usa pondering a regime change in pakistan !!!

Cosmo

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?

RolandTD20Kdrummer

George Bush gonna put the pak on Pakistan...

El_Kabong

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

El_Kabong

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

soulsinging

IndianSummer wrote:

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?

soulsinging

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.

jlew24asu

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.

jlew24asu

soulsinging wrote:

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.

soulsinging wrote:

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?

soulsinging wrote:

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

soulsinging

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_Kabong

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!

jlew24asu

El_Kabong wrote:

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

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!

i'm not saying I am happy about the mission and their accomplishments. just trying to give soul a history lesson

El_Kabong

jlew24asu wrote:

i'm not saying I am happy about the mission and their accomplishments. just trying to give soul a history lesson

so mistakes were made? cos on the 1st page you asked 'what mistakes did we make?'

jlew24asu

El_Kabong wrote:

so mistakes were made? cos on the 1st page you asked 'what mistakes did we make?'

mistakes? in regards to the goals at the time? no.

El_Kabong

jlew24asu wrote:

mistakes? in regards to the goals at the time? no.

helping fund the creation of al qaeda is not seen as a mistake???? really? so, you think al qaeda is innocent?

jlew24asu

El_Kabong wrote:

helping fund the creation of al qaeda is not seen as a mistake???? really? so, you think al qaeda is innocent?

it was not a mistake in regards to the goals at the time. I thought I already said that?

El_Kabong

jlew24asu wrote:

it was not a mistake in regards to the goals at the time. I thought I already said that?

yes, but you still are failing to make sense....cosmo, i believe, said something [roughly] about learning from our mistakes and not repeatimg them...you replied 'what mistakes did we make?' this leads one to believe we have done nothing wrong, when you are confronted w/ mistakes you say 'yeah, but...they weren't mistakes at the time' does that fucking matter!? does that make them any less of a mistake?

it's using semantics to avoid conceding to the mistakes

i noticed you failed to respond to whether or not al qaeda was innocent...i'll add ya to my list

jlew24asu

El_Kabong wrote:

yes, but you still are failing to make sense....cosmo, i believe, said something [roughly] about learning from our mistakes and not repeatimg them...you replied 'what mistakes did we make?' this leads one to believe we have done nothing wrong, when you are confronted w/ mistakes you say 'yeah, but...they weren't mistakes at the time' does that fucking matter!? does that make them any less of a mistake?

he, and you, are trying to compare helping saddam and obl as the same to being friends with pakistan. I believe it is important that we stay friends with them. you both seem to think we shouldnt to "avoid the same mistakes we made before".

El_Kabong wrote:

it's using semantics to avoid conceding to the mistakes

was it a mistake to help osama? at the time no. but osama and el queda would have become what they are today whether or not we helped them in Afghanistan 25 years ago.

El_Kabong wrote:

i noticed you failed to respond to whether or not al qaeda was innocent...i'll add ya to my list

yea you know me, i'm el queda's #1 fan.

El_Kabong

jlew24asu wrote:

he, and you, are trying to compare helping saddam and obl as the same to being friends with pakistan. I believe it is important that we stay friends with them. you both seem to think we shouldnt to "avoid the same mistakes we made before".

was it a mistake to help osama? at the time no. but osama and el queda would have become what they are today whether or not we helped them in Afghanistan 25 years ago.

yea you know me, i'm el queda's #1 fan.

i can't speak for him but i don't know if it's even to helping them or not, i don't really care, that doesn't matter when i still see it as a bad move. maybe they don't gas their own ppl or their neighbors, but they have done a lot of bad shit...they harbor terrorists, their isi is close links to terrorists including the head of the isi having atta wired $100,000 on 9/10, their president bribed the 9/11 comission to keep 'Pakistan' out of their report, not to mention they actually sold nuke secrets to some ppl i'd think you wouldn't want knowing them while they continue to violate not only the nuclear non-proliferation treaty but refuse iaea inspections and as they continue to be free, thanks to the bush administration's promise, to keep manufacturing weapons grade plutonium....oh, while a coup is possible from within.....yeah, sounds like a great situation to be in to me!

jlew24asu

El_Kabong wrote:

i can't speak for him but i don't know if it's even to helping them or not, i don't really care, that doesn't matter when i still see it as a bad move. maybe they don't gas their own ppl or their neighbors, but they have done a lot of bad shit...they harbor terrorists, their isi is close links to terrorists including the head of the isi having atta wired $100,000 on 9/10, their president bribed the 9/11 comission to keep 'Pakistan' out of their report, not to mention they actually sold nuke secrets to some ppl i'd think you wouldn't want knowing them while they continue to violate not only the nuclear non-proliferation treaty but refuse iaea inspections and as they continue to be free, thanks to the bush administration's promise, to keep manufacturing weapons grade plutonium....oh, while a coup is possible from within.....yeah, sounds like a great situation to be in to me!

we are getting close here. I dont disagree with you on this. I am not fan of pakistan. it is probably the most fucked up place on earth. it is the base of operations for the taliban and el queda. is a hot bed for extremist activity.

what i'm saying is that we dont have many alternatives to what we are currently doing. we are friends with the government. they have arrested many el queda leaders including your buddy khalid mohammad.

the only alternative I see is all out war with pakistan and its tribal areas. since that idea sucks, lets do what we can to combat terrorism in the country. that is no easy task.

mammasan

jlew24asu wrote:

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

ok whats the alternative?

It is one thing to befriend another nation. It's completely different to provide arms and money to a country that is one coup away from becoming our greatest nightmare. US policy in the Middle East has been one mistake after another for decades and it may be time we start learning our lesson before we make a truely diseasterous one.