usa pondering a regime change in pakistan !!!

IndianSummerIndianSummer Posts: 854
edited March 2007 in A Moving Train
http://www.rawstory.com/showarticle.php?src=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theaustralian.news.com.au%2Fstory%2F0%2C20867%2C21378237-2703%2C00.html




US looks at plan to oust Musharraf

* Bruce Loudon, South Asia correspondent
* March 14, 2007

THE US has indicated for the first time that it might be willing to back plans by elite echelons of the military in Islamabad to oust Pervez Musharraf from power, as the Pakistani President was beset by major new difficulties over his attempts to sack the country's chief justice.
Reports yesterday quoting highly placed US diplomatic and intelligence officials - previously rusted on to the view that General Musharraf was an indispensable Western ally in the battle against terrorism - outlined a succession plan to replace him.

US officials told The New York Times the plan would see the Vice-Chief of the Army, Ahsan Saleem Hyat, take over from General Musharraf as head of the military and former banker Mohammedmian Soomro installed as president, with General Hyat wielding most of the power.

The report adds another dimension to the range of challenges bearing down on the embattled military ruler following his weekend sacking of chief justice Iftikhar Chaudhry, whom he appointed just over a year ago.

Thousands of lawyers clashed with baton-wielding riot police yesterday during a nationwide day of action against the sacking of the top judge. About 3000 lawyers wearing smart black suits and chanting "Down with Musharraf" dismantled barriers in an attempt to stage a sit-in outside the Lahore High Court building.

More than 40 lawyers and 15 police were injured in the clashes. Police repeatedly baton-charged the demonstrators, some of them senior members of the bar, arresting 25 people.

In Islamabad, police barricaded the Supreme Court where the Supreme Judicial Council was meeting in camera to consider as-yet unspecified charges against the chief justice involving alleged misuse of his authority.

There was chaos and confusion as the council began its hearings last night. Having been held virtually under siege and incommunicado in his residence, the chief justice refused to get into a government car sent to convey him to the Supreme Court.

Instead, he stunned officials by starting to walk, surrounded by supporters, and told reporters he rejected any suggestion he had abused his office. Police soon intervened, however, and he was forced into a car and taken to another building before being transferred to the Supreme Court.

As courts across the country remained paralysed in protest, motives for the sacking emerged when it was disclosed that last month Justice Iftikhar said in a speech that General Musharraf could not continue as army chief beyond the expiry of his term as President later this year.

General Musharraf has a highly controversial plan that would have him elected to another five-year term as President by existing federal and provincial legislatures - before general elections are held.

But he also wants to continue as Army Chief of Staff, something that is bitterly opposed by political leaders as well as the international community. The plan would be challenged in the courts, and the chief justice's strong words on the issue may have forced the President to take pre-emptive action to remove him.

The bitter wrangling lends weight to those in the US diplomatic and intelligence community who believe it is time to consider the post-Musharraf era.

The US report suggests a growing disenchantment towards General Musharraf in Washington and indicates that the longstanding view that the alternative to his regime would be chaos and a takeover by extremist Islamic mullahs is no longer ascendant.

The US officials say hardline Islamists have usually not done well in elections in Pakistan and that if General Musharraf were removed, a doomsday scenario would not necessarily follow.

The report could be an attempt by Washington to pressure General Musharraf to take stronger action against militants in Pakistan's border areas near Afghanistan, where the Taliban and al-Qa'ida are operating. But it might also indicate the President's allies in Washington are about to pull the rug from under him.
I have faced it, A life wasted...

Take my hand, my child of love
Come step inside my tears
Swim the magic ocean,
I've been crying all these years
Post edited by Unknown User on
«1

Comments

  • CosmoCosmo Posts: 12,225
    Pakistan is the LAST place America wants a 'Democracy' to emerge.
    Why? Because 80% of the Muslim population hates us... ever wonder about a country who's favorite name for baby boys after September 11, 2001 is Usama?
    Who do you think will get elected by a vast majority of people who hate us?
    If you guessed, "Someone who hates us"... you are probably right.
    Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
    Hail, Hail!!!
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    Cosmo wrote:
    Pakistan is the LAST place America wants a 'Democracy' to emerge.
    Why? Because 80% of the Muslim population hates us... ever wonder about a country who's favorite name for baby boys after September 11, 2001 is Usama?
    Who do you think will get elected by a vast majority of people who hate us?
    If you guessed, "Someone who hates us"... you are probably right.


    so true. pakistan is where extreme islam was born. alot of hate for us there. very touchy situation on who should be the leader. we should be very thankful the president is on our side (even if its a half assed effort)
  • CosmoCosmo Posts: 12,225
    jlew24asu wrote:
    so true. pakistan is where extreme islam was born. alot of hate for us there. very touchy situation on who should be the leader. we should be very thankful the president is on our side (even if its a half assed effort)
    ...
    There's a reason why Usama bin Laden hasn't been found... he's in Pakistan.
    And we are idiots... we are shovelling money and weapons to Pakistan to 'Be our friends'... they hate us. We're like the pathetic rich kid wuss on the block that pays the other kids in the neighborhood to be his friend. They are only his friend because he gives them money... they all think he's a dick and hate him.
    Pakistan is very likely to be the Hussein-esque Iraq of the future. We HAVE to stop this idiotic 'A Friend of my enemy is my Friend' policy... it has proven not to work with Bin Laden and Hussein as shining examples of its failure. The warning lights in Pakistan are flashing... our first hint sholud be the number of babies named 'Usama'. Get a fucking clue, America.... quit being a dick.
    Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
    Hail, Hail!!!
  • ledveddermanledvedderman Posts: 7,761
    Cosmo wrote:
    ...
    There's a reason why Usama bin Laden hasn't been found... he's in Pakistan.
    And we are idiots... we are shovelling money and weapons to Pakistan to 'Be our friends'... they hate us. We're like the pathetic rich kid wuss on the block that pays the other kids in the neighborhood to be his friend. They are only his friend because he gives them money... they all think he's a dick and hate him.
    Pakistan is very likely to be the Hussein-esque Iraq of the future. We HAVE to stop this idiotic 'A Friend of my enemy is my Friend' policy... it has proven not to work with Bin Laden and Hussein as shining examples of its failure. The warning lights in Pakistan are flashing... our first hint sholud be the number of babies named 'Usama'. Get a fucking clue, America.... quit being a dick.

    I don't know if it can be said better than this...
  • darkcrowdarkcrow Posts: 1,102
    this would be a rather stupid move... what if a new leader is against making peace with india?? what if the new leader is more in favour of using nukes? better the devil you know
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    Cosmo wrote:
    ...
    There's a reason why Usama bin Laden hasn't been found... he's in Pakistan.
    he's in (probably) the tribal areas. theres a difference. regardless we arent allowed in pakistan

    Cosmo wrote:
    And we are idiots... we are shovelling money and weapons to Pakistan to 'Be our friends'... they hate us.
    we are shovelling moeny and weapons to the regime that does not hate us. the people do.
    Cosmo wrote:
    We're like the pathetic rich kid wuss on the block that pays the other kids in the neighborhood to be his friend. They are only his friend because he gives them money... they all think he's a dick and hate him.
    thats cute
    ...
    Cosmo wrote:
    Pakistan is very likely to be the Hussein-esque Iraq of the future. We HAVE to stop this idiotic 'A Friend of my enemy is my Friend' policy... it has proven not to work with Bin Laden and Hussein as shining examples of its failure. The warning lights in Pakistan are flashing... our first hint sholud be the number of babies named 'Usama'. Get a fucking clue, America.... quit being a dick.
    this is the dumbest thing I have heard in a long time. pakistan is a hot bed of islamic extremism. luckily we have a president in pakistan who considers us a "friend". the only option we have is to be friends with pakistan or not. should we invade? great idea. should we topple the current government? allowed some shiek to take power and have access to nukes? great idea.


    ...
  • Cosmo wrote:
    ...
    Pakistan is very likely to be the Hussein-esque Iraq of the future. We HAVE to stop this idiotic 'A Friend of my enemy is my Friend' policy... it has proven not to work with Bin Laden and Hussein as shining examples of its failure. The warning lights in Pakistan are flashing... our first hint sholud be the number of babies named 'Usama'. Get a fucking clue, America.... quit being a dick.




    Very true, the only difference here is that Pakistan actually has the BOMB!
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    darkcrow wrote:
    this would be a rather stupid move... what if a new leader is against making peace with india?? what if the new leader is more in favour of using nukes? better the devil you know

    at least someone gets it
  • "Thousands of lawyers clashed with baton-wielding riot police yesterday"

    Why do I find this funny?
  • CosmoCosmo Posts: 12,225
    jlew24asu wrote:
    he's in (probably) the tribal areas. theres a difference. regardless we arent allowed in pakistan
    ...
    Aren't the 'Tribal Areas of Pakistan'... STILL Pakistan? What does that tell you about the influence the Pakistani President has within his own country?
    jlew24asu wrote:
    we are shovelling moeny and weapons to the regime that does not hate us. the people do....
    ...
    Oh... that's comforting. So, there is no way these weapons may eventually get into the hands of "the people (of Pakistan)" who hate us. This is the same situation that happened in Iran.. the Shah loved us... the Iranian people hated us... that worked out real well, didn't it? I'm glad you find comfort in their leadership... I don't.
    jlew24asu wrote:
    thats cute...
    ...
    I bet you say that to all the boys.
    jlew24asu wrote:
    this is the dumbest thing I have heard in a long time. pakistan is a hot bed of islamic extremism. luckily we have a president in pakistan who considers us a "friend". the only option we have is to be friends with pakistan or not. should we invade? great idea. should we topple the current government? allowed some shiek to take power and have access to nukes? great idea.
    ...
    Yeah... yeah...
    The President of Pakistan is our 'Friend'... you see it as good... I don't. I see ONE Pakistan. One country filled with people who hate us lead by a leader who we are shovelling tax dollars to. I don't think that's a good idea... you do. I don't believe he will be the President over there FOREVER. Eventually, he will fall from power. He will more than likely seek to retain power by oppressing his people... i don't think that would be good for us... apparently, you see different.
    You need to get your facts straight... I never said anything about toppling their government... their people will eventually get around to doing that. and guess who they will put in charge... an Anti-American religious fuck.
    ...
    My (pre-Iraq mess) tack would have been to play hardball with fucking Pakistan and place them on notice that if they choose the same course of action that Afghanistan did... harboring Usama bin Laden, they will be dealt with iin the same manner. I wouldn't be kissing that asshole's butt.
    Of course... with all that's going on in Iraq... we're screwed. From here, I would cut payment (cash and weapons) to Pakistan and place a conditions on them... no payment until bin Laden is handed over.
    I don't like the wussy policy... I guess that the main division.
    Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
    Hail, Hail!!!
  • Were only bombing countries because we love them..why can't they just accept it?

    Jesus loves smart bombs...

    bombs for peace...
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    Cosmo wrote:
    ...
    Aren't the 'Tribal Areas of Pakistan'... STILL Pakistan?
    its pakistan by borders, but barely. you pretend to be a smart guy. read up about the tribal areas.
    Cosmo wrote:
    What does that tell you about the influence the Pakistani President has within his own country?
    I dont know, why dont you give us a 6 paragraph explanation about it. its tells me the area has been untouched by foreign influence and governments for hundreds of years. the british are the ones who put borders around it and called it pakistan.


    ...
    Cosmo wrote:
    Oh... that's comforting. So, there is no way these weapons may eventually get into the hands of "the people (of Pakistan)" who hate us. This is the same situation that happened in Iran.. the Shah loved us... the Iranian people hated us... that worked out real well, didn't it? I'm glad you find comfort in their leadership... I don't.
    hey I dont either, but right now there is no other way.


    ...
    Cosmo wrote:
    I bet you say that to all the boys.
    o stop it.

    ...
    Cosmo wrote:
    Yeah... yeah...
    The President of Pakistan is our 'Friend'... you see it as good... I don't.
    how is it not good? would you rather they be an enemy?
    Cosmo wrote:
    I see ONE Pakistan. One country filled with people who hate us lead by a leader who we are shovelling tax dollars to.
    maybe you should be a little more open minded and accept pakistan for what it is. its not ONE country. its a fucked up place filled with hateful people, lead by a guy who has the balls to call america a friend.
    Cosmo wrote:
    I don't think that's a good idea... you do.
    of course you dont. but I have yet to hear what you would rather do. invade I guess.
    Cosmo wrote:
    I don't believe he will be the President over there FOREVER. Eventually, he will fall from power. He will more than likely seek to retain power by oppressing his people... i don't think that would be good for us... apparently, you see different.
    so now you care about the little guy in pakistan? thats also cute.

    Cosmo wrote:
    You need to get your facts straight... I never said anything about toppling their government... their people will eventually get around to doing that. and guess who they will put in charge... an Anti-American religious fuck.
    so what should we do? go ahead and hate the current government and president becuase one day he will be gone? so stupid.
    ...
    Cosmo wrote:
    My (pre-Iraq mess) tack would have been to play hardball with fucking Pakistan and place them on notice that if they choose the same course of action that Afghanistan did
    we did that. and many el queda leaders and taliban have been captured or killed.
    Cosmo wrote:
    ... harboring Usama bin Laden,
    he is in the tribal areas that pakistan has little control over. you really dont know shit about that area do you? google it. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1711316.stm
    Cosmo wrote:
    they will be dealt with iin the same manner.
    same manner? you want to invade a country of 160 million nuke holding extremist? genius.
    Cosmo wrote:
    I wouldn't be kissing that asshole's butt.
    such a tough guy
    Cosmo wrote:
    Of course... with all that's going on in Iraq... we're screwed. From here, I would cut payment (cash and weapons) to Pakistan and place a conditions on them... no payment until bin Laden is handed over.
    maybe you are too dumb to realize that this wouldnt do shit. it would only alienate us more in the region
    Cosmo wrote:
    I don't like the wussy policy... I guess that the main division.
    I know your such a tough guy. you want to play hardball. that would accomplish nothing. cosmo for president





    ...
  • CosmoCosmo Posts: 12,225
    jlew24asu wrote:
    its pakistan by borders, but barely. you pretend to be a smart guy. read up about the tribal areas.

    I dont know, why dont you give us a 6 paragraph explanation about it. its tells me the area has been untouched by foreign influence and governments for hundreds of years. the british are the ones who put borders around it and called it pakistan.


    ...
    hey I dont either, but right now there is no other way.


    ...
    o stop it.

    ...

    how is it not good? would you rather they be an enemy?

    maybe you should be a little more open minded and accept pakistan for what it is. its not ONE country. its a fucked up place filled with hateful people, lead by a guy who has the balls to call america a friend.

    of course you dont. but I have yet to hear what you would rather do. invade I guess.

    so now you care about the little guy in pakistan? thats also cute.


    so what should we do? go ahead and hate the current government and president becuase one day he will be gone? so stupid.
    ...
    we did that. and many el queda leaders and taliban have been captured or killed.

    he is in the tribal areas that pakistan has little control over. you really dont know shit about that area do you? google it. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1711316.stm

    same manner? you want to invade a country of 160 million nuke holding extremist? genius.

    such a tough guy

    maybe you are too dumb to realize that this wouldnt do shit. it would only alienate us more in the region
    I know your such a tough guy. you want to play hardball. that would accomplish nothing. cosmo for president





    ...
    ...
    Instead of a moronic sentence by sentence breakdown... which usually leads to things taken out of context... a moron's approach... I'll plot your basic ideals versus mine.
    Sorry to break the news to you... the President of Pakistan probably hates us.... but, he loves the money and weapons we ship his way... so he says... "Sure... I'll be your valentine... here's my routing number so you can direct deposit your taxes into my account". We are just too stupid to see this and keep on shovelling our taxes and firearms into his pockets.
    You want to continue this policy.... again, that served us well with Saddam Hussein and Usama Bin Laden in the past... I think it's about time we learn from our fucking mistakes and quit doing this shit.
    Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
    Hail, Hail!!!
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    Cosmo wrote:
    ...
    Instead of a moronic sentence by sentence breakdown... which usually leads to things taken out of context... a moron's approach...
    ffg you hearin this madness??
    Cosmo wrote:
    I'll plot your basic ideals versus mine.
    great watch me tear them apart sentence by sentence. ready.....

    Cosmo wrote:
    Sorry to break the news to you... the President of Pakistan probably hates us....
    he proabably does??? probably??? ok I guess I'll take your word for it. wait are you sure?
    Cosmo wrote:
    but, he loves the money and weapons we ship his way... so he says... "Sure... I'll be your valentine... here's my routing number so you can direct deposit your taxes into my account".
    this may come as a shock to you but many countries do business together including but not limited to the USA

    ...
    Cosmo wrote:
    We are just too stupid to see this and keep on shovelling our taxes and firearms into his pockets.
    we know what we are doing. the only alternative (your genius way) is to make them our enemy. then they will just attain weapons from other countries and use them against us.
    Cosmo wrote:
    You want to continue this policy.... again, that served us well with Saddam Hussein
    at the time it did. it prevented Iran from taking over the middle east.
    Cosmo wrote:
    and Usama Bin Laden in the past...
    at the time we helped a forgein invader and enemy of the united states to be defeated.
    Cosmo wrote:
    I think it's about time we learn from our fucking mistakes and quit doing this shit.
    what mistakes did we make? supporting saddam and osama helped achieve our goals at the time.





    ...
  • jlew24asu wrote:
    what mistakes did we make? supporting saddam and osama helped achieve our goals at the time.


    If by goals, you mean create a region of endless conflict and instability, you would be correct.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    If by goals, you mean create a region of endless conflict and instability, you would be correct.

    you want to hold all the blame on the US? I believe they share it.
  • jlew24asu wrote:
    you want to hold all the blame on the US? I believe they share it.


    So how about learning from bad policy and not ignoring and repeating it?
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    So how about learning from bad policy and not ignoring and repeating it?

    we are talking about being friends with pakistan right? that is the bad policy you speak of?

    ok whats the alternative?
  • gue_bariumgue_barium Posts: 5,515
    jlew24asu wrote:
    we are talking about being friends with pakistan right? that is the bad policy you speak of?

    ok whats the alternative?

    lol.
    man, you never cease to humor me.

    all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
    except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    gue_barium wrote:
    lol.
    man, you never cease to humor me.


    feel free to add something to the conversation. if not, let the adults talk
  • CosmoCosmo Posts: 12,225
    Okay... I'm gonna give this a shot. I figure, what the heck... it looks like fun:

    --Originally Posted by Cosmo: "Aren't the 'Tribal Areas of Pakistan'... STILL Pakistan?"
    jlew24asu wrote:
    its pakistan by borders, but barely. you pretend to be a smart guy. read up about the tribal areas.
    ...
    I'll borrow your Cliff Notes on 'Middle Eastern History from the Beginning of Time til An Hour Ago'.

    --Originally Posted by Cosmo: "What does that tell you about the influence the Pakistani President has within his own country?"
    jlew24asu wrote:
    I dont know, why dont you give us a 6 paragraph explanation about it. its tells me the area has been untouched by foreign influence and governments for hundreds of years. the british are the ones who put borders around it and called it pakistan.
    ...
    Blame the Brits. And neglect from Foriegn Influence? I thought that Foriegn meddling played a greater part. I guess I need to brush up on your history of the region.

    --Originally Posted by Cosmo: "Oh... that's comforting. So, there is no way these weapons may eventually get into the hands of "the people (of Pakistan)" who hate us. This is the same situation that happened in Iran.. the Shah loved us... the Iranian people hated us... that worked out real well, didn't it? I'm glad you find comfort in their leadership... I don't."
    jlew24asu wrote:
    hey I dont either, but right now there is no other way.
    ...
    So, you say we should continue with what has proven to fail us in the past, huh? Okay... FAILURE.... there's a plan we should get behind... yeah...

    --Originally Posted by Cosmo: "I bet you say that to all the boys."
    jlew24asu wrote:
    o stop it..
    ...
    Your Seacrest is showing.

    --Originally Posted by Cosmo: "Yeah... yeah...
    The President of Pakistan is our 'Friend'... you see it as good... I don't."
    jlew24asu wrote:
    how is it not good? would you rather they be an enemy?
    ...
    I would think the answer was obvious... he SAYS he's on our side... but, he's not really trying to cath bin Laden. To do so would make him a target of the millions of Muslims within his ranks that would want to go Jihad on his ass. Guess you missed that one, Skippy.

    --Originally Posted by Cosmo: "I see ONE Pakistan. One country filled with people who hate us lead by a leader who we are shovelling tax dollars to."
    jlew24asu wrote:
    maybe you should be a little more open minded and accept pakistan for what it is. its not ONE country. its a fucked up place filled with hateful people, lead by a guy who has the balls to call america a friend..
    ...
    Last time I checked... Pakistan was ONE country. It's not like North Dakota and South Dakota... just ONE Pakistan And ONE president who just can't seem to control it. There's someone to hitch our wagon to, huh?
    And you telling someone else to be 'Open-minded'... boy, there's a bizarro world moment.

    --Originally Posted by Cosmo: "I don't think that's a good idea... you do."
    jlew24asu wrote:
    of course you dont. but I have yet to hear what you would rather do. invade I guess..
    ...
    Quit rewarding a country that harbors the responsible party of the September 11, 2001 attacks would be a start.

    --Originally Posted by Cosmo: "I don't believe he will be the President over there FOREVER. Eventually, he will fall from power. He will more than likely seek to retain power by oppressing his people... i don't think that would be good for us... apparently, you see different."
    jlew24asu wrote:
    so now you care about the little guy in pakistan? thats also cute..
    ...
    No. I can't stand his lying ass. You're the one with the man-love crush on him Seacrest... not me.

    --Originally Posted by Cosmo: "You need to get your facts straight... I never said anything about toppling their government... their people will eventually get around to doing that. and guess who they will put in charge... an Anti-American religious fuck."
    jlew24asu wrote:
    so what should we do? go ahead and hate the current government and president becuase one day he will be gone? so stupid.
    ...
    How about holding him responsible for his fucking country? Why keep paying him to pretend he wants to help us? I guess that's stupid to you.

    --Originally Posted by Cosmo: "My (pre-Iraq mess) tack would have been to play hardball with fucking Pakistan and place them on notice that if they choose the same course of action that Afghanistan did"
    jlew24asu wrote:
    we did that. and many el queda leaders and taliban have been captured or killed.
    ...
    except bin Laden.

    --Originally Posted by Cosmo: "... harboring Usama bin Laden,"
    jlew24asu wrote:
    he is in the tribal areas that pakistan has little control over. you really dont know shit about that area do you? google it. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1711316.stm.
    ...
    "He's in the Tribal area"... What the fuck does THAT mean? Is the 'Tribal Area' a some sort of 'free zone'... like in a game of Tag? What kind of fucking lame ass excuse is THAT???

    --Originally Posted by Cosmo: "they will be dealt with iin the same manner."
    jlew24asu wrote:
    same manner? you want to invade a country of 160 million nuke holding extremist? genius.
    ...
    Yeah. If they are responsible... go after their asses. What? They have nukes, so we better NOT go after them? What does that say to Iran? It says, "You better get nukes to keep the US from attacking you". That's your message?

    --Originally Posted by Cosmo: "I wouldn't be kissing that asshole's butt."
    jlew24asu wrote:
    such a tough guy.
    ...
    Yeah... I guess. If a tough guy doesn't like to kiss ass.. then, yeah... I'm a tough guy. But, hey... if you like the smell of hairy Pakistani man-ass, that's your gig. Don't ask, don't tell... works for me.

    --Originally Posted by Cosmo: "Of course... with all that's going on in Iraq... we're screwed. From here, I would cut payment (cash and weapons) to Pakistan and place a conditions on them... no payment until bin Laden is handed over."
    jlew24asu wrote:
    Yes... I love the smell of hairy, Pakistani man-ass. maybe you are too dumb to realize that this wouldnt do shit. it would only alienate us more in the region.
    ...
    Alienate us in a region that alrady hates us... okay... there's some pretzel logic for ya.

    --Originally Posted by Cosmo: "I don't like the wussy policy... I guess that the main division."
    jlew24asu wrote:
    I know your such a tough guy. you want to play hardball. that would accomplish nothing. cosmo for president.
    ...
    And you want the wuss ass way that hasn't worked in the past and will probably not work in the future. I think that you need to play hardball with terrorist fucks... I guess you don't.
    ---
    ---
    Hey... that was kinda fun. But... I kinda feel like I just kicked a retarded puppy. I'm going to Hell, aren't I?
    Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
    Hail, Hail!!!
  • George Bush gonna put the pak on Pakistan...
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • El_KabongEl_Kabong Posts: 4,141
    jlew24asu wrote:
    we are talking about being friends with pakistan right? that is the bad policy you speak of?

    ok whats the alternative?


    stop arming a country we'll most likely have to attack in a few years b/c they have tose weapons we sold to them
    standin above the crowd
    he had a voice that was strong and loud and
    i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
    eager to identify with
    someone above the crowd
    someone who seemed to feel the same
    someone prepared to lead the way
  • El_KabongEl_Kabong Posts: 4,141
    jlew24asu wrote:
    he proabably does??? probably??? ok I guess I'll take your word for it. wait are you sure?

    maybe the pentagon told him

    hahahahaha

    :D
    standin above the crowd
    he had a voice that was strong and loud and
    i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
    eager to identify with
    someone above the crowd
    someone who seemed to feel the same
    someone prepared to lead the way
  • soulsingingsoulsinging Posts: 13,202
    The report could be an attempt by Washington to pressure General Musharraf to take stronger action against militants in Pakistan's border areas near Afghanistan, where the Taliban and al-Qa'ida are operating. But it might also indicate the President's allies in Washington are about to pull the rug from under him.

    ah, nothing like a sensationalistic headline with no supporting substance besides conjecture and journalistic speculation. :rolleyes:

    what does "previously rusted on to the view that" mean?
  • soulsingingsoulsinging Posts: 13,202
    jlew24asu wrote:
    ffg you hearin this madness??

    i hope so. ive reamed ffg for that bullshit tactic a few times myself. cosmo's right. it's a tactic for those without the intelligence to respond to an entire post. it's a politician's response... i can't dispute your common sense or your overall points and policies, so i will break it down and show how ever point could MAYBE be wrong and make it look like im discrediting you and your views have no merit. it's a refuge for the weak and stupid to make themselves feel like they're holding their own in a debate. i only use it when there are 2-3 totally separate points to discuss or when i have very specific questions, like here. but the people who make page long posts dissecting every sentence are intellectual cowards.
    jlew24asu wrote:
    what mistakes did we make? supporting saddam and osama helped achieve our goals at the time.

    what goals were those? i dont recall them accomplishing much of anything. osama didnt topple russia and then perpetrated 9/11. saddam didnt do a damn thing to check iran and i think we all know how we turned out. tell me what those goals were and whether they were worth the cost of american lives since.
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    El_Kabong wrote:
    stop arming a country we'll most likely have to attack in a few years b/c they have tose weapons we sold to them
    not arming them sounds like a great idea, but if we dont someone else will, and if we dont we might not get the cooperation we need from them.

    a country we'll most likely attack? i dont think so.
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    i hope so. ive reamed ffg for that bullshit tactic a few times myself. cosmo's right. it's a tactic for those without the intelligence to respond to an entire post. it's a politician's response... i can't dispute your common sense or your overall points and policies, so i will break it down and show how ever point could MAYBE be wrong and make it look like im discrediting you and your views have no merit. it's a refuge for the weak and stupid to make themselves feel like they're holding their own in a debate. i only use it when there are 2-3 totally separate points to discuss or when i have very specific questions, like here. but the people who make page long posts dissecting every sentence are intellectual cowards.
    your intellectual superiority is frightening.


    what goals were those?
    Goal #1. assist the mujahadeen in fighting off america's cold war enemy, the USSR. mission accomplished.

    Goal #2 prevent Iran from taking over Iraq and the middle east by arming saddam and give him intelligence to defeat Iran. while he didnt defeat Iran, he did force a statemate. mission accomplished.

    are you writing this down?
    i dont recall them accomplishing much of anything. osama didnt topple russia and then perpetrated 9/11. saddam didnt do a damn thing to check iran and i think we all know how we turned out. tell me what those goals were and whether they were worth the cost of american lives since.
    stick to trying to be a lawyer. world history isnt your thing
  • soulsingingsoulsinging Posts: 13,202
    jlew24asu wrote:
    Goal #1. assist the mujahadeen in fighting off america's cold war enemy, the USSR. mission accomplished.

    Goal #2 prevent Iran from taking over Iraq and the middle east by arming saddam and give him intelligence to defeat Iran. while he didnt defeat Iran, he did force a statemate. mission accomplished.

    are you writing this down?

    stick to trying to be a lawyer. world history isnt your thing

    goal #1... osama made no difference and arming him was unnecessary in achieving that goal. russia was crumbling. arent you the one who swears up and down communism is unsustainable? yet suddenly there's no way to defeat russia without arming the mujahadeen?

    goal #2... was irrelevant. iran would not have succeeded with or without our help. if it had, look at how easy it is to keep those disparate islamic factions together. this might have been the best thing to have happened to us. they'd be spending all their time in civil war and political squabbling instead of fucking with us.
  • El_KabongEl_Kabong Posts: 4,141
    jlew24asu wrote:
    Goal #1. assist the mujahadeen in fighting off america's cold war enemy, the USSR. mission accomplished.

    did ya know al qaeda was created while he was on the cia payroll? so, in essence, our tax dollars helped fund and create al qaeda...mission accomplished, alright

    jlew24asu wrote:
    Goal #2 prevent Iran from taking over Iraq and the middle east by arming saddam and give him intelligence to defeat Iran. while he didnt defeat Iran, he did force a statemate. mission accomplished.


    weren't we selling iran thousands of missiles at the same time?

    and provided saddam protection and support while he gassed his own ppl and iranians....mission accomplished!
    standin above the crowd
    he had a voice that was strong and loud and
    i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
    eager to identify with
    someone above the crowd
    someone who seemed to feel the same
    someone prepared to lead the way
Sign In or Register to comment.