ayman al-Zawahiri in Damadola, and the attack on the Danda Saidgai training camp in North Waziristan. In both instances, al Qaeda's senior leadership was targeted, and in Danda Saidgai, Osama bin Laden and his praetorian 'Black Guard,' or personal bodyguard, were the subject of the attack.

While bin Laden and Zawahiri escaped, senior commanders such as Abu Khabab al-Masri (WMD chief) and Imam Asad (chief trainer of the Black Guard), among others were killed. Al-Qaeda could no longer countenance a Pakistani presence in the region. The time had come to force the Pakistani Army to withdraw and force the government to accept terms of surrender. Al-Qaeda retaliated for the airstrikes by murdering a U.S. official at the Consulate in Karachi.

South Waziristan fell some time in the spring of 2006 (I suspect sometime in late March). On March 6, I referred to South Waziristan as 'Talibanistan.' Shariah Law was declared in South Waziristan at this time and the Taliban began to rule openly. A single political party was established in South Waziristan, a party loyal to the Taliban. It is said a secret accord was signed between the Pakistani government and the Taliban around this time. All along the fighting in North Waziristan increased over the course of 2006.

Pro-Pakistani government tribal leaders and informants were murdered and made an example of. The Pakistani Army paid a devastating price for their operations in Waziristan. The official government reports claim around 200 soldiers killed, however the unofficial numbers put the casualties somewhere around 3,000 killed in combat.

On June 25, I sounded the alarm that a truce would be in the offing in North Waziristan. The Pakistan Army was taking a pounding, and President Musharraf lacked the will to fight in the region became apparent. All along, Musharraf and the Pakistani elite attempted to draw distinctions between the Taliban and “miscreants” and “foreigners” - which is merely code for al Qaeda. The failure to realize the Taliban and al Qaeda worked towards the same end, and have integrated political and command structures, led the Pakistani government to cut deals with the 'local Taliban' and the eventual establishment of the Islamic Emirate of Waziristan. The Taliban and al Qaeda are by no means finished with their goals of carving out safe havens along the Afghan-Pakistani border. In March of 2007, the Pakitani government signed over the tribal agency of Bajaur to the Taliban. .

[AKIron]

One good thing could come from a government collapse in Pakistan. The US would no longer have reservations about seeking and destroying Al-Qeada/Taliban on the other side of the Afghan border.

No, it won't offset the benefit of the current stability there.

[FrodeMk3]

Originally posted by bj229r
Pakistan's army got their arse handed to them going into the mountain areas near Waziristan...this article gives a nice summary of it all:
link

Thanks for putting that up there, BJ-It was really informative.

However, unfortunately, We should have concentrated on events' in Afghanistan/Pakistan until it was finished. Iraq never should have even crossed anyone's mind until things were finished in Afghanistan. It's like the same mistake that Germany made in WWII, attacking Russia before England was finished.