all I know is "wanted dead or alive" was uttered by our great leader...and, well you know the story..
perhaps there are "legitimate reasons" that bin laden has not been found...perhaps there aren't...but at the end of the day....the boggieman is still out there....
and please don't give me the "we can't go after him because Pakistan won't let us"....puuuleazzz....when did this administration give a fuck what another country says, does, or wants....(other that Israel)....?
call it a bullshit reason all you want but even the big bad USA isnt going to invade a country with 170 million people with nuclear weapons just to get one guy.
umm, actually its been a well known fact for years that islamic militants were operating in warizistan. the pakistani government (musharraf) has very little control over the tribal leaders in these areas. musharraf is terrified that tribal leaders will turn on him and the government could easily collapse, so they're allowed a huge amount of autonomy.
Musharrraf is very unpopular in Pakistan. He rules with US support, not the majority of Pakistanis. Its not that he allows the autonomy in certain areas of Pakistan, its that he can't control his country with such little support from the people.
Musharrraf is very unpopular in Pakistan. He rules with US support, not the majority of Pakistanis. Its not that he allows the autonomy in certain areas of Pakistan, its that he can't control his country with such little support from the people.
bottom line is that the area is not controlled and the US is not allowed there. doesnt matter how you say it.
it is also one of the most rugged remote regions on earth.
everyone knows how much I support the strength of the american military. but even if we dropped in 1000 of our best men, they would get bogged down in a heartbeat. the only way to take on something like that is a full out invasion.
and i'm so sick of hearing the same bullshit, " hasnt stop the US before" give it a rest.
Bush allowed OBL to escape to Pakistan and will not pursue him there.
It's obvious 9/11 was used as an excuse to go to Iraq and Afghanistan. The funding for 9/11 came from Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Bush will not go to war with the real culprits.
Why won't Bush capture OBL? It's not worth it. Pakistan does not own 1/4 of the world's OIL and the Saudis are just damn good friends.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
It's obvious 9/11 was used as an excuse to go to Iraq and Afghanistan. The funding for 9/11 came from Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Bush will not go to war with the real culprits.
so the fact that el queda, you know the ones who planned and carried out the attack, were operating and living in Afghanistan means nothing?
what would invading saudi arabia in october 2001 have done to stop el queda? im kinda shocked at how much you really dont get it.
you seem to think its important where these people were born. why?
It's not worth it. Pakistan does not own 1/4 of the world's OIL and the Saudis are just damn good friends.
your finally right about something. it's not worth it. why would the US want to topple a government that is shaky at best but still being able to hold in check the 170 million people in it, alot of which do have hatred for the US.
it has nothing to do with oil.
thanks for stopping by dude. you gave the most uninformed post in this thread.
bottom line is that the area is not controlled and the US is not allowed there. doesnt matter how you say it.
it is also one of the most rugged remote regions on earth.
everyone knows how much I support the strength of the american military. but even if we dropped in 1000 of our best men, they would get bogged down in a heartbeat. the only way to take on something like that is a full out invasion.
and i'm so sick of hearing the same bullshit, " hasnt stop the US before" give it a rest.
you know, i was watching a show the other day-could be wrong-but apparently special forces had Bin Laden pegged, his exact location, everything, on 6 or 7 different occasions. And orders from Washington came not to strike every time. who knows why...maybe he is worth more to the US alive. Maybe its hard to maintain a war on terror when all the bad guys are dead.
Bush did not allow him to escape into pakistan. for a smart guy you sure do make some silly statements. he LET him?? thats just ridiculous.
Yup, there was plenty of opportunity as OBL headed east into Pakistan.
they are reasons which have been discussed throughout this thread why we can not pursue him into pakistan. one obvious one is WE CANT.
Interesting logic, we can't because we can't. You should have finished with "because I said so."
so the fact that el queda, you know the ones who planned and carried out the attack, were operating and living in Afghanistan means nothing?
It doesn't mean nothing, but they wouldn't have been capable without funding. We know the funding came from Pakistan.
what would invading saudi arabia in october 2001 have done to stop el queda? im kinda shocked at how much you really dont get it.
About as much as invading Iraq did.
you seem to think its important where these people were born. why?
No I don't think it's important. What is important is where the terrorists are coming from [Saudi Arabia] and where their funding is coming from [Pakistan]. Where they are operating [Afghanistan] isn't as important. Consider that some of these terrorists were operating within the United States, are you going to blow yourself up? No.
because the US CAN NOT go into pakistan. why cant you people get this through your heads?
"because I said so." isn't a good argument.
your finally right about something. it's not worth it. why would the US want to topple a government that is shaky at best but still being able to hold in check the 170 million people in it, alot of which do have hatred for the US.
Oh, are you talking about Iraq?
it has nothing to do with oil.
It most certainly does.
thanks for stopping by dude. you gave the most uninformed post in this thread.
In other words, I gave the post with the most opposition to your personal beliefs pertaining to the "War of Terror".
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Yup, there was plenty of opportunity as OBL headed east into Pakistan.
yea and we failed to get him. one major reason was because he gave his satellite phone to someone else and sent it one way while he went the other. he was planning his esacpe into pakistan for years.
No I don't think it's important. What is important is where the terrorists are coming from [Saudi Arabia] and where their funding is coming from [Pakistan]. Where they are operating [Afghanistan] isn't as important.
so you would rather invade saudi and pakistan while letting el queda and the taliban flurish in the training camps of afganistan? interesting.
Consider that some of these terrorists were operating within the United States, are you going to blow yourself up? No.
lol this is too good. so now you are comparing el quedas ability to operate in afganistan as being similar to the US? dude I pray you continue to respond this is too easy.
yea and we failed to get him. one major reason was because he gave his satellite phone to someone else and sent it one way while he went the other. he was planning his esacpe into pakistan for years.
we cant because pakistan says we cant. bottom line. I dont know how else you want me to spell it out for you.
hmm, who gave permission to invade Afghanistan and Iraq? Did Saddam say "Hell yeah, come here and kick my ass please!!"?
ok now you want to bomb where the money came from instead of actaully going after the organization itself. wow dude.
The money came from pakistani intelligence.
so why do it? you are the one who said we should have gone after them instead of Afghanistan. I have never believed Iraq was invaded because of 9/11.
Personally I don't think you should have fucking gone anywhere, but you did, now you are justifying it by trying to play-down the involvement of Pakistan with "Because I said so"s and "they won't let us" crap. That never stopped the US from invading Iraq. Iraq was all about OIL, I know that, you know that, everyone knows that.
so you would rather invade saudi and pakistan while letting el queda and the taliban flurish in the training camps of afganistan? interesting.
Yes, go to the source, cut off their logistics. That's how wars are fought. Is it any wonder that Al Qaeda is still alive and well?
lol this is too good. so now you are comparing el quedas ability to operate in afganistan as being similar to the US? dude I pray you continue to respond this is too easy.
Yes, how is it any different?
sorry I didnt think I had to spell it out for you. because pakistan says so got it now?
Oh, does the queen live in Pakistan? I don't get why that matters. Again, Saddam didn't say you could invade Iraq, did he?
no, no need to use other words. its the most uniformed post (and reply) of this thread.
Absolutely.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
It's truly depressing that such mind-numbingly naive and barely-formed understandings of what's actually going on in the Middle East are still being bandied around on this thread as if they were objective facts.
93: Slane
96: Cork, Dublin
00: Dublin
06: London, Dublin
07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
09: Manchester, London
10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
11: San José
12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2
It's truly depressing that such mind-numbingly naive and barely-formed understandings of what's actually going on in the Middle East are still being bandied around on this thread as if they were objective facts.
you know, i was watching a show the other day-could be wrong-but apparently special forces had Bin Laden pegged, his exact location, everything, on 6 or 7 different occasions. And orders from Washington came not to strike every time. who knows why...maybe he is worth more to the US alive. Maybe its hard to maintain a war on terror when all the bad guys are dead.
just so I can keep it real. I will say that you may very well be right. but I disagree with the fact that osama is better to the US government alive then dead. Bush, or anyone, would much rather be known as the guy that got bin laden then not.
I've said it all already. You just chose to ignore anything that you didn't already agree with.
93: Slane
96: Cork, Dublin
00: Dublin
06: London, Dublin
07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
09: Manchester, London
10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
11: San José
12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2
I'm so glad someone's on the psychic case. I knew Georgie would consider it blasphemous, so I was really worried it'd be neglected, because it's such a crucial line of enquiry. Go Blair! Psyche him out of hiding..... what would we do without the Daily Mail?
:rolleyes:
93: Slane
96: Cork, Dublin
00: Dublin
06: London, Dublin
07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
09: Manchester, London
10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
11: San José
12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2
I didnt ignore anything. I owned everything you had to say until you put your tail between your legs and left
your arrogance is as infantile as your arguments.
93: Slane
96: Cork, Dublin
00: Dublin
06: London, Dublin
07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
09: Manchester, London
10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
11: San José
12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2
I say... Osama bin laden is the leader and founder of the terrorist organization el queda. who is responsible for thousands of deaths around the world.
you say, he is neither and el queda is just a small band of thugs robbing little old arab ladies of the purse.
I say... Osama bin laden is the leader and founder of the terrorist organization el queda. who is responsible for thousands of deaths around the world.
you say, he is neither and el queda is just a small band of thugs robbing little old arab ladies of the purse.
I see Al-Qaeda as a network of smaller factions that operate mostly on their own will but with common goals.
What we need is to get rid of all this ideology and religion.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
the US would never invade/bomb pakistan, at least in this current situation. the US government can't afford to lose musharraf. if we conducted any strikes within pakistani territory, there's no doubt musharraf would be overthrow. the pakistani public is extremely hostile to musharraf's closeness with the west/america. we can't afford to lose musharraf, especially since it would be to radicals who would then have a nation with nuclear weapons. we can't afford for that to happen, even if it means losing bin laden.
During the Soviet-Afghan War in the 1980s Pakistan was a crucial US ally, but relations soured in the 1990s, when sanctions were applied by the US over suspicions of Pakistan's nuclear activities. The September 11 attacks and the subsequent War on Terrorism have seen an improvement in US–Pakistan ties, especially after Pakistan ended its support of the Taliban regime in Kabul. In January 2004, founder of Pakistani nuclear program A. Q. Khan confessed of nuclear proliferation to Libya, Iran and North Korea. On 5 February 2004, the president Pervez Musharraf, announced that he had pardoned A. Q. Khan. At present, A. Q. Khan is ailing and under house arrest.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Personally I don't think you should have fucking gone anywhere, but you did, now you are justifying it by trying to play-down the involvement of Pakistan with "Because I said so"s and "they won't let us" crap.
you dont seem to understand the region very well. and of course you dont think afganistan should be attacked. you probably stood and cheered on 9/11. but the besides the point. america had a very justifiable reason to attack the taliban. el queda was operating from that country. OBL called it home and the taliban allowed it. they had to be taken out.
just because some of the terrorist are born in saudi arabia doesnt mean it justifies an invasion. the government and the people had nothing to do with 9/11
Yes, go to the source, cut off their logistics. That's how wars are fought.
maybe thats why you lose all the fights you are in. so you want to justify invading and taking out a government because you think they provide logistics? think about what you are saying.
Is it any wonder that Al Qaeda is still alive and well?
really? where? are they doing better or worse without a base of operations in afganistan? alive and well? what does that mean? why dont they having training camps then? why isnt OBL and all his leaders playing dominoes and a cafe in Kabul? el queda may be alive but they arent well.
o man. I need to explain the difference between el queda training camps in afganistan(PRE-9/11) vs terrorists living in america? (you dont see a difference)
I cant. you win :rolleyes: we will let the people decide this. I dont know where or how to begin.
Oh, does the queen live in Pakistan? I don't get why that matters. Again, Saddam didn't say you could invade Iraq, did he?
no saddam didnt. the UN and the united states congress gave approval.
Just to recap your insanity. In October 2001 president ahimas would have...
Invaded saudi arabia because a few terrorists where born there
Invaded Pakistan because money came from there (as if it was the only place in the middle east giving terrorist get money)
but let afgahistan alone. left the taliban in power. left the training camps running. let OBL and his leaders sit around the round table in broad daylight and scheme up something new.
It just makes no sense, obviously going to Iraq was for OIL. Anyone can see that.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
call it a bullshit reason all you want but even the big bad USA isnt going to invade a country with 170 million people with nuclear weapons just to get one guy.
I say this would fall under the "excuse" category....
So, since they are an ally, we should be able to enter and hunt down OBL....
wrong. why does being any ally equate to letting us have free reign on their own soil? musharraf is our ally not the country of pakistan. big difference. one you dont see very clearly. there are 170 million people who wouldn't allow it. the US government can't afford to lose musharraf. if we conducted any strikes within pakistani territory, there's no doubt musharraf would be overthrow. the pakistani public is extremely hostile to musharraf's closeness with the west/america. we can't afford to lose musharraf, especially since it would be to radicals who would then have a nation with nuclear weapons. this is why bion laden is where he is. he knows this. he is in an area that is protected from government troops, the outside world, anybody. outsiders do not go into the tribal areas. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waziristan
if they aren't an ally, a.k.a."with us" , they they are an enemy , a.k.a. "against us"....therefore they should be treated as such...
o really George W ? treated as such? what do you mean? we should invade? see my above answer. dont make such stupid comments that you completely disagree with just to try and prove me wrong. it wont work.
I mean, the reason we are in Iraq and Afghanistan is 9/11
we are not in Iraq because of 9/11. we are there because someone thought they had WMDs. sure a possible link was mentioned but that is not the main reason why we went there. it was WMDs and violation of UN resolutions.
regardless, the US sees what a mistake it was to march into a country and take over. you think we can just march right into a country that is 10 times the size of Iraq just to get one guy?
Comments
call it a bullshit reason all you want but even the big bad USA isnt going to invade a country with 170 million people with nuclear weapons just to get one guy.
bottom line is that the area is not controlled and the US is not allowed there. doesnt matter how you say it.
it is also one of the most rugged remote regions on earth.
everyone knows how much I support the strength of the american military. but even if we dropped in 1000 of our best men, they would get bogged down in a heartbeat. the only way to take on something like that is a full out invasion.
and i'm so sick of hearing the same bullshit, " hasnt stop the US before" give it a rest.
Bush allowed OBL to escape to Pakistan and will not pursue him there.
It's obvious 9/11 was used as an excuse to go to Iraq and Afghanistan. The funding for 9/11 came from Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Bush will not go to war with the real culprits.
Why won't Bush capture OBL? It's not worth it. Pakistan does not own 1/4 of the world's OIL and the Saudis are just damn good friends.
Bush did not allow him to escape into pakistan. for a smart guy you sure do make some silly statements. he LET him?? thats just ridiculous.
they are reasons which have been discussed throughout this thread why we can not pursue him into pakistan. one obvious one is WE CANT.
so the fact that el queda, you know the ones who planned and carried out the attack, were operating and living in Afghanistan means nothing?
what would invading saudi arabia in october 2001 have done to stop el queda? im kinda shocked at how much you really dont get it.
you seem to think its important where these people were born. why?
because the US CAN NOT go into pakistan. why cant you people get this through your heads?
your finally right about something. it's not worth it. why would the US want to topple a government that is shaky at best but still being able to hold in check the 170 million people in it, alot of which do have hatred for the US.
it has nothing to do with oil.
thanks for stopping by dude. you gave the most uninformed post in this thread.
you know, i was watching a show the other day-could be wrong-but apparently special forces had Bin Laden pegged, his exact location, everything, on 6 or 7 different occasions. And orders from Washington came not to strike every time. who knows why...maybe he is worth more to the US alive. Maybe its hard to maintain a war on terror when all the bad guys are dead.
Yup, there was plenty of opportunity as OBL headed east into Pakistan.
Interesting logic, we can't because we can't. You should have finished with "because I said so."
It doesn't mean nothing, but they wouldn't have been capable without funding. We know the funding came from Pakistan.
About as much as invading Iraq did.
No I don't think it's important. What is important is where the terrorists are coming from [Saudi Arabia] and where their funding is coming from [Pakistan]. Where they are operating [Afghanistan] isn't as important. Consider that some of these terrorists were operating within the United States, are you going to blow yourself up? No.
"because I said so." isn't a good argument.
Oh, are you talking about Iraq?
It most certainly does.
In other words, I gave the post with the most opposition to your personal beliefs pertaining to the "War of Terror".
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0210-05.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A62618-2002Apr16?language=printer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tora_Bora
we cant because pakistan says we cant. bottom line. I dont know how else you want me to spell it out for you.
ok now you want to bomb where the money came from instead of actaully going after the organization itself. wow dude.
so why do it? you are the one who said we should have gone after them instead of Afghanistan. I have never believed Iraq was invaded because of 9/11.
so you would rather invade saudi and pakistan while letting el queda and the taliban flurish in the training camps of afganistan? interesting.
lol this is too good. so now you are comparing el quedas ability to operate in afganistan as being similar to the US? dude I pray you continue to respond this is too easy.
sorry I didnt think I had to spell it out for you. because pakistan says so got it now?
no i'm talking about pakistan. try to focus.
you should have ended with "cuz I said so"
no, no need to use other words. its the most uniformed post (and reply) of this thread.
Smart guy.
hmm, who gave permission to invade Afghanistan and Iraq? Did Saddam say "Hell yeah, come here and kick my ass please!!"?
The money came from pakistani intelligence.
Personally I don't think you should have fucking gone anywhere, but you did, now you are justifying it by trying to play-down the involvement of Pakistan with "Because I said so"s and "they won't let us" crap. That never stopped the US from invading Iraq. Iraq was all about OIL, I know that, you know that, everyone knows that.
Yes, go to the source, cut off their logistics. That's how wars are fought. Is it any wonder that Al Qaeda is still alive and well? Yes, how is it any different?
Oh, does the queen live in Pakistan? I don't get why that matters. Again, Saddam didn't say you could invade Iraq, did he?
Absolutely.
96: Cork, Dublin
00: Dublin
06: London, Dublin
07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
09: Manchester, London
10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
11: San José
12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2
such as?
yeah, please enlighten wolf.
just so I can keep it real. I will say that you may very well be right. but I disagree with the fact that osama is better to the US government alive then dead. Bush, or anyone, would much rather be known as the guy that got bin laden then not.
I've said it all already. You just chose to ignore anything that you didn't already agree with.
96: Cork, Dublin
00: Dublin
06: London, Dublin
07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
09: Manchester, London
10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
11: San José
12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2
http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=39244032&blogID=233846302&Mytoken=BB0C4B45-400C-4CAC-A497E32212272D561522285
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
just... wow...
I'm so glad someone's on the psychic case. I knew Georgie would consider it blasphemous, so I was really worried it'd be neglected, because it's such a crucial line of enquiry. Go Blair! Psyche him out of hiding..... what would we do without the Daily Mail?
:rolleyes:
96: Cork, Dublin
00: Dublin
06: London, Dublin
07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
09: Manchester, London
10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
11: San José
12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2
I didnt ignore anything. I owned everything you had to say until you put your tail between your legs and left
your arrogance is as infantile as your arguments.
96: Cork, Dublin
00: Dublin
06: London, Dublin
07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
09: Manchester, London
10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
11: San José
12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2
hehe
well to let everyone know.
I say... Osama bin laden is the leader and founder of the terrorist organization el queda. who is responsible for thousands of deaths around the world.
you say, he is neither and el queda is just a small band of thugs robbing little old arab ladies of the purse.
we can let the audience decide.
Sayyid Qutb was the founder of Al-Qaeda IMO
I see Al-Qaeda as a network of smaller factions that operate mostly on their own will but with common goals.
What we need is to get rid of all this ideology and religion.
Where did they get the nukes from? The Soviets?
the american people did.
you dont seem to understand the region very well. and of course you dont think afganistan should be attacked. you probably stood and cheered on 9/11. but the besides the point. america had a very justifiable reason to attack the taliban. el queda was operating from that country. OBL called it home and the taliban allowed it. they had to be taken out.
just because some of the terrorist are born in saudi arabia doesnt mean it justifies an invasion. the government and the people had nothing to do with 9/11
maybe thats why you lose all the fights you are in. so you want to justify invading and taking out a government because you think they provide logistics? think about what you are saying.
really? where? are they doing better or worse without a base of operations in afganistan? alive and well? what does that mean? why dont they having training camps then? why isnt OBL and all his leaders playing dominoes and a cafe in Kabul? el queda may be alive but they arent well.
o man. I need to explain the difference between el queda training camps in afganistan(PRE-9/11) vs terrorists living in america? (you dont see a difference)
I cant. you win :rolleyes: we will let the people decide this. I dont know where or how to begin.
no saddam didnt. the UN and the united states congress gave approval.
Just to recap your insanity. In October 2001 president ahimas would have...
Invaded saudi arabia because a few terrorists where born there
Invaded Pakistan because money came from there (as if it was the only place in the middle east giving terrorist get money)
but let afgahistan alone. left the taliban in power. left the training camps running. let OBL and his leaders sit around the round table in broad daylight and scheme up something new.
UNBELIEVABLE
I probably wouldn't have needed to either.
It just makes no sense, obviously going to Iraq was for OIL. Anyone can see that.
I say this would fall under the "excuse" category....
so its not a valid reason?
the reason is, Pakistan says we can not go in their country. the US congress would never allow, nor would the UN. nor would the world.
but you see these as excuses why we wont invade pakistan to get bin laden?
just say i'm right and your wrong and we can move on to something else
Oil is a factor. of course it is. oil is important. but its not the only factor
if it means that much to you....
you're wrong...
Pakistan is an supposed to be an ally...right? So, since they are an ally, we should be able to enter and hunt down OBL....
if they aren't an ally, a.k.a."with us" , they they are an enemy , a.k.a. "against us"....therefore they should be treated as such...
If find it interesting that you don't want to get bin laden, what gives...? are suddenly some sort of terrorist sympathizer...?
not the greatest but yes they are. they have hunted down many terrorists
http://www.app.com.pk/en/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1280&Itemid=2
http://english.people.com.cn/200403/20/eng20040320_138039.shtml
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4781925.stm
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE5D61439F93AA15750C0A965958260
wrong. why does being any ally equate to letting us have free reign on their own soil? musharraf is our ally not the country of pakistan. big difference. one you dont see very clearly. there are 170 million people who wouldn't allow it. the US government can't afford to lose musharraf. if we conducted any strikes within pakistani territory, there's no doubt musharraf would be overthrow. the pakistani public is extremely hostile to musharraf's closeness with the west/america. we can't afford to lose musharraf, especially since it would be to radicals who would then have a nation with nuclear weapons. this is why bion laden is where he is. he knows this. he is in an area that is protected from government troops, the outside world, anybody. outsiders do not go into the tribal areas. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waziristan
o really George W ? treated as such? what do you mean? we should invade? see my above answer. dont make such stupid comments that you completely disagree with just to try and prove me wrong. it wont work.
good one tree.
why....?
I mean, the reason we are in Iraq and Afghanistan is 9/11...and we have an idea where the 'mastermind' behind it is, and we do nothing about it...
again, why...?
we are not in Iraq because of 9/11. we are there because someone thought they had WMDs. sure a possible link was mentioned but that is not the main reason why we went there. it was WMDs and violation of UN resolutions.
regardless, the US sees what a mistake it was to march into a country and take over. you think we can just march right into a country that is 10 times the size of Iraq just to get one guy?
nothing? you really believe that? just because we havent invaded pakistan you think we are doing nothing?
why is a full out invasion (any US soldier stepping foot in pakistan would be considered so) the only option for you?