1
   

Bush-"US has no intention to strike inside Pakistan"

 
 
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Aug, 2007 06:14 pm
@92b16vx,
92b16vx;29421 wrote:
You are flip flopping like Bush on the terrorism issue. You think Iraq is hunkydory, but don't want to actually go after them. Appease much?

Now point to where I said we need to invade Pakistan and you might be able to salvage some credibility.
Quote:
You are flip flopping like Bush on the terrorism issue. You think Iraq is hunkydory, but don't want to actually go after them. Appease much?
Given enough time we will deal with all who wish us harm. Got a nice foothold and they seem more then willing to migrate to get to us.
Quote:
Now point to where I said we need to invade Pakistan and you might be able to salvage some credibility
Quote:
Do I want to invade Pakistan? If that's where the enemy is, than yes.
Quote:
We are not talking about invading and toppling Pakistan, and while I know we can not just go in,
This statement to me indicates you know what you would be doing is not neccesaraly legal by world standards? What you are essentially saying is you want to commit to police actions. You think that is sound? I thought you didn't think we should be world police?
0 Replies
 
92b16vx
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Aug, 2007 06:44 pm
@92b16vx,
Flip flop on terrorism much? Appease much?

I support going after the terrorist that attacked us, you do not.

"Given enough time" they are going to attack us again, right? That's the whole point of your "support" for Iraq, to "fight them there, so we don't fight them here".

Do you support going after terrorist where they are? Or are you happy letting them operate, and not going after them?

As far as the U.N. goes...**** the U.N. Some of you like to use U.N. resolutions for scapegoats the lay blame on for invading Iiraq. Last I checked an unelected, unaccountable, much less uber corrupt, foreign body isn't in charge of the United States.


Oh yea, I like your Churchill quote.
0 Replies
 
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Aug, 2007 09:25 pm
@92b16vx,
Your asking yourself questions now? It's ok for you but not for me, sounds a little jaded.
Quote:
I support going after the terrorist that attacked us, you do not.
This also means you are willing to break international law to do it, the world won't like you. You don't care so why should Bush?
Quote:
"Given enough time" they are going to attack us again, right? That's the whole point of your "support" for Iraq, to "fight them there, so we don't fight them here".
It's worked great to date wouldn't you agree?
Quote:
Do you support going after terrorist where they are? Or are you happy letting them operate, and not going after them?
When you can get the job done without break any laws i will be amazed. How long do you think i will be waiting?
Quote:
As far as the U.N. goes...**** the U.N.
The UN is not the only entity you have to worry about.
Quote:
Some of you like to use U.N. resolutions for scapegoats the lay blame on for invading Iiraq.
Helps to justify your case before the world, something you haven't been able to do? You just want to attack without justification, a point you made for Bush and are yet willing to commit yourself? In most reasonable peoples eyes IMO that would make you no better.
Quote:
Last I checked an unelected, unaccountable, much less uber corrupt, foreign body isn't in charge of the United States.
Please explain your plan for this lofty goal? You cannot and will not get any of it done without the world body or the UN on your side, any thing else is a police action. Some thing else you explained was not right but yet are now willing to do if it means getting your way?

Quote:
Oh yea, I like your Churchill quote.
Thanks, i got it from The Patriot Post - The Internet's leading journal of Federalism and the Founders.
92b16vx
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Aug, 2007 09:32 pm
@Drnaline,
Drnaline;29451 wrote:
You just want to attack without justification, a point you made for Bush and are yet willing to commit yourself? In most reasonable peoples eyes IMO that would make you no better.


Attack without justification? You mean besides harboring the terrorist that Bush said, we will "hunt down, no matter where they hide". Not a secular, sovereign nation that didn't. I find it awefully appeasing of you to not have them on your hitlist too, as you seem so concerned with terrorism. Or, is it only when it is in Iraq?

Quote:
Please explain your plan for this lofty goal?


Explain your lofty goal for Iraq.

Just to be clear, you think we should continue spending billions, and billions in Iraq, but you do not think we should go after terrorist, or countries that harbor them, and instead continue to appease them with gifts of money and weapons.
0 Replies
 
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Aug, 2007 10:23 pm
@92b16vx,
We don't have to go anywhere to get them, they come to us. That's the beuty of it.
politically-wrong
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Aug, 2007 05:25 am
@Pinochet73,
Pinochet73;29372 wrote:
I've tried to explain our dilemma with Pakistan before. It's old news, and discussed constantly in the media. Mushareff is hanging on by a thread, in the tradition of the Sha of Iran. If we invade Pakistan, he'll fall to Islamic rebellion, and then we'll really be screwed. The bad guys will possess yet more territory in the Middle East, and will also have access to nukes. WE HAVE TO BE VERY, VERY CAUTIOUS IN THE CASE OF PAKISTAN. This is some complicated chit. I know you can fathom that. I'm sure you executed some compicated missions over there, right?


Congrats!! thats ur first post with real logic in it:thumbup:

so how about the US supporting the seculars over there,benazir boto (or what ever her name is) and her party should have been supported by the US, they have most of the educated population behind them, so when musharaf falls they can take over the country, instead of its falling into what u call the wrong hands.
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Aug, 2007 08:48 am
@92b16vx,
So what your saying is you too want us to invade Pakistan?
92b16vx
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Aug, 2007 08:50 am
@Drnaline,
Drnaline;29466 wrote:
So what your saying is you too want us to invade Pakistan?


Post less, appease more.
0 Replies
 
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Aug, 2007 08:57 am
@92b16vx,
Appease is nice when your on our dime. We stopped paying and all of the sudden your offended?
92b16vx
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Aug, 2007 09:07 am
@Drnaline,
Drnaline;29468 wrote:
Appease is nice when your on our dime. We stopped paying and all of the sudden your offended?


Non sequitur, but good try.
Pinochet73
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Aug, 2007 09:36 am
@politically-wrong,
politically-wrong;29460 wrote:
Congrats!! thats ur first post with real logic in it:thumbup:

so how about the US supporting the seculars over there,benazir boto (or what ever her name is) and her party should have been supported by the US, they have most of the educated population behind them, so when musharaf falls they can take over the country, instead of its falling into what u call the wrong hands.


Sure.....let's do whatever it takes. On another note, imagine your bag having been mashed into 'pure de papa' just now for dissing me. Imagine the pain, Mofo. Imagine the pain of a million track-cleat holes in your 'nads.Very Happy
0 Replies
 
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Aug, 2007 11:18 am
@92b16vx,
92b16vx;29471 wrote:
Non sequitur, but good try.

In your opinion, now where near a majority?
socalgolfguy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Aug, 2007 12:49 pm
@92b16vx,
I think Hamid Karzai wants the Taliban and AQ out of his hair for good. Eventually, he will ask the US to assist him, first on a covert basis leading to full scale attacks on the border region once reasonable progress is recognized.
0 Replies
 
92b16vx
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Aug, 2007 01:14 pm
@Drnaline,
Drnaline;29496 wrote:
In your opinion, now where near a majority?


I have an idea, why don't you search online for someone that already said what you are trying to say, and then copy paste it, because your command of the english language is horrible. Mkae snse plse
0 Replies
 
Pinochet73
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Aug, 2007 02:01 pm
@92b16vx,
At this point, GW should focus entirely on the war and raise frig'n HOLY HELL with the enemy before he leaves office. He should deploy wet-ops teams and do all manner of hostle crap to AQ and the Taliban.Now that he's on the home-stretch and the Repubs don't stand a chance to retake the White House after he's gone, he should exhaust our military's stockpile of BUNKER-BUSTERS and turn the sandbox into glass. Ha.
0 Replies
 
RedOct
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Aug, 2007 11:39 am
@92b16vx,
Musharraf has sacrified some 900 soldiers for the US, primarily because of India as it's neighbor. India is a regional power, which places Musharraf in a very tough spot.
0 Replies
 
Silverchild79
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Aug, 2007 11:44 am
@Drnaline,
Drnaline;29455 wrote:
We don't have to go anywhere to get them, they come to us. That's the beuty of it.


+1 (5)

if you were in the buisness of removing termites from a house and you could stand in one room and have them all come to you you'd stay in that room until evey last one was gone

we're in the buisness of removing terrorists, and Iraq is that room
92b16vx
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Aug, 2007 01:16 pm
@Silverchild79,
Silverchild79;30022 wrote:
+1 (5)

if you were in the buisness of removing termites from a house and you could stand in one room and have them all come to you you'd stay in that room until evey last one was gone

we're in the buisness of removing terrorists, and Iraq is that room


Except they aren't all coming to us, they are sitting in the border regions of Pakistan regrouping.
0 Replies
 
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Aug, 2007 01:57 pm
@92b16vx,
Oh almost forgot, we need to start attacking pakistan.
Pinochet73
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Aug, 2007 02:22 pm
@Drnaline,
Drnaline;30050 wrote:
Oh almost forgot, we need to start attacking pakistan.


Yeah....as Obama insisted, we need to negotiate with AQ, our enemy, and bomb Pakistan, our ally. His next demand would probably be something along the lines of importing more Muslim terrorists from the Middle East into the U.S., and turning our kids over to the Government, to be raised in Leftist, military bootcamps, under the direct supervision of Chelsea Clinton. VOTE OBAMA FOR A BETTER AMERICA!:thumbdown: :frown: :frown: :frown: :thumbdown:
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 06/25/2024 at 09:26:51