So we shouldn’t threaten to bomb them back to the stone age?
I wouldn’t suggest using that exact phrase, but I have no problem with threatening miliatry action on a country that harbors and nurtures al Qaeda. Of course those areas in Pakistan where al Qaeda hides out are not far removed from the stone age, so it wouldn’t take much bombing to accomplish that feat. And keep in mind that those same areas (mostly in Northern Pakistan) essetnially form one geographic and ethnic area with those parts of southern Afghanistan that share the border. A border which may be drawn on maps, but doesn’t exist in any meaningful sense.
We seem to have had some difficulty with determining who “harbors and nurtures” AlQ. No examples leap to mind, but perhaps with some research…
I think Afghanistan fit that bill. I purposely add the “nurture” bit because sometimes it’s hard to determine if a country is actually harboring terrorists or is just unable to deal with them effectively. ObL and the Taliban had a two-way relationship going on-- he helped them and they helped him.
Yeah, but then there’s that other one. Tip of my tongue, rhymes with “debacle”.
Iraqle?
Are we still talking about Pakistan or have we shifted to Afghanistan? I thought we bombed THE country that was harboring Al Queda. Or was Pakistan also harboring Al Queda but willing to turn their backs on them after 9/11 (heck we gave Afghanistan a chance to help us against Al Queda after 9/11, why wouldn’t we give Pakistan the same opportunity)?
I was answering a specific question from elucidator, but in a sense we’ve been talking about both all along. The northern tribal regions of Pakistan aren’t now and never have been under the control of the cetnral government. They might as well have been part of Afghanistan.
I think we gave both the same ultimatum. Afghanistan politely said "no thanks’ and Pakistan politely said “OK”. The question is: how cooperative has Pakistan really been? I think the asnwer is: “some”.
Germanockle?
Pakistan has been an ally to the USA. More then some so called NATO allies.
In truth the Leader of Pakistan has a tough job. He has been targeted for assignation a few times, and has political dynamite over the Kashmir land dispute with India. Pakistan also has a large Muslim population. Hunting down other Muslims in the eyes of other Muslims is an uneasy thing.
I think the USA knows Pakistan is a key ally on the war on terror. It’s not a perfect marriage, but any Muslim nation willing to work with us and police radical Islamics hell bent on death and destruction is a good enough ally in my book.
Total hijack, but maybe you can clear up a rumor from '92. I heard Chelsea was conceived by deceit; Hillary had a solid-gold IUD installed so Bill could finally come into some real money.
What I said on Pakistan is true. They are helping us. Some NATO nations are not. They attempt to use the UN to block our wishes. The most dangerous combination in the world is a crazed terrorist with weapons of mass of mass destruction. I have no doubt that if a terrorist group obtains one, they will attempt to use it. We need to wake up.
As for Bill Clinton, the man was a true bastard by definition. Clinton was very smart, charismatic and slick, but deep down the man ethics stunk like a whore house at low tide. If Hillary had any integrity she would have divorced Bill. However, the marriage between the two was chiefly about power. I’d say it has been a successful marriage regardless of Bill’s numerous and rather ordinary looking women that he has “ hooked up “ with.
Now Hillary is trying to fool Joe Average by attempting to adopted middle of the road positions.
Are you guys ever going to get tired of the “change the subject to past problems in order to deal with embarrassing present realities” tactic?
But if we had any integrity, we’d, oh never mind.
No. They have no response to criticisms regarding the problems they’ve caused, because there is no response. That’s why now, more than ever, they’re using meaningless rhetoric (“Ooh! Hillary’s a liberal! Scary!”) rather than engaging in substantive debate. There’s simply no possible way for a supporter of this administration to express that support through real, meaningful arguments. It simply cannot be done.
Hilary Clinton’s Gynecologist, huh. Man, that is so clever! Move over, Swift. Siddown and shut up, Wilde. There’s a new sheriff in Witburg. Does Little Green Turdballs have us on their hit list, places to go and annoy the sensible?
Not that big a fan of Ms Clinton, something kinda cold and calculating. But she flushes down more good sense than you’ve displayed so far. Intelligent righties are kinda at a premium these days around here, and you’re presence if most likely to embarass them. Which is a shame, because an argument without balance loses all chance of dialectic.
Any chance you’ll just, you know, go away?
Yes; curse those pesky people who actually demand reasons for invasion and conquest !
Yes, and we’ll really be in trouble if Allah show up and starts personally laying waste to non-Muslim nations. I rate the terrorists with WMDs scenario as just barely more plausible than that, especially multiple WMDs. As I’ve said before, here and elsewhere, NO nation is going to hand such weapons to loose cannon terrorists.
That’s your opinion. Ethically speaking, compared to Bush he is an icon of righteousness who burns away sin by his mere presence.
Why ? And why is it your business ? Why do you care ?
When has she ever not done so ? Both Clintons are moderate right wingers.
Which NATO countries are not “helping us”? If you mean “doing everything we tell them to do”, OK. If you mean “cooperating with on” you are wrong.
Just we need-- an HRC troll… :rolleyes:
Don’t think you’re gonna get away with being a Hilary apologist around here, bucko!
Thanks for the laugh.