PDA

View Full Version : Pakistan's Bhutto assasinated...


Mag
12-27-2007, 09:00 AM
...via suicide bomb.

http://apnews.myway.com//article/20071227/D8TPQRBG0.html

Overlay
12-27-2007, 09:11 AM
Musharraf will probably get the blame, although with all the crazies running around, who can know for sure? If he did have a hand in it, it would rank right up there for stupidity with Ferdinand Marcos orchestrating the assassination of Benigno Aquino (or even more so, given the current world climate and the greater international consequences).

magwell
12-27-2007, 09:34 AM
Musharraf will probably get the blame, although with all the crazies running around, who can know for sure? If he did have a hand in it, it would rank right up there for stupidity with Ferdinand Marcos orchestrating the assassination of Benigno Aquino (or even more so, given the current world climate and the greater international consequences). for sure the left will blame Bush and the world will blame the united States, case closed

Tom
12-27-2007, 09:39 AM
Al Qeda. Pakistan and Afghanistan were just starting to come together in realizing that Al Qeda is their common enemy. Baby steps, but in the right direction.

I think what needs to happen is that we put together a world-wide force, like the Gulf War, and send a 2 million man army into Pakistan to surround and eradicate Al Qeda once and for all. Anything goes. Seek and destroy.

Allowing them free run where they are now negates all we did to drive them out of Afghanistan in the first place and what we say is our goal in Iraq. It's 2008 in a few days - time to put this war on terror into high gear. Should have happend 6 years ago.:mad:

Marshall Bennett
12-27-2007, 10:54 AM
Al Qeda. Pakistan and Afghanistan were just starting to come together in realizing that Al Qeda is their common enemy. Baby steps, but in the right direction.

I think what needs to happen is that we put together a world-wide force, like the Gulf War, and send a 2 million man army into Pakistan to surround and eradicate Al Qeda once and for all. Anything goes. Seek and destroy.

Allowing them free run where they are now negates all we did to drive them out of Afghanistan in the first place and what we say is our goal in Iraq. It's 2008 in a few days - time to put this war on terror into high gear. Should have happend 6 years ago.:mad:
Doubt you'll find many liberals jumping on the band wagon , Tom !!!

Greyfox
12-27-2007, 11:14 AM
I think what needs to happen is that we put together a world-wide force, like the Gulf War, and send a 2 million man army into Pakistan to surround and eradicate Al Qeda once and for all.

Good in theory. But.... how do you identify an Al Qaeda from Binder Dundat over there? The terrorists aren't exactly that easy to identify from the general population.
You're right though. Afghanistan is becoming more and more of a mess every day with Taliban battalions forming.

ljb
12-27-2007, 11:22 AM
I think what needs to happen is that we put together a world-wide force, like the Gulf War, and send a 2 million man army into Pakistan to surround and eradicate Al Qeda once and for all. Anything goes. Seek and destroy.

Ya Vhal mein TOM
Today Pakistan, tomorrow der Vorld. Heil !!!! :bang: :bang: :bang:

cj
12-27-2007, 11:37 AM
Afghanistan is becoming more and more of a mess every day with Taliban battalions forming.

That is a myth. The only reason they make any noise at all is because they are allowed to run back to Pakistan and hide. Hopefully, the President will back up his "you are either for us or you are against us" statement when it comes to Pakistan.

46zilzal
12-27-2007, 12:29 PM
That is a myth. The only reason they make any noise at all is because they are allowed to run back to Pakistan and hide. Hopefully, the President will back up his "you are either for us or you are against us" statement when it comes to Pakistan.
Or maybe, just maybe the rutabaga will FINALLY DISCOVER where the "bad guys" really were all the time!

46zilzal
12-27-2007, 12:32 PM
I think what needs to happen is that we put together a world-wide force, like the Gulf War, and send a 2 million man army into Pakistan to surround and eradicate Al Qeda once and for all. Anything goes. Seek and destroy.

Allowing them free run where they are now negates all we did to drive them out of Afghanistan in the first place and what we say is our goal in Iraq.
You don't destroy an idea by killing thousands of people. Never has worked.

Robert Goren
12-27-2007, 12:44 PM
It worked in WWII.

Tom
12-27-2007, 12:49 PM
Good in theory. But.... how do you identify an Al Qaeda from Binder Dundat over there? The terrorists aren't exactly that easy to identify from the general population.
You're right though. Afghanistan is becoming more and more of a mess every day with Taliban battalions forming.

ANYONE in the area is either Al Qeda or harboring Al Qeda......easy peasy.

(*****) ka-booooooom!
..(***)
...(**)
....(*)

46zilzal
12-27-2007, 12:53 PM
It worked in WWII.
Totally different as it was limited to small geographical sections of three countries and NOT a grass roots quasi-religious following worldwide.

46zilzal
12-27-2007, 12:54 PM
ANYONE in the area is either Al Qeda or harboring Al Qeda......easy peasy.

(*****) ka-booooooom!

Same philosophy on everything: NUKE 'EM!

toetoe
12-27-2007, 02:01 PM
Please explain how it worked in World War Deuce ? :confused:

Greyfox
12-27-2007, 02:35 PM
That is a myth. The only reason they make any noise at all is because they are allowed to run back to Pakistan and hide. Hopefully, the President will back up his "you are either for us or you are against us" statement when it comes to Pakistan.

You are with the services so maybe your information is different than mine.
First of all the Taliban in Afghanistan are stronger than they were 1 year ago.
That is not a myth.
There has been a resurgence of Taliban particularly in the South and East areas.
http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2007/11/31f15334-d540-4074-acd3-ae06d9ca35c2.html
"November 30, 2007 (RFE/RL) -- The past year has been the deadliest for U.S. and NATO-led forces in Afghanistan since the Taliban regime fell in late 2001."

If they are being "allowed" to run back to Pakistan and hide, then who is allowing them to reach Pakistan as they flee?

Tom
12-27-2007, 02:46 PM
Totally different as it was limited to small geographical sections of three countries and NOT a grass roots quasi-religious following worldwide.

So you are saying ALL muslims are "in on it?"

46zilzal
12-27-2007, 02:50 PM
So you are saying ALL Muslims are "in on it?"
No, but sympathy to the ideals are found worldwide, and, sadly, are growing.

lsbets
12-27-2007, 02:54 PM
You are with the services so maybe your information is different than mine.
First of all the Taliban in Afghanistan are stronger than they were 1 year ago.
That is not a myth.
There has been a resurgence of Taliban particularly in the South and East areas.
http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2007/11/31f15334-d540-4074-acd3-ae06d9ca35c2.html
"November 30, 2007 (RFE/RL) -- The past year has been the deadliest for U.S. and NATO-led forces in Afghanistan since the Taliban regime fell in late 2001."



If they are being "allowed" to run back to Pakistan and hide, then who is allowing them to reach Pakistan as they flee?

Here is something I will never comprehend.

CJ is not only in the military, he was just in Afghanistan a few weeks ago. His information is much different than yours - its firsthand, not filtered through the news media or politicians. For of me I will never understand why folks with no firsthand knowledge insist they have a better understanding of things than the people who have lived it. I'll take CJ's word on whether or not is a myth over anything I read in the paper or see on TV.

Greyfox
12-27-2007, 02:58 PM
Here is something I will never comprehend.

CJ is not only in the military, he was just in Afghanistan a few weeks ago. His information is much different than yours - its firsthand, not filtered through the news media or politicians. For of me I will never understand why folks with no firsthand knowledge insist they have a better understanding of things than the people who have lived it. I'll take CJ's word on whether or not is a myth over anything I read in the paper or see on TV.

Fine. You're in a particular State in the United States now.
Do you know everything that is going on in your state? This minute? Across the city? Does that make you an expert on your State?

chickenhead
12-27-2007, 03:04 PM
I agree with ls, first hand experience is always different than something you read in a paper.

It's not a question of whether CJ is an expert, it's a question of whether CJ has more insight into the situation than you do. He certainly has more insight into it than I do...so I wouldn't lecture him on the realities of the situation, based on something I read somewhere.

Greyfox
12-27-2007, 03:20 PM
I agree with ls, first hand experience is always different than something you read in a paper.

It's not a question of whether CJ is an expert, it's a question of whether CJ has more insight into the situation than you do. He certainly has more insight into it than I do...so I wouldn't lecture him on the realities of the situation, based on something I read somewhere.

I think we agree here and I didn't feel that I was lecturing him.
I the admire the work that CJ has done and is doing.
The fact is that each of us only has a certain part of the elephant within our grasp. Information flows to us via several domains - first hand experience, media, conversation and so on. Some of it is true. Some of of it is not true.
The information that I have is that there has been a resurgence of the Taliban in certain parts of Iraq, in particular the South and the East.
If CJ wants to say it's a myth, fine. Another soldier in Afghanistan might beg to differ.
The second question has not been answered though:
Who is allowing the Taliban to run back to Pakistan before they get there?

Tom
12-27-2007, 04:03 PM
No, but sympathy to the ideals are found worldwide, and, sadly, are growing.

Well, then as they become sympathetic towards radical islam, we kill them off. End of story. Surely you don't think negotiation would ever work?
I am not talking wowrldwide here, I'm talking the section of Pakistan where Bin Laden is hiding.

Robert Goren
12-27-2007, 04:04 PM
We are not able to do anything as long we are tied down in Iraq.

Tom
12-27-2007, 04:05 PM
Fine. You're in a particular State in the United States now.
Do you know everything that is going on in your state? This minute? Across the city? Does that make you an expert on your State?

Makes him more informed about it than I am outside looking in! ;)
Besides, CJ has access to people who "know" the score, not the media types looking to support thier agendas.

Tom
12-27-2007, 04:06 PM
We are not able to do anything as long we are tied down in Iraq.

About Face.
Foward....MARCH!

We are in the neighborhood, so to speak.

JustRalph
12-27-2007, 04:51 PM
Makes him more informed about it than I am outside looking in! ;)
Besides, CJ has access to people who "know" the score, not the media types looking to support thier agendas.

I remember briefings that I attended where a guard was on the door and you had to show your credentials to get in. Then you sit through a briefing and you get the scoop on a situation and two days later the press writes a story about the subject and gets 40-60% of the information wrong because they are piecing together crap from 30 different sources. Anything that goes through a news organization is factually in error.........it just depends on how badly they got it wrong.

I have seen this happen from small fatal car crashes to large scale anti-terrorist type stuff in the 80's............they never get it right........at least not "exactly right" and often, very, very wrong.................

ddog
12-27-2007, 05:03 PM
You guys seem fixated on the tactical options.
Kill em all, march in, etc. etc.

What this and Iraq and many other countries in the past show is that WE can not impose or deliver democracy(one man one vote type) to CULTURES that are not READY for it.

You can possibly do it to Countries after a declared war in which they were defeated formally and are just looking for a hand out of the pit.

That's not what we have anymore.

The "other" countries are NOT going to send 20-30,000 of their troops in a multi-national force to assist.
That seems the way it is.


Until our fearless leaders learn and understand this simple fact of life, we are not going anywhere and will end up frittering away an chance to tilt things in that direction where counties/cultures maybe at the verge of being ready or have taken the first small steps ON THEIR OWN to get ready for that type of system.

Few anf fewer in this country will have the stomach for an endless occupation or endless war in AGH/IRAQ/PAK and other spots.

46zilzal
12-27-2007, 06:05 PM
I doubt it, but maybe the brain stem who roars just might figure out this is the place he should have STARTED to go after in the first place. The clown will still probably be rattling the saber towards Iran.

King Ritchie
12-27-2007, 06:27 PM
I doubt it, but maybe the brain stem who roars just might figure out this is the place he should have STARTED to go after in the first place. The clown will still probably be rattling the saber towards Iran.

All these libs like 46 can do is blast our president and our country. Their solution is to TALK to them. Someday maybe they will realize that this is a war on civilizations and talking never solved anything. You must bring your enemies to their knees.

skate
12-27-2007, 07:29 PM
ANYONE in the area is either Al Qeda or harboring Al Qeda......easy peasy.

(*****) ka-booooooom!
..(***)
...(**)
....(*)


That's it.

Surround the joint, then drop the "EASY PEASY" leaflets.

Then, another funeral along with another Ka-boooooooooooom.


And since Saddamy is no longer (thanks BigDick) with us, then we can look into Pakistanny.

melman
12-27-2007, 07:48 PM
Greyfox----- Just for a small example of how things can be misstated take a look at YOUR post number 22 in this thread where you state "The information that I have is that there has been a resurgence of the Taliban in certain parts of Iraq, in particular the South and the East." A typo I am sure but care to change that to Afghanistan? Mistakes like that happen on a much more boarder scale then many people think in the news media. I served for one year in South Vietnam with a top secret cryto clearance and would laugh at the huge majority of the "news reports" of the Philadelphia Inquirer which my parents would send to me. As to your question of "why would we LET them get back to Pakistan I would think for the same reason we "LET" the VC regulars get back to Laos with that reason being political considerations.

Just a side note Greyfox for many years I had a very good friend who worked as a columnist for the Philly Daily News and the stories he would tell about "journalists" covering stories was amazing. For example a reporter writing up a story as if he had been right there when in fact the "journalist" had never left the bar across the street from the Inquirer building. :jump:

Greyfox
12-27-2007, 08:30 PM
Greyfox----- Just for a small example of how things can be misstated take a look at YOUR post number 22 in this thread where you state "The information that I have is that there has been a resurgence of the Taliban in certain parts of Iraq, in particular the South and the East." A typo I am sure but care to change that to Afghanistan? Mistakes like that happen on a much more boarder scale then many people think in the news media. I served for one year in South Vietnam with a top secret cryto clearance and would laugh at the huge majority of the "news reports" of the Philadelphia Inquirer which my parents would send to me. As to your question of "why would we LET them get back to Pakistan I would think for the same reason we "LET" the VC regulars get back to Laos with that reason being political considerations.

Just a side note Greyfox for many years I had a very good friend who worked as a columnist for the Philly Daily News and the stories he would tell about "journalists" covering stories was amazing. For example a reporter writing up a story as if he had been right there when in fact the "journalist" had never left the bar across the street from the Inquirer building. :jump:

Absolutely. I saw that error about one hour after posting it and since the edit sign wasn't up, I wasn't certain how to change it. I just left it be hoping that readers would know that I was talking about Afghanistan.

However, several sources, including the chic President of France, among others have acknowledged a resurgence of Taliban in Afghanistan.
If they're all wrong, then I'm wrong with them and stand in good company.
Also, at one point we used to say "military intelligence is an oxymoron."
The briefing sessions referred to by another poster may or may not be giving out all of the beans either, for strategic reasons.
Believe whoever you want. First hand experience is valuable and I am not knocking cj's formulation of the situation or his experience there. On the other hand there may be other "boots on the ground" who do not share his perception.

And if all of you posters want to think that there is no resurgence of Taliban in Afghanistan that's your business.

I wish you all a Happy New Year.

Greyfox
12-27-2007, 09:24 PM
So I dropped down to watch the tele.

Dan Rather, in an interview with the Wolf said:

"While we were focussed on Iraq, Afghanistan was "Going to Hell in a Handbasket, and so was Pakistan."

melman
12-27-2007, 09:49 PM
I would tend to believe CJ's statements on the subject more than Dan Rather's. If you want to believe that there is a resurgence of Taliban that's your business.

Greyfox
12-27-2007, 11:20 PM
I would tend to believe CJ's statements on the subject more than Dan Rather's. If you want to believe that there is a resurgence of Taliban that's your business.

The proof will be in the eating of the pudding. Time will tell.

JustRalph
12-27-2007, 11:24 PM
does this assasination surprise anyone............?

ddog
12-28-2007, 12:16 AM
does this assasination surprise anyone............?


Of course not.
It's in all the normal bad actors best interests.

This is a little off the thread , but at the end of the day , it's the ONLY reason I give a damn about any of these nuts , get your Congres/Pres , whoever to get off their ass and get with this program.

Is Brazil REALLY that much smarter than US?


http://www.setamericafree.org/index.htm

Foolish Pleasure
12-28-2007, 12:34 AM
No way to deal with radical islam that does not instigate them further or put people in harms way.

cj
12-28-2007, 01:10 AM
The proof will be in the eating of the pudding. Time will tell.

You are absolutely right that I don't know everything, no argument there. However, stating as fact that the Taliban is on some kind of resurgence when it is just from an article you read at some web site seems a bit silly as well.

Question me, that is fine. But why then the simple acceptance of the "report" you read?

Greyfox
12-28-2007, 04:18 AM
You are absolutely right that I don't know everything, no argument there. However, stating as fact that the Taliban is on some kind of resurgence when it is just from an article you read at some web site seems a bit silly as well.

Question me, that is fine. But why then the simple acceptance of the "report" you read?

Sorry. I only posted one report. There have been several reports to the same effect on the net, in the papers, on the TV, radio, and so on over the past few months. I don't really have time or interest to look for them as it's late here in the West. The general consensus is that the Taliban are stronger than they were 1 year ago. Keep up your good work.

(Beats me as to why you would have thought that I had just read one article at one web site? I think I'm deeper than that. The article that I presented was the first one that I found after you said the resurgence was a myth. I hadn't read that one before. )

cj
12-28-2007, 04:34 AM
We all know with the massive amount of media available today, you can find as many articles as you want to support your position, no matter what the position happens to be.

Nearly anything you read these days has to be read with the realization that the publisher/writer has an agenda. This is sad but true.

Tom
12-28-2007, 07:48 AM
I think this could be the begining of very serious times in that area.
The nukes there as well as Al Qeda make it a touchy situation. Are we better off with or without Mushara (sp?).

Allowing Bin Laden and the Taliban to simply move out of Afghanistan and re-locate in Pakistan was a major blinder by Bush. I suspect that bonehead play will turn out to be his legacy. We keep haarping on how Clinton allowed Al Qeda to grow, in fairness, we have to blame Bush for allowing it to survive.
No doubt in my mind our last three presidents make the three Stooges look smart. :ThmbDown::ThmbDown::ThmbDown:

robert99
12-28-2007, 08:09 AM
I would think the NATO Secretary General was as up to speed on this as anyone. The insurgent tactic is always to stand camouflaged and shielded by civilian cover who rely on their "protection", then drift away, then come back again. They know they have time on their side and western democracies won't keep troops there indefinitely. Each lull and our troops are pulled back. The locals know well they will face the full consequences of collaboration, completely unprotected, once the western troops are gone.


LONDON, Sept 5 (Reuters) - NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said on Wednesday he was disappointed some members of the alliance would not send troops to fight Taliban guerrillas in the south of Afghanistan.

Speaking at a dinner in London's financial district, de Hoop Scheffer said NATO members could show more solidarity and that he would "applaud" France if it ever decided to rejoin the alliance's integrated military structures.

"I'm disappointed ... that not all the allies, and some major allies included, do not want to go to the places where the fighting is -- although they also suffer from improvised explosive devices and suicide attacks," he said.

Britain provides much of the NATO force fighting the Taliban in the restive southern provinces of Afghanistan, with soldiers from Canada, the Netherlands and the United States.

Violence has surged in the past 19 months, the bloodiest period since U.S.-led troops overthrew the Taliban government in 2001. About 50,000 troops under the command of NATO and the United States are hunting Taliban rebels and their al Qaeda allies.

Britain has been pressing other NATO members to send more soldiers to fight in the south. Prime Minister Gordon Brown called this week for other countries to share the burden.

"Yes, it is true that more nations could join the operations also in the south. I say this with the greatest respect for all the 26 allies ... that are active in Afghanistan," de Hoop Scheffer said.

He said the only long-term hope for Afghanistan was successful reconstruction and development, but that could take generations and a military presence there now was essential.

Losing the fight in Afghanistan would allow the Taliban and the Islamists of al Qaeda to gain power and increase the chance of more terrorist attacks in Western nations, he said.

"I do not see any serious alternative for the military presence of NATO forces under a U.N. mandate in Afghanistan."

Greyfox
12-28-2007, 10:10 AM
A typo I am sure but care to change that to Afghanistan? Mistakes like that happen on a much more boarder scale then many people think in the news media.

Psst. melman....."boarder scale" ...sounds like a Rooming House rating..:lol:

Greyfox
12-28-2007, 10:17 AM
Violence has surged in the past 19 months, the bloodiest period since U.S.-led troops overthrew the Taliban government in 2001. "

robert99 -:ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

Greyfox
12-28-2007, 10:19 AM
Allowing Bin Laden and the Taliban to simply move out of Afghanistan and re-locate in Pakistan was a major blinder by Bush. I suspect that bonehead play will turn out to be his legacy. We keep haarping on how Clinton allowed Al Qeda to grow, in fairness, we have to blame Bush for allowing it to survive.


Tom :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: The above "blunders" can't be repeated often enough.

Tom
12-28-2007, 11:55 AM
This is why you obliterate your enemies. Don't let them regroup, rebuild.


Originally Posted by robert99
Violence has surged in the past 19 months, the bloodiest period since U.S.-led troops overthrew the Taliban government in 2001. "

chickenhead
12-28-2007, 11:58 AM
Violence has surged in the past 19 months, the bloodiest period since U.S.-led troops overthrew the Taliban government in 2001.

Playing Devils advocate here

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/24/AR2007092401692_pf.html

Note the title of this article:

Emboldened Taliban Reflected In More Attacks, Greater Reach

but then lets get to the meat of the story:

U.S. Army Gen. Dan K. McNeill, the top NATO commander in Afghanistan, said much of the activity attributed to the Taliban and other militant groups probably was not part of the anti-government insurgency, but more likely was related to criminal activity, narcotics trafficking and tribal disputes. And in some cases, he said, levels of conflict are up because more NATO, U.S. and Afghan forces are pushing into areas of the country where they had never operated. There are an estimated 50,000 international troops here, about half of them American.

"Logic tells you the number of incidents you report are going to be increased," he said.


The Taliban's use of guerrilla warfare tactics -- particularly suicide attacks and roadside bombings -- is on the rise, largely because the insurgents cannot challenge foreign security forces through conventional means, McNeill said. About 60 percent of Afghanistan -- a country slightly smaller than Texas and with 32 million people -- experiences on average less than one significant security event a week, he said, although "the south and the east are clearly exceptions."

The rise in attacks reflects "acts of desperation," said Humayun Hamidzada, the spokesman for Karzai. "If you go and blow up 20 civilians, what does it show? Does it show strength? It shows their weakness. It's no resurgence. It's just showing who they really are."



For my part, I have no idea what's going on in Afghanistan. But I have reason to believe that what is going on is shady and murky enough that declaring anything as the gospel truth, or declaring I really understand what it means, would be folly.

Not unlike Bhutto. I have no idea what I am supposed to feel about her. The great hope of the West for Democracy in Pakistan? It was under her watch that the Pakistani intelligence service installed the Taliban in Afghanistan in the first place. Who knows. That part of the world is truly foreign.

ddog
12-28-2007, 12:07 PM
I think this could be the begining of very serious times in that area.
The nukes there as well as Al Qeda make it a touchy situation. Are we better off with or without Mushara (sp?).

Allowing Bin Laden and the Taliban to simply move out of Afghanistan and re-locate in Pakistan was a major blinder by Bush. I suspect that bonehead play will turn out to be his legacy. We keep haarping on how Clinton allowed Al Qeda to grow, in fairness, we have to blame Bush for allowing it to survive.
No doubt in my mind our last three presidents make the three Stooges look smart. :ThmbDown::ThmbDown::ThmbDown:

If you want to know how corrupt the whole thing is ask yourself this,
WHY are the nukes there?

Guess who the backers of the status quo in that country are?
China and Saudi is the reply.

Why do we not tell the Pakistani gvt that we want all the nukes out of there?
They will give them to us or else.

Tell India, who is not going to strike in the first place to be cool or they are next.

We should use our force for something that changes the situation, take the nukes out of there.

There is no reason to go chasing all over every mountain/cave to find some AQ type , use what we have to our advantage.

We don't want any major toops of ours running around the country.
We have special forces types all over the place already.
Let them do the dirty work under the radar.

ddog
12-28-2007, 12:20 PM
Playing Devils advocate here

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/24/AR2007092401692_pf.html

Note the title of this article:

Emboldened Taliban Reflected In More Attacks, Greater Reach

but then lets get to the meat of the story:








For my part, I have no idea what's going on in Afghanistan. But I have reason to believe that what is going on is shady and murky enough that declaring anything as the gospel truth, or declaring I really understand what it means, would be folly.

Not unlike Bhutto. I have no idea what I am supposed to feel about her. The great hope of the West for Democracy in Pakistan? It was under her watch that the Pakistani intelligence service installed the Taliban in Afghanistan in the first place. Who knows. That part of the world is truly foreign.

My take from that period and now on Bhutto,

she had mostly good intentions, but the mil and security and the outlying tribal leaders are the power centers there.
She , or anyone else can not effect change as these other power bases (and even they are to some extent internally fractured) do not respond in lock step to any policy set at the civilian level.

She knew the jihadists that they and us had funded and used against the Soviets were going to turn on them and they have.

The only thing that gets me about the whole episode is that she was so clearly "our" girl in that fight and it seems to me that at least after the OCt18th attempt on her that WE should have sent our own security forces to install security around her.
Blackwater comes to mind.

We are the only thing between Karazai and the same fate.
For how loing , who knows.

Greyfox
12-28-2007, 12:46 PM
She , or anyone else can not effect change as these other power bases (and even they are to some extent internally fractured) do not respond in lock step to any policy set at the civilian level.



You've hit the nail on the head. Parts of Pakistan, Afghanistan, and to a slightly lesser extent Iraq have very strong tribal commitments. They don't think in terms of Federalism.

Corruption, baksheesh, crooked Police forces, drug dealing , you name it are all there. And in Pakistan's instance, a dictator President who only pays lip service to U.S. Govt requests re: getting rid of terrorism.

I think though that Bhutto, as martyr, may in time do more to galvanize that country than she could have done alive. Surely she had to know that.

As Just Ralph pointed out -was anyone surprised? Not me. She knew her destiny before she went back.

Greyfox
12-28-2007, 01:40 PM
The views of Christopher Hitchens are not very popular in some circles. He questions God.
His views of God aside, Hitchens has written an excellent read on Benazir Bhutto at:

Daughter of Destiny
http://www.slate.com/id/2180952/

kenwoodallpromos
12-28-2007, 01:53 PM
"If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.”
AP and debate, Aug 2007.

Greyfox
12-28-2007, 02:14 PM
The views of Christopher Hitchens are not very popular in some circles. He questions God.
His views of God aside, Hitchens has written an excellent read on Benazir Bhutto at:

Daughter of Destiny
http://www.slate.com/id/2180952/


Of interest too is the link that Hitchens provides to New York Times in depth story on Bhutto family corruption. Seems like everyone has a "dark side..."
It's at http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0CE5D91F30F93AA35752C0A96E9582 60

chickenhead
12-28-2007, 02:21 PM
she had mostly good intentions, but the mil and security and the outlying tribal leaders are the power centers there.
She , or anyone else can not effect change as these other power bases (and even they are to some extent internally fractured) do not respond in lock step to any policy set at the civilian level.

That is more or less my understanding. She did not effect positive change during her first two terms, and would likely not have effected positive change again...So I'm left wondering why she was important. She's perhaps the Muslim equivalent to Princess Di.

Greyfox
12-28-2007, 02:25 PM
. She's perhaps the Muslim equivalent to Princess Di.

Funny, the same thought crossed my mind. :ThmbUp:

Tom
12-28-2007, 03:05 PM
That is more or less my understanding. She did not effect positive change during her first two terms, and would likely not have effected positive change again...So I'm left wondering why she was important. She's perhaps the Muslim equivalent to Princess Di.

I think it was the action, not her, that is the key here. We cannot allow Al Qeda to continue. We cannot allow them to affect national elections of sovereign nations. It is a disgrace and a pox on the ENTIRE civilized world that a global alliance to erradicate them has not yet been formed.

skate
12-28-2007, 03:17 PM
We needed Bases in the area.

we now have Bases in the area.

Now we do not need Boots on the ground.


Air force and Navy, more than ready.

Foot Hold gives Power to Bargain.:cool:

delayjf
12-28-2007, 05:02 PM
Originally Posted by Tom
Allowing Bin Laden and the Taliban to simply move out of Afghanistan and re-locate in Pakistan was a major blinder by Bush. I suspect that bonehead play will turn out to be his legacy. We keep haarping on how Clinton allowed Al Qeda to grow, in fairness, we have to blame Bush for allowing it to survive.
I don't know if the US could have invaded Afghan quick enough with a force sufficient to prevent Bin laden's escape into Pakistan. Recall the war in Afghanistan began less than a month after 9/11. The amount of troops necessary to seal the Afghan / Pakistani border would have been immense, not to mention a logistical nightmare considering the uncooperative nature of the countries surrounding Afghanistan. It would have taken months to get those troops in position to seal off Afghan borders and by then he would have been gone any way.

While the application of the "Rumsfield Doctrine" proved successful in the conduct of the war - it fell short in it’s ability to secure a border, just as it did in Iraq. But I’m not sure they ever intended to cut OBL off at the pass – calculating that it a bridge too far.

JustMissed
12-28-2007, 06:13 PM
I don't know if the US could have invaded Afghan quick enough with a force sufficient to prevent Bin laden's escape into Pakistan. Recall the war in Afghanistan began less than a month after 9/11. The amount of troops necessary to seal the Afghan / Pakistani border would have been immense, not to mention a logistical nightmare considering the uncooperative nature of the countries surrounding Afghanistan. It would have taken months to get those troops in position to seal off Afghan borders and by then he would have been gone any way.

While the application of the "Rumsfield Doctrine" proved successful in the conduct of the war - it fell short in it’s ability to secure a border, just as it did in Iraq. But I’m not sure they ever intended to cut OBL off at the pass – calculating that it a bridge too far.

Delay, I don't mean to be rude, but you are living in a Dream World.

Don't you know that OBL holds the "immunity idol" and will never get caught.

Don't you know Afrghanistan was on the board for take over as soon as the Talliban pipeline deal made in Houston, Tx with BUSCHO et al fell through. You know of Houston don't you, Ken Lay, Enron, Dick Chenny, GWB.

Don't you know that the take over of Iraq was on the board many months before 9/11, and 'oh how convienent that turned out to be for a trumped up invasion of Iraq'.

Do some reading about how many Saudi nationals were flow out of the USA the two days after 9/11 when all US planes where grounded. There has never and never will be an effort to capture OBL, period.

If you want to find out what is "really going on", just google a few things and read with 'your own eyes'-and quit just believing what you hear on Bill O'Reilly.


Caspian Sea oil pipeline
Russian-Iraqi oil contract
Keating Five
Bush family

JM

chickenhead
12-28-2007, 06:43 PM
I love this Afghani pipeline that keeps making the conspiracy rounds.

No one seems to mention that an alternate pipeline from the Caspian sea opened just a few years ago. One that bypassed Afghanistan completely. Oops, I guess the Afghani route wasn't all that important after all.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4577497.stm

America and her corporations want things done all over the world...to assume that some minor pipeline, one of many, is cause for anything in particular, is below the Inspector Clueso level of sleuthing.

JustMissed
12-28-2007, 07:03 PM
I love this Afghani pipeline that keeps making the conspiracy rounds.

No one seems to mention that an alternate pipeline from the Caspian sea opened just a few years ago. One that bypassed Afghanistan completely. Oops, I guess the Afghani route wasn't all that important after all.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4577497.stm

America and her corporations want things done all over the world...to assume that some minor pipeline, one of many, is cause for anything in particular, is below the Inspector Clueso level of sleuthing.

Your article reference is very timely, May 25, 2005.

9/11 occured in 2001.

Next week is 2008.

Chickens may be good at telling when it is daylight or dark, but not too damn good on yearly timelines. :lol:

JM

chickenhead
12-28-2007, 07:09 PM
they started to get down to business on the building part of it: June 2001. Imagine that!

Point is, you're proposing we orchestrated 9/11, to invade Afghanistan, to build a pipeline (that has not yet been built, btw, minor problem for you) that feeds oil through PAKISTAN...when we were 3 years away from completing a pipeline that moves an equivalent amount of oil through Turkey that dumps oil into the Mediterranean (pretty good destination, better than PAKISTAN). Which has in fact been finished. And is pumping oil.


You don't have a clue what you're talking about.

here are some of the other pipelines, both real and proposed, in the Caspian region.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/caspgrph.html

PaceAdvantage
12-29-2007, 12:46 AM
Caspian Sea oil pipeline
Russian-Iraqi oil contract
Keating Five
Bush family

Man, you're starting to sound like Rosie!

Q0EjWWlF5k8

skate
12-29-2007, 03:37 PM
JustMissed;


Took the perfect Name.

He goes from a possible, reasonable consideration, then jumps seven times, at which he concludes that he's in left field.
He forgets about running the bases.

and hey, we've all been there, but then we stop and listen.:eek:

skate
12-29-2007, 03:43 PM
I love this Afghani pipeline that keeps making the conspiracy rounds.

No one seems to mention that an alternate pipeline from the Caspian sea opened just a few years ago. One that bypassed Afghanistan completely. Oops, I guess the Afghani route wasn't all that important after all.



i don't disagree, but i thought they were on hold regarding the pipe lines.

Also, i did think they were going to use Afgan...not that this would make JustlyMissed correct over the issue.

JustMissed
12-29-2007, 05:55 PM
I love this Afghani pipeline that keeps making the conspiracy rounds.

No one seems to mention that an alternate pipeline from the Caspian sea opened just a few years ago. One that bypassed Afghanistan completely. Oops, I guess the Afghani route wasn't all that important after all.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4577497.stm

America and her corporations want things done all over the world...to assume that some minor pipeline, one of many, is cause for anything in particular, is below the Inspector Clueso level of sleuthing.

Chicken, I'm sure you know this but an oil deposit not only produces oil, it can produce natural gas. Often a large amount of naural gas.

Petroleum and naturual gas are not transported in the same pipeline.

Often times more than one oil pipeline and/or more than one natural gas pipeline is built for distribution of the products.

In the case of Afghanistan, that pipeline was designated to transport natural gas, not petroleum.

You may or may not know that Enron was not very much involved in petroleum but were very much involved in the transporatation of electricity and natural gas.

Here's a sippet from wipedia.com for your information.

I don't mean to pick a fight with you but you should get your facts straight before you "get your feathers ruffled".

[Quote]Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article or section contains information about a planned or proposed pipeline.
It may contain information of a speculative nature and the content may change as the construction and/or completion of the pipeline approaches, and more information becomes available.

The Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline (TAP or TAPI) is a proposed natural gas pipeline being developed by the Asian Development Bank. The pipeline will transport Caspian Sea natural gas from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan into Pakistan and then to India.

The 1,680 km pipeline will run from the Dauletabad gas field to Afghanistan. From there TAPI will be constructed alongside the highway running from Herat to Kandahar, and then via Quetta and Multan in Pakistan. The final destination of the pipeline will be the Indian town of Fazilka, near the border between Pakistan and India. The pipeline will be 1,420 mm in diameter with a working pressure of 100 atm and the capacity of 33 billion cubic meter (bcm) of natural gas annually. Six compressor stations are to be constructed along the pipeline. The cost of this international infrastructure is estimated at US$3.5 billion (2005 figures). Proponents of the project see it as a modern continuation of the Silk Road. The Afghan government is expected to receive 8% of the project's revenue.

Original project started in March 1995 when inaugural memorandum of understanding between the governments of Turkmenistan and Pakistan for a pipline project was signed. In August 1996, the Central Asia Gas Pipeline, Ltd. (CentGas) consortium for construction of pipeline, led by Unocal was formed. On 27 October 1997 CentGas incorporated in formal signing ceremonies in Ashgabat, Turkmenistan by several international oil companies along with the Government of Turkmenistan. In January 1998 the Taliban, selecting CentGas over a Brazilian competitor, signed an agreement that allowed the proposed project to proceed. In June 1998, Russian Gazprom relinquishes its 10% stake in project. Unocal withdrawn from the consortium on 8 December 1998.

The new deal on the pipeline was signed on 27 December 2002 by the leaders of Turkmenistan, Afghanistan and Pakistan and in 2005 Asian Development Bank submitted the final version of feasibility study designed by British company Penspen. Since the United States military overthrew the Taliban government the project has essentially stalled; construction of the Turkmen part was supposed to start in 2006, but the overall feasibility is questionable since the southern part of the Afghan section runs through territory which continues to be under de facto Taliban control.[EndQuote]

JM

Greyfox
12-29-2007, 08:55 PM
In the meanwhile Al Qaeda has strengthened it's base in Pakistan.



http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/30/world/asia/30pakistan.html?ref=world

"
“Al Qaeda (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/a/al_qaeda/index.html?inline=nyt-org) right now seems to have turned its face toward Pakistan and attacks on the Pakistani government and Pakistani people,” Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/g/robert_m_gates/index.html?inline=nyt-per) told reporters in Washington on Dec. 21."

and
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSL298893420071229
"Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden vowed that Islamist militants will expand their holy war to liberate Palestinian land and said his group will not recognize Israel."


Guess who took his eye off the ball? Three guesses and the first two don't count.
(Cryptic clue: Initially Guess Who?)

Greyfox
12-29-2007, 10:22 PM
Earlier I ping-ponged with various posters here. I had
casually mentioned that there is a resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Oh...That was a myth.
(As if I had just challenged a Queen's nest, the bees were out throwing all sorts of reasons as to why I had to be wrong ...yeah, sure.)

It seems that the following has just been reported:

Taliban fight needs 3,000 extra troops


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article3108161.ece

Okay....don't believe papers and politicians...believe what and who you want to. I did say that the "proof would be in the eating of the pudding...."

JustRalph
12-30-2007, 01:48 AM
Three thousand troops or 3 B-1 Bomber's ..............

hcap
12-30-2007, 05:30 AM
Three thousand troops or 3 B-1 Bomber's ..............


http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/9/90/Dr-strangelove-06.jpg

"With ten women selected for their fertility and appeal for every man"

http://www.dvd.net.au/movies/d/11436-1.jpg

"Have you ever seen a Commie drink a glass of water?"

lsbets
12-30-2007, 08:11 AM
Earlier I ping-ponged with various posters here. I had
casually mentioned that there is a resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Oh...That was a myth.
(As if I had just challenged a Queen's nest, the bees were out throwing all sorts of reasons as to why I had to be wrong ...yeah, sure.)

It seems that the following has just been reported:

Taliban fight needs 3,000 extra troops


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article3108161.ece

Okay....don't believe papers and politicians...believe what and who you want to. I did say that the "proof would be in the eating of the pudding...."

No, earlier you ping ponged with someone who was just on the ground in Afghanistan. You backed yourself into a corner and basically asserted that you had a better grasp on the situation there than he did. You have shown that you are capable of reading some articles but that you are incapable of understanding or interpreting what you read and that military matters are way beyond your abilities to comprehend. You made yourself look like a fool ping ponging with CJ and the more you do it, the bigger a fool you make yourself appear to be.

Seriously dude, you're way outclassed with CJ.

Greyfox
12-30-2007, 09:53 AM
No, earlier you ping ponged with someone who was just on the ground in Afghanistan. You backed yourself into a corner and basically asserted that you had a better grasp on the situation there than he did. You have shown that you are capable of reading some articles but that you are incapable of understanding or interpreting what you read and that military matters are way beyond your abilities to comprehend. You made yourself look like a fool ping ponging with CJ and the more you do it, the bigger a fool you make yourself appear to be.

Seriously dude, you're way outclassed with CJ.

First of all, cj was not one of the ping pong posters.
Secondly I did not discredit any of cj's posts. I realize he was on the ground.
Thirdly, I never at any point said I had a better understanding of the situation than cj. I simply had a different understanding of the situation than he did.
Finally I said that the proof would be in the eating of the pudding.
I also realize that his experience was one kind, others had different kinds.

The fact is you were one of the ones' who pooh poohed anyone who would differ with anyone who had first hand experience of any situation.
It was you and others who looked like moronic sheep.
So with the information that is surfacing, whose looking like the fool my friend?
The fact of the matter is that there is a resurgence in Afghanistan of the Taliban.
The fact of the matter is that you choose not to believe it.
The fact of the matter is that there was no corner for me to get backed into because the realities were on my side. You simply choose not to believe them. You can try and put me down by saying "dude your outclassed."
Saying it doesn't mean it. It just gives you satisfaction that you've said it.
And guess what "dude?"....You'll find out down the road that 3,000 more
troops aint gonna be enough.

When individuals refuse to change their opinion even as new information contradicts their beliefs that's called closed mindedness. The new information supports my initial assertion. There is a resurgence of the taliban in Afghanistan.

lsbets
12-30-2007, 11:02 AM
First of all, cj was not one of the ping pong posters.
Secondly I did not discredit any of cj's posts. I realize he was on the ground.
Thirdly, I never at any point said I had a better understanding of the situation than cj. I simply had a different understanding of the situation than he did.
Finally I said that the proof would be in the eating of the pudding.
I also realize that his experience was one kind, others had different kinds.

The fact is you were one of the ones' who pooh poohed anyone who would differ with anyone who had first hand experience of any situation.
It was you and others who looked like moronic sheep.
So with the information that is surfacing, whose looking like the fool my friend?
The fact of the matter is that there is a resurgence in Afghanistan of the Taliban.
The fact of the matter is that you choose not to believe it.
The fact of the matter is that there was no corner for me to get backed into because the realities were on my side. You simply choose not to believe them. You can try and put me down by saying "dude your outclassed."
Saying it doesn't mean it. It just gives you satisfaction that you've said it.
And guess what "dude?"....You'll find out down the road that 3,000 more
troops aint gonna be enough.

When individuals refuse to change their opinion even as new information contradicts their beliefs that's called closed mindedness. The new information supports my initial assertion. There is a resurgence of the taliban in Afghanistan.

CJ said your assertion about the Taliban was a myth. All of your ensuing posts have been based on your attempt to show that CJs statement was false. In other words, you are attempting to show a better understanding of the situation than CJ.

I don't recall ever saying what I believed to be the situation in Afghanistan - I said that I would believe the guys on the ground over what I read in the paper. When evaluating information you have to decide which sources you consider to be more trustworthy, and I think CJ is more trustworthy than Dan Rather. I could post similar comments to CJ's from a lot of folks I know who are there now, but that won't mean a thing to you, and I have found that talking about matters like Afghanistan and Iraq with simpletons like you is not worth the time or the effort. Please show me what I said beyond I put more stock in what CJ and other guys I know on the ground say than in what I read in the paper. Ooops - you can't show me, because I never commented beyond that. Should we add not very bright to your resume?

Who is looking like a fool? Certainly you are. Your whole thesis is that your belief is correct while what CJ has seen with his own eyes is wrong. When called out you state that you are not challenging anything CJ says, only those who put credence in CJs observations, yet you post every article you can find which runs something contrary to CJ's observations. Even if you are too chickenshit to admit it, its pretty obvious that you want folks to believe you are correct while CJ is a fool for stating what he did.

You state realities were on your side. Well, that means reality was not on CJs side. Would you stand by that comment? If you had any balls you would, but I don't think you will.

You ask that with new information surfacing who looks like a fool? Well, it would be reasonable to infer based on your comments that the person who posted contrary observations, but you wouldn't have the balls to call CJ a fool, so you'll instead call those who put credence in his observations fools.

You are making yourself appear to be a very small, insecure man Grey.

Greyfox
12-30-2007, 11:13 AM
If the Pope says that the sky is green, well by golly it's going to be green for some people. Of course it could be blue, but that's an unnecessary fact.

Sorry Isbets but that's the way you are coming across. You're acting as if I'd just attacked the Pope. Six months from now you'll see how silly your idol worshipping posts look.

The taliban are resurging in Afghanistan.

lsbets
12-30-2007, 11:26 AM
If the Pope says that the sky is green, well by golly it's going to be green for some people. Of course it could be blue, but that's an unnecessary fact.

Sorry Isbets but that's the way you are coming across. You're acting as if I'd just attacked the Pope. Six months from now you'll see how silly your idol worshipping posts look.

The taliban are resurging in Afghanistan.

No, I'm stating that I put more credence in what CJs says than in what you read. And you are hurt and offended that I would not believe you over CJ, so you've been throwing a temper tantrum over that for a few days now. Perhaps you need to go to time out until you can start acting lke a big boy.

Greyfox
12-30-2007, 11:33 AM
No, I'm stating that I put more credence in what CJs says than in what you read. And you are hurt and offended that I would not believe you over CJ, so you've been throwing a temper tantrum over that for a few days now. Perhaps you need to go to time out until you can start acting lke a big boy.

:lol: :lol: Your perceptions couldn't be farther from the truth.
Why would I care who you believed?:lol: Give your head a shake.
I do note though that you are an idol worshipper. You didn't really need to defend a poster who is more than capable of defending himself. In effect, you weren't really defending him at all. You were simply at a latent level telling him that you were faithful.
There's not much need to continue this on. After all the thread was initially posted to look at the impact of Mrs. Bhutto's assassination. Afghanistan was just a side excursion.
All the best.
Greyfox

lsbets
12-30-2007, 11:41 AM
My perceptions are dead on accurate. You have spent the past few days trying to convince everyone to believe you over CJ. When called out, you come up with your idol worship crap. As I said, you are a small and insecure man, and you know I'm right, which drives you crazy.

Greyfox
12-30-2007, 11:44 AM
Yes. You're right isbets. The sky is green. The taliban are dead. All is well and they are living happily ever after. Once again you're right.

lsbets
12-30-2007, 11:50 AM
Yes. You're right isbets. The sky is green. The taliban are dead. All is well and they are living happily ever after. Once again you're right.


Again, show me where I said the Taliban were dead? Can you? Nope, you can't. But, your arguments are so hollow that you have to make shit up so you feel better about yourself. Small and insecure.

Greyfox
12-30-2007, 11:58 AM
Earlier I raised the issue as to who was allowing the Taliban to flee back to Pakistan. As it turns out they and Al Qaeda are being blamed for the deaths of Madam Bhutto. Why is it not possible to stop this fleeing.

In the last 6 hours the following report has come in:


http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i8dGftYb0s4XWdUMRdIVs3vh1CKAD8TRMII81
Taliban Kill 8 in Afghan Convoy Attack

This year has been Afghanistan's most violent since the 2001 U.S.-led invasion drove the Taliban from power. More than 6,300 people, mostly militants, have been killed in insurgency-related violence, according to an Associated Press
count....
Afghanistan is moving from being a country decimated by decades of conflict to a progressive Islamic democracy, striving to improve the lives of its people," he said. "However, I share the same concern as the Afghan people for the security situation, particularly in the south of the country."

46zilzal
12-30-2007, 12:08 PM
In trying to understand just what the hell is going on with the brain dead leadership of which the rutabaga lauds himself over like a king, I have reviewed Robert Baer, Woodward, the book Fiasco, etc. etc and the latest video No End in Sight (where many who were hastily assigned to the reconstruction effort in Iraq and never allowed to do their job).

The conclusions (after understanding that these idiots HIRE experts in advising them, but since it is counter to their "dream world" ideas of what SHOULD be over WHAT IS, they never make even a sham of an effort to implement them, making error upon error), these CLOWNS are wasting human lives without a plan. They are sacrificing pawns to this completly bogus idea of democratizing countries (ONLY the Western variety of that one thanks!) that MIGHT have have had a chance if there had been the same extensive planning implemented in post war Germany and Japan.

Clowns leading clowns. No wonder an enemy is regaining strength.

GaryG
12-30-2007, 12:33 PM
In trying to understand just what the hell is going on with the brain dead leadership of which the rutabaga lauds himself over like a king, Lauds himself over???? Are you possibly from Uzbekistan?

Snag
12-30-2007, 12:41 PM
46, what does Bush Bashing have to do with this thread?

46zilzal
12-30-2007, 12:45 PM
Go to where the problem IS rutabaga. Go there and take care of it. A very simple message but then this simpleton is far below that.

46zilzal
12-30-2007, 12:56 PM
"but there aren't any good targets in Afghanistan!" Rummmmmmmy.

ddog
12-30-2007, 01:35 PM
That is more or less my understanding. She did not effect positive change during her first two terms, and would likely not have effected positive change again...So I'm left wondering why she was important. She's perhaps the Muslim equivalent to Princess Di.

I hate to say it, but she was our GVT's democratic option to start away from Musharref, for better or worse.

There was a chance that she could have rallied the lower 60 percent of the population to allow her to bring more force to bear against the terror networks that are buried deep in that country.

Times had changed since she was last in power.

I do think she was serious in wanting to drive the extemist elements out, I just think they are in too deep for that to happen in the next 30-50 years.

I can't fathom why we hung her out to dry like we did?
It was and is so transparently stupid that one has to see some other reason than just that the Pakistani gvt didn't want Blackwater that close to the situation.
Did you see when the shots were fired in the video that the "security" was DUCKING for cover themselves. Give me a break.
Any decent security setup would have shot that guy when the gun was raised which is beside the point that they would not have let her pop up like a shooting gallery duck in the vehicle.

It also goes to show the underlying weakness(IMHO) of our whole policy over there , at least on the civilian side.

We maybe want to bring some type of democracy in the long run,but to get there one has to give the local population some hope that they will not be blown to bits in the process.

That takes force and the more we are seen as bringing or supporting that force in the long run(even in Iraq) it plays into the AQ types hands, since they can point to us and our "front men" for every problem that occurs of any type even after a "free" gvt is stood up.


We need to be clear what our goals are and they should not include "bringing" democarcy to any Muslim country or supporting any military or religious dictator(Saudi).
We need to knock down terrorist threats to our country using the in country resources if possible and try to keep a lid on nukes and that's about it.

Also, one interesting thing,to me anyway as I type this rambling post is this,
Recall where KSM was taken down?
Rawalpindi, the heart of the so called military that is on our side?
Really, i wonder how much on our side they really are.
More like playing the same old India game at the core of the whole deal.

Tom
12-30-2007, 03:13 PM
46, what does Bush Bashing have to do with this thread?

Nothing. That is the only topic he knows how to post. He sees "buzz words" and randomly sends out posts, like a Magic 8 Ball. No thought behind them, pure refelx.:lol:

PaceAdvantage
12-30-2007, 04:29 PM
I think it's worth repeating the original exchange again, for the benefit of ALL involved....

Afghanistan is becoming more and more of a mess every day with Taliban battalions forming.That is a myth. The only reason they make any noise at all is because they are allowed to run back to Pakistan and hide.


(I've bolded what I personally thought was the most important part)

Tom
12-30-2007, 05:02 PM
The whole point in going into Afghanistan in the firt places was to take away thier free reign that allowed them to launch terror attakcs. We have used similar rhetoric about Iraq.

How is the current situation - a free hand in Pakistan - any different?
We need to - ONCE and FOR ALL - address the Al Qeda issue. It has been too many years of failure to finish the job. Forget finger pointing, forget I told ya so's - let's get the job done. What ever happened to that speech right after 9-11, no safe haven, with us or against us, yadda yadda yadda. Time to walk the talk. We know where theyare, we have the means to do something about it. Where the hell are our BALLS???????

robert99
12-30-2007, 05:04 PM
I hate to say it, but she was our GVT's democratic option to start away from Musharref, for better or worse.

There was a chance that she could have rallied the lower 60 percent of the population to allow her to bring more force to bear against the terror networks that are buried deep in that country.

Times had changed since she was last in power.

I do think she was serious in wanting to drive the extemist elements out, I just think they are in too deep for that to happen in the next 30-50 years.

I can't fathom why we hung her out to dry like we did?
It was and is so transparently stupid that one has to see some other reason than just that the Pakistani gvt didn't want Blackwater that close to the situation.
Did you see when the shots were fired in the video that the "security" was DUCKING for cover themselves. Give me a break.
Any decent security setup would have shot that guy when the gun was raised which is beside the point that they would not have let her pop up like a shooting gallery duck in the vehicle.

It also goes to show the underlying weakness(IMHO) of our whole policy over there , at least on the civilian side.

We maybe want to bring some type of democracy in the long run,but to get there one has to give the local population some hope that they will not be blown to bits in the process.

That takes force and the more we are seen as bringing or supporting that force in the long run(even in Iraq) it plays into the AQ types hands, since they can point to us and our "front men" for every problem that occurs of any type even after a "free" gvt is stood up.


We need to be clear what our goals are and they should not include "bringing" democarcy to any Muslim country or supporting any military or religious dictator(Saudi).
We need to knock down terrorist threats to our country using the in country resources if possible and try to keep a lid on nukes and that's about it.

Also, one interesting thing,to me anyway as I type this rambling post is this,
Recall where KSM was taken down?
Rawalpindi, the heart of the so called military that is on our side?
Really, i wonder how much on our side they really are.
More like playing the same old India game at the core of the whole deal.

Imposing forms of Government on other nations against their will is a non-starter. How many times has US Gov't tried this elsewhere and failed? Pakistan is not a homogeneous country it is federal, tribal, multi-language, and the city folk are a different culture from the tribesmen. US Government reportedly funded $60B to the General to fight terrorists in Pakistan and secure nuclear warheads from getting into wrong hands (so that is same as you suggest). How much of that got filtered off and found its way to the Taliban? I suppose an awful lot, and Plan B was enacted to bring back Mrs Bhutto as a stooge under the General's "protection" and hope for the best. That Mrs B had actually funded and got the Taliban established to defend Kashmir seems to have been forgotten. Mrs B, no better than OBL, should rightly have been more worthy of Guantanamo.

To win hearts and minds you need first to secure borders with masses of troops (no political chance of that) - once secure you need to invest in infrastructure and jobs (funds for that are being wasted in mass corruption). UK are doing the main fighting in Helman Province with a mere 7800 troops in a hand to hand fighting war - it is a truly hopeless number. The Taliban do offer immediate help, security and funds to any in Helman - they defend, encourage and re-arm from the booming opium trade profits - the West offer pie in the sky and wonder why people drift back to the truly "awful" Taliban.

46zilzal
12-30-2007, 05:24 PM
Imposing forms of Government on other nations against their will is a non-starter. How many times has US Gov't tried this elsewhere and failed? Pakistan is not a homogeneous country it is federal, tribal, multi-language, and the city folk are a different culture from the tribesmen. US Government reportedly funded $60B to the General to
Only just about in every corner of the globe either overtly, like in Iran (no wonder they look with disfavor to the west huh?) or clandestinely, via the CIA, in the case of Pinochet (on their September 11th, 1973).

The really ridiculous part in all of these failures is the belief that doing the same thing again will change the outcome. What is that old definition of stupidity? Do the same thing over and over the same way expecting to get a different result?

When you plan something to work, you put people in positions of authority who know the society. Paul Bremmer, for example, is allowed to run the show in Iraq not knowing a word of the language and never having any experience in that part of the world, yep but he was the rutabaga's pal!

ddog
12-30-2007, 05:39 PM
I think it's worth repeating the original exchange again, for the benefit of ALL involved....




(I've bolded what I personally thought was the most important part)

I would not agree as to the battalions forming bolded part.
The people to "form" the battalions are already there in AFG/PAK/Saudi all over.
It's really not that big a deal if the battalions in any one place are formed or not.

They are being indoctrinated/supported everywhere.
The maddrases are turning out another GENERATION of battalions while we are fighting the LAST WAR.
I appreciate CJ and the MANY other Brave selfless soldiers over there, but we must be REALIStIC.

Because we want to do something or should do something is of no real-world import if one CAN'T DO THE THING.

Would you be in favour of getting at the roots of the problem and if so how?

To quibble over the number of troops in the field at any one time is not of much use.

JustMissed
12-30-2007, 06:03 PM
The whole point in going into Afghanistan in the firt places was to take away thier free reign that allowed them to launch terror attakcs. We have used similar rhetoric about Iraq.

How is the current situation - a free hand in Pakistan - any different?
We need to - ONCE and FOR ALL - address the Al Qeda issue. It has been too many years of failure to finish the job. Forget finger pointing, forget I told ya so's - let's get the job done. What ever happened to that speech right after 9-11, no safe haven, with us or against us, yadda yadda yadda. Time to walk the talk. We know where theyare, we have the means to do something about it. Where the hell are our BALLS???????

Tom, Time to grow up-There is no Al Qaeda.

Al Qaeda is the boggy man, made up by BUSCHO to keep guys like you afraid and looking in the wrong direction.

How come there have been no attacks since 9/11?

a. Tom Ridge did such a wonderful job with his 'color coded' threat levels.

b. Airport screeners are doing such a wonderful job searching 90 year old grandmothers and their wheel chairs.

c. There has not been a need for an attack to move public sentiment.

My guess is C.

Hey, gasoline is $3 a gallon, crude oil is at $100 a barrel, Haliburton is getting filthy rich, Blackwater is getting filthy rich, lots of folk have/are getting rich off the sub-prime mortgage debacle, ah, yes Tom, all is well with the world tonight and here you go getting mad and wanting to blow people up.

Tom, my New Year's wish for you is that you will calm down and start trying to read and understand what people like Robert are posting-quit watching Bill O'Reily and listening to Rush-they are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

JM

Tom
12-30-2007, 06:06 PM
Imposing forms of Government on other nations against their will is a non-starter. How many times has US Gov't tried this elsewhere and failed?

Germany, Japan, Iraq, Afghanistan - all were governments fo thier own design.
Name me a few that have failed. I reject your premise.

Tom
12-30-2007, 06:11 PM
Tom, Time to grow up-There is no Al Qaeda.
Are you for real??????

Al Qaeda is the boggy man, made up by BUSCHO to keep guys like you afraid and looking in the wrong direction. You ever read any news? I mean not from the Daily Planet?

How come there have been no attacks since 9/11? Huh? What rock have you been living under? There have been plnety of attacks world-wide. We have been able to prevent several here through intelligent use of interogation.

a. Tom Ridge did such a wonderful job with his 'color coded' threat levels.
What does this have to do with anything?
b. Airport screeners are doing such a wonderful job searching 90 year old grandmothers and their wheel chairs. What does this have to do with anything?

c. There has not been a need for an attack to move public sentiment.

My guess is C. Wrong.

Hey, gasoline is $3 a gallon, crude oil is at $100 a barrel, Haliburton is getting filthy rich, Blackwater is getting filthy rich, lots of folk have/are getting rich off the sub-prime mortgage debacle, ah, yes Tom, all is well with the world tonight and here you go getting mad and wanting to blow people up.

Tom, my New Year's wish for you is that you will calm down and start trying to read and understand what people like Robert are posting-quit watching Bill O'Reily and listening to Rush-they are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

JM

I hope you are happy in your little world. Do you get cable there? :rolleyes:
BTW, I don't watch O'Reilly. I've read Robert's stuff......:bang:

Light
12-30-2007, 06:35 PM
what does Bush Bashing have to do with this thread?

If It wasn't for the Bush Administration,Bhutto would still be alive. The Bush administration brokered the deal for Bhutto to return to Pakistan after 8 years in exile. Another crude attempt at imposing democracy.

What was known to most Pakistani's is that Bhutto had ammassed 1.5 Billion dollars from corruption during her reign as prime minister. Musharrif and Bhutto are both seen as U.S. puppets. Musharrif's days are numbered as both Washington externally and Pakistanis's internally are not happy with his intentional lack of protection for Bhutto.

lsbets
12-30-2007, 06:48 PM
If It wasn't for the Bush Administration,Bhutto would still be alive. The Bush administration brokered the deal for Bhutto to return to Pakistan after 8 years in exile. Another crude attempt at imposing democracy.

What was known to most Pakistani's is that Bhutto had ammassed 1.5 Billion dollars from corruption during her reign as prime minister. Musharrif and Bhutto are both seen as U.S. puppets. Musharrif's days are numbered as both Washington externally and Pakistanis's internally are not happy with his intentional lack of protection for Bhutto.

We're almost in agreement on something. Seeing Bhutto as the savior of democracy in Pakistan was foolish at best. She was a two time prime minister with a long history of corruption. But, it was just Bush who loved her - it seems like everyone in both parties was endeared with her.

Snag
12-30-2007, 06:49 PM
If It wasn't for the Bush Administration,Bhutto would still be alive. The Bush administration brokered the deal for Bhutto to return to Pakistan after 8 years in exile. Another crude attempt at imposing democracy.

What was known to most Pakistani's is that Bhutto had ammassed 1.5 Billion dollars from corruption during her reign as prime minister. Musharrif and Bhutto are both seen as U.S. puppets. Musharrif's days are numbered as both Washington externally and Pakistanis's internally are not happy with his intentional lack of protection for Bhutto.

Bush killed Bhutto? Give me a friggin break!

You and your ilk make me sick! Tell me who pushed the button or who fired the shots that killed her, please? They didn't support democracy did they? I'm beginning to think they support your sick point of view.

Tom
12-30-2007, 07:38 PM
We're almost in agreement on something. Seeing Bhutto as the savior of democracy in Pakistan was foolish at best. She was a two time prime minister with a long history of corruption. But, it was just Bush who loved her - it seems like everyone in both parties was endeared with her.

She had a 60% approval rating. Bin Laden 40%.

Do the math.

Bush + Congress = Bin Laden.:rolleyes:

Light
12-30-2007, 08:12 PM
Bush killed Bhutto? Give me a friggin break!

You dont understand. Amazingly LS does. Read his response if you dont understand mine.

JustRalph
12-30-2007, 08:15 PM
This thread is truly one of the reasons this board should shut down off topic.

It has turned into an anti-american OTB with a bunch of losers standing in the corner going after our own country in between races..........

:bang:

PA, put an end to this crap..........shut down the off topic section.

toetoe
12-30-2007, 08:31 PM
Yes, lsbets DOES understand, amazin'-ly. :p

Show Me the Wire
12-30-2007, 08:42 PM
Her thirst for power killed her, plain and simple. Power is a strong elixir and once tasted it can become a lethal lure.

Greyfox
12-30-2007, 11:13 PM
Her thirst for power killed her, plain and simple. Power is a strong elixir and once tasted it can become a lethal lure.


``I didn't choose this life, it chose me,''

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=abaD6XPZ9jwU

A very sad tragedy......

chickenhead
12-31-2007, 12:51 AM
If you want to find out what is "really going on", just google a few things...

Caspian Sea oil pipeline




Often times more than one oil pipeline and/or more than one natural gas pipeline is built for distribution of the products.

In the case of Afghanistan, that pipeline was designated to transport natural gas, not petroleum.

You can see the cause of my confusion JM, since you said it was an oil pipeline, I assumed you were talking about an oil pipeline (silly me). This one:

Central Asia Oil Pipeline Kazakhstan via Turkmenistan and Afghanistan to Gwadar (Pakistan) Proposed 1 million bbl/d 1,040 miles $2.5 billion Memorandum of Understanding signed by the countries; project stalled by regional instability and lack of financing.

More or less in exactly the same state as your nat gas pipeline. It does not really matter, your particular conspiracy theory works equally poorly for either of them.

Greyfox
12-31-2007, 09:02 AM
I think it's worth repeating the original exchange again, for the benefit of ALL involved....




(I've bolded what I personally thought was the most important part)

The term "battalions" was offered in the literal sense. Surely this board is capable of doing abstract thinking. It was not intended to be taken in any formal sense as square parades of soldiers marching in formations. Rather it was used to emphasize the idea that the Taliban are re-energizing.
If the term was a poor choice, I'll have to be more careful with language selection next time and try to be more concrete.

(Certainly it would not be out of reason to assume that there are still more than 500 Taliban (min. size of a battalion) in Afghanistan.)

Greyfox
12-31-2007, 11:09 AM
The term "battalions" was offered in the literal sense. Surely this board is capable of doing abstract thinking. It was not intended to be taken in any formal sense as square parades of soldiers marching in formations. Rather it was used to emphasize the idea that the Taliban are re-energizing.
If the term was a poor choice, I'll have to be more careful with language selection next time and try to be more concrete.

(Certainly it would not be out of reason to assume that there are still more than 500 Taliban (min. size of a battalion) in Afghanistan.)

Oops. :blush: I should have said "not offered in the literal sense."

Greyfox
12-31-2007, 02:12 PM
The following words were penned just a couple of weeks back by
Benazir Bhutto.


"Reading The Kite Runner made me recall the Kabul of my youth: the beautiful nation and genuinely lovely people of Afghanistan who had a vibrant society, a culture, an economy, great cities, art and intellectual pluralism. A 10-year Soviet occupation followed by the Talibanization of Afghanistan have destroyed so much of that, have removed so much of the happiness that was Afghanistan and replaced it with a heavy sadness.
I could not put The Kite Runner down, because Hoseini's beautiful writing style touched my heart, and the personal pain and anguish that he captured, especially of the abused children, reminded me once again how extremism and religion are often exploited and manipulated for political power. Hosseini focuses us on the fact that it wasn't just a little boy who was abused; it was a great nation. And both will remain scarred for life."

Snag
12-31-2007, 05:35 PM
You dont understand. Amazingly LS does. Read his response if you dont understand mine.

I fully understand your point. President Bush is at fault once again. The US is wrong again.

46zilzal
12-31-2007, 06:20 PM
This thread is truly one of the reasons this board should shut down off topic.

It has turned into an anti-american OTB with a bunch of losers standing in the corner going after our own country in between races..........

:bang:

PA, put an end to this crap..........shut down the off topic section.
No as per you usual tactic, when opposite opinions begin to come up, YOU decide it is time to stop input. Typical and repeated over and over and over and over.

Gittup
12-31-2007, 07:45 PM
I haven't posted here, this one is my first.
I've read through this entire thread and, well, let's just say that there are hammers here that pound nails, and some that bend them.
So, Just Ralph, please clarify. Do you honestly believe that those that object to the president's blunders are attacking this great country, or rather an incompetent president?
By the way, last time I looked, free speech applied to ALL, hence, no need to shut down the "off topics", though dictators might wish so.

46zilzal
12-31-2007, 07:53 PM
this incompetent?
"Let me finish the first part of the question and remind me you asked that. Umm, is the question is how to have an effective strategy? Is it more effective to let each state make a decision as to how to proceed in curbing greenhouse gases? Or is it more effective to have a national strategy? Uhh, Director Johnson made a decision based upon the fact that we passed a piece of legislation that enables us to have a national strategy, which is the, uhh, — uhh, increasing CAFE standards to, uhh, 35 miles an hour by 2020, and a substantial increase of alternative fuels — uhh, 36 billion gallons, by 2022."
White House, Dec. 20, 2007

Tom
12-31-2007, 08:00 PM
By the way, last time I looked, free speech applied to ALL, hence, no need to shut down the "off topics", though dictators might wish so.

Not in a private fourm. Freedom of speech is NOT universal.

46zilzal
12-31-2007, 08:05 PM
Not in a private fourm. Freedom of speech is NOT universal.
It is up to a single individual here.

FOURM?

Gittup
12-31-2007, 08:09 PM
Not in a private fourm. Freedom of speech is NOT universal.

Thanks Tom,
That response answers volumes.
Now I can go back and reread some of the other threads where some have posted their zeal for American ideals, and umm, err, in a "private forum" their "truth" can be clearly seen....reminds me of Stalin.

I'll get back to you later after I call the Dixie Chicks to see if they can provide some insight.

GaryG
12-31-2007, 08:28 PM
This one looks like, to use Ralph's term, a frequent flyer. They just keep getting recycled.

JustRalph
12-31-2007, 09:11 PM
This one looks like, to use Ralph's term, a frequent flyer. They just keep getting recycled.

Right on Gary.......... actually sometimes I post a note to provoke a little discussion based on the theme that starts to take over a thread. PA knows it, many others recognize it too.......... it often dovetails with current news stories or other threads..........kind of like my avatar. It changes with certain news stories, birthdays and such. Many get it, many don't. sometimes I get notes via pm acknowledging it.......most of the time I don't. But those who know me sometimes tell me they like it. Others just yell back in the thread.

This post about shutting down off topic was indicative or a reflection of those who were doing the ranting........and it was to call out those who I consider unamerican..........and it worked. They jumped right in an attacked me..........like I said........some get it.......some don't.

Tom
12-31-2007, 11:34 PM
It is up to a single individual here.

FOURM?

Yes. As it is is in EVERY SINGLE private forum. FOS is strictly a governement thing. You didn't know that? Bush did. :lol:

PA allows much here - not because he HAS TO. We have NO rights here - we are GUESTS. Many would do well to act as such.


HAPPY NEW YEAR PA!
Thanks for sharing your house with us!:ThmbUp:

PaceAdvantage
01-01-2008, 03:21 AM
How come there have been no attacks since 9/11?Because for once, a President is doing his job....it's the main reason he was reelected in 2004.

Even when he gets something right, you guys still can't give him any credit. Unreal.

No attacks since 9/11? Nah, it's not because Bush might have done something right for a change. It's because THERE IS NO AL QUEDA....it's all a conspiracy....:lol:

I suppose in a perverse sense, if we are attacked again, that would be bad for you, as it might invalidate your conspiracy theory....but then again, you'll just invent another fairy tale to cover the inconsistencies.

Kind of like the one that says fire can't weaken steel....try telling that to a blacksmith....

hcap
01-01-2008, 05:43 AM
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/24001.html

NAUDERO, Pakistan — The day she was assassinated last Thursday, Benazir Bhutto had planned to reveal new evidence alleging the involvement of Pakistan's intelligence agencies in rigging the country's upcoming elections, an aide said Monday.

Bhutto had been due to meet U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., and Rep. Patrick Kennedy, D-R.I., to hand over a report charging that the military Inter-Services Intelligence agency was planning to fix the polls in the favor of President Pervez Musharraf.



JustRalph sez....

This post about shutting down off topic was indicative or a reflection of those who were doing the ranting........and it was to call out those who I consider unamerican..........and it worked. They jumped right in an attacked me..........like I said........some get it.......some don't.
Who you consider Un-American ?
Spare us the condescending Gunner Joe crap.
So 1950ish.

Snag
01-01-2008, 08:39 AM
5 to 1 says no one will see the whole report.

46zilzal
01-01-2008, 12:49 PM
Who you consider Un-American ?
Spare us the condescending Gunner Joe crap.
So 1950ish.
That might be impossible or the "hidden gun" might come out as a persuader!!

JustRalph
01-01-2008, 01:03 PM
That might be impossible or the "hidden gun" might come out as a persuader!!

back to your old ways already............... shame............

46zilzal
01-01-2008, 01:53 PM
back to your old ways already............... shame............
I also like the "Donald Trumpish" boastfulness about all those prime real estate holdings. Wow may I bask in the radiance?

Real wealth doesn't require wearing it on one's sleeve.

PaceAdvantage
01-01-2008, 02:45 PM
Real wealth doesn't require wearing it on one's sleeve.Yes, better to be ashamed about one's achievements. That's what some of those posting on the democratic underground (and I suspect a few posting here as well) want. They want to shame you out of your hard-earned wealth.

Gittup
01-01-2008, 03:29 PM
Yes, better to be ashamed about one's achievements. That's what some of those posting on the democratic underground (and I suspect a few posting here as well) want. They want to shame you out of your hard-earned wealth.
As long as the tax cuts continue to benefit the top 1%, who cares?
It's "trickle down" dontchaknow?
Keep on reading your repubaganda.
Shame?

Huh????

Let the war crimes trials begin!

PaceAdvantage
01-01-2008, 03:37 PM
SHAME on you for being wealthy! SHAME ON YOU for being born into a wealthy family!


SHAME
SHAME
SHAME

Yet, what is the average net worth of all those running for President from the Democratic side of the aisle? Not too shabby, eh?

PaceAdvantage
01-01-2008, 03:38 PM
OK, now this is way OFF TOPIC. Back to the Bhutto killing....anymore posts about wealth will be deleted....sorry for taking part in this tangent....

Gittup
01-01-2008, 04:06 PM
OK, now this is way OFF TOPIC. Back to the Bhutto killing....anymore posts about wealth will be deleted....sorry for taking part in this tangent....
Hey PA...it's your forum (as Tom pointed out).
You are quite entitled to limit posts about wealth and any other ideas that run counter to your ideology.
However, in the larger scheme of reality, you might find that you are unable to preclude truth. Good luck on that!

Bhutto was a "set up". the blood is on Dubby's and his buddy's (M) hands. Everyone knows it, everyone sees it. Oh, right, she hit her head on the sun roof handle!!!! RIGHT??

Greyfox
01-01-2008, 04:11 PM
Hey Bhutto was a "set up". the blood is on Dubby's and his buddy's (M) hands. Everyone knows it, everyone sees it. Oh, right, she hit her head on the sun roof handle!!!! RIGHT??

Your comments underestimate Mrs. Bhutto's intelligence. She was an extremely bright well-educated lady. She would have known exactly the risks involved and chose. Let's not forget her father was hung, her brother was murdered, there were previous attempts on her life. Simply stated she said something to the effect: I didn't chose this life. It chose me.

Anyone who thinks that she was set up by anyone inside or outside Pakistan is insulting her memory and right to make choices within this life of destiny.

Snag
01-01-2008, 06:12 PM
Bhutto was a "set up". the blood is on Dubby's and his buddy's (M) hands. Everyone knows it, everyone sees it. Oh, right, she hit her head on the sun roof handle!!!! RIGHT??

Ok, Light says it was President Bush too because of his support of Mrs. Bhutto. Now you link President Bush to "M".

I'll ask again, who pulled the trigger or pushed the button?

Tom
01-01-2008, 06:57 PM
Hey PA...it's your forum (as Tom pointed out).
You are quite entitled to limit posts about wealth and any other ideas that run counter to your ideology. GET OVER YOURSELF - Start a new thread on that topic.
However, in the larger scheme of reality, you might find that you are unable to preclude truth. Good luck on that!

Bhutto was a "set up". the blood is on Dubby's and his buddy's (M) hands. Everyone knows it, everyone sees it. Oh, right, she hit her head on the sun roof handle!!!! RIGHT??

Set up? Everyone knows it?
What a load of crap.

Gittup
01-01-2008, 08:32 PM
Set up? Everyone knows it?
What a load of crap.
Ok...back up. Take a deep breath.
Question #1: Did M recently meet with GW?
Question #2: Do you think he might have expressed the need for US support after he declared martial law?
Question #3: Do you think there might be any connection with Benazar's tragic end, lack of security? She hit her head?
Question #4: Do you continue to believe that the USA will continue to gain world wide support by supporting dictators? Hey, look what it got us with the Shah, Pinochet, Marcos, on and on....
Question #5: Do you think that the rest of the citizens of this planet are too stupid to see this?
Question #6: How many more US military will the cummender-in-shieth throw into the death furnace so that his arrogance can continue to supported by the likes of Billo and Druggierush? Hey! There's terror out there! Just ask Rudy...seems to me there's more than enough terror right here.
What's Dicky Cheney up to lately? Rovie is writin' a book ( that only Matalen would buy)...shocking!

HOO RAH!!!! WHAT A LOAD OF CRAP!!! Indeed!

Quetion #7: Did you sign up your son or daughter to "support" this bush-sh-t?
Queston #8: What branch of the shrub? If your loved one showed up at Arlington, would you want to see pics of the off loading at Dover AFB?

Tom
01-01-2008, 09:02 PM
Answer #1. What a load of crap.

JustRalph
01-01-2008, 09:33 PM
I also like the "Donald Trumpish" boastfulness about all those prime real estate holdings. Wow may I bask in the radiance?

Real wealth doesn't require wearing it on one's sleeve.

What the hell are you talking about? never mind..............

Light
01-01-2008, 09:39 PM
Ok, Light says it was President Bush too because of his support of Mrs.Bhutto

Its not about mere support. Bhutto was planted by the U.S. It would not have been possible without 18 months of negotiations by Assistant Secretary of State Richard Boucher flying between Islamabad and Bhutto’s homes in Dubai and London.

Musharraf opposed any amnesty(from corruption charges) or return to power for Bhutto. John Negroponte,Deputy Secretary of State,stepped in and finally convinced Musharraf. He also tried to convince Bhutto that Musharraf was sincere.

Finally Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told Bhutto in October to return to Pakistan to serve essentially as an instrument of US policy.

The cause of her death has changed 3 times. No autopsy, Case closed. Yet they have had over 700 suicide bombings in the last 6 months with no completed investigations of those bombings. Here they closed a case in 24 hours, blaming "terrorists". No proof or "terrorists" have claimed responsibility. Most Pakistani's believe Musharraf was behind it. Bush administration says no.

No Snag,Bush did not pull the trigger,but sending her into the lions den with a double crossing Musharraf is basically a death sentence,dont you think. She was politically pressured by Washington to go back. No one in Pakistan believes Musharraf wanted to share power with Bhutto. Everyone also knew Bhutto was there to prop up Musharraf for the U.S. who has less approval than GW.

Tom
01-01-2008, 10:01 PM
So MAry Todd Lincoln was responsible for Abe's death because she dragged him to the theater?

Grow up, dude, you make less sense than 8th graders.
She got dead because she was STUPID. She stood up outside the roof like a complete idiot. She died of stupidity.

Steve 'StatMan'
01-01-2008, 10:09 PM
Sheesh, yeah, it's her parents fault for making whoopie and having her be born only so she could eventually die. :rolleyes:

Greyfox
01-01-2008, 11:22 PM
. Bhutto was planted by the U.S. It would not have been possible without 18 months of negotiations by Assistant Secretary of State Richard Boucher flying between Islamabad and Bhutto’s homes in Dubai and London.

No Snag,Bush did not pull the trigger,but sending her into the lions den with a double crossing Musharraf is basically a death sentence,dont you think.


From you Light,whose posts I have admired for a long time , I am absolutely horrified.
I stand in solidly opposed to your views in this instance.

Your post is another that absolutely under estimates this woman's intelligence.
Another insult!!!

To say Bhutto was "planted by the U.S." insults:
1. Mrs. Bhutto
2. women
3. the United States of America.
4. the readers of this board.

Light , your opinions on this stage have always been welcomed and considered in my corner of the PA spider web. In this instance, I see you,
normally a contributor of reason, jumping up and down on the
Golden Gate Bridge and offering it for sale. And I'm not buying.

PaceAdvantage
01-01-2008, 11:37 PM
She got dead because she was STUPID. She stood up outside the roof like a complete idiot. She died of stupidity.No, no no! Didn't you see? Cheney was driving, and Bush was in the back with his hands on her ass shoving her OUT OF the sun roof. Laura didn't like that too much, but what had to be done, had to be done....and Rove was the assassin....there's no book writing going on....that's just another clever ruse from the rutabaga.

BTW, Gittup told me this via private message, and I believe every word Gittup types.

Light
01-02-2008, 12:18 AM
She died of stupidity.

She died for Democracy.(according to Bush) All those dying in Iraq are also dying for Democracy. I dare you to call the U.S. servicemen dying for Democracy in Iraq: stupid.

Light
01-02-2008, 12:27 AM
To say Bhutto was "planted by the U.S." insults:
1. Mrs. Bhutto
2. women
3. the United States of America.
4. the readers of this board.

[

She was planted. There is no way Bhutto can go to Pakistan without being arrested if it was not for the year and a half clearing the way for her return by the secretary and undersecrataries of state.

Ask yourself. Doesn't it have to be in the interest of the Bush administration to go through all that trouble to get her back in Pakistan.I'm not saying she's dumb. She was a willing accomplice in a symbiotic relationship. And I cant say her or the Bush administration's motives were selfless.

JustRalph
01-02-2008, 03:28 AM
She died for Democracy.(according to Bush) All those dying in Iraq are also dying for Democracy. I dare you to call the U.S. servicemen dying for Democracy in Iraq: stupid.

amazing.............how in the sam hel does this even tie in? Wow! :bang:

Tom
01-02-2008, 07:45 AM
She died for Democracy.(according to Bush) All those dying in Iraq are also dying for Democracy. I dare you to call the U.S. servicemen dying for Democracy in Iraq: stupid.

I find it very ironic that I am explaining stupidity to you, of all people.
Our military do not stick thier heads out open window with no protection in dangerous situations. Whatever elses she was doing, she was stupid to do that. She KNEW there were threats against her.

Do you fell better now that your have snuck your little dig at our military?

Greyfox
01-02-2008, 07:46 AM
She was planted. There is no way Bhutto can go to Pakistan without being arrested if it was not for the year and a half clearing the way for her return by the secretary and undersecrataries of state.

.

The bulb's burned out. :bang:

Gittup
01-02-2008, 11:41 AM
No, no no! Didn't you see? Cheney was driving, and Bush was in the back with his hands on her ass shoving her OUT OF the sun roof. Laura didn't like that too much, but what had to be done, had to be done....and Rove was the assassin....there's no book writing going on....that's just another clever ruse from the rutabaga.

BTW, Gittup told me this via private message, and I believe every word Gittup types.

Now that's quite funny!

BTW, PA, I didn't send you a private message. Remember in an earlier post I mentioned something regarding "reality" (yours), and "truth". If you are having trouble making the destinction, might be time for rehab.

Light
01-02-2008, 12:54 PM
amazing.............how in the sam hel does this even tie in? Wow! :bang:

Tom basically called Bhutto stupid for dying with her head sticking out a sunroof. Do I have to fill in for your reading comprehension gaps.

Light
01-02-2008, 12:56 PM
The bulb's burned out. :bang:

And you're not clever as a fox. I'm not the one who called Bhutto stupid.It was Tom. READ.

Light
01-02-2008, 01:01 PM
Our military do not stick thier heads out open window with no protection in dangerous situations.

Maybe if she got the protection she was promised and asked for shortly before her death,she wouldn't look so "stupid" to you.

delayjf
01-02-2008, 01:43 PM
Indeed, where is Blackwater when you need them.

46zilzal
01-02-2008, 01:51 PM
Indeed, where is Blackwater when you need them.
suspended for being OUT OF CONTROL vigilantes.

delayjf
01-02-2008, 02:11 PM
Better them than US Soldiers. I don't agree that it is the US responsibility to guard Foreign Heads of State / Dignitaries. At least not the Military's.

JustMissed
01-02-2008, 02:19 PM
Better them than US Soldiers. I don't agree that it is the US responsibility to guard Foreign Heads of State / Dignitaries. At least not the Military's.

What about US soldiers guarding foreign oil fields? Is that OK?

JM :confused:

delayjf
01-02-2008, 02:22 PM
Maybe if she got the protection she was promised and asked for shortly before her death,she wouldn't look so "stupid" to you.
No, then the US would look stupid for sending US Soldiers to act as body shields standing in between her and the next car bomb.

If I were Bush I would have offered up the services of the Americans who went to Iraq to act as human shields - they did such a bang up job there. :lol:

ddog
01-02-2008, 02:41 PM
Better them than US Soldiers. I don't agree that it is the US responsibility to guard Foreign Heads of State / Dignitaries. At least not the Military's.

In the case of Pakistan it was in our interests, without a doubt.
SO, I guess you would pull our protection from Karzai in AFG now as well?
Great, lets toss that one into the fire as well.

ddog
01-02-2008, 02:43 PM
Indeed, where is Blackwater when you need them.
They were DENIED VISA access, they were ready we didn't push to get them in.
Bhutto people begged us to put pressure on Mushy to let them in.
If that's all the influence we have bought there for 10+B over the years then I say our money has been wasted and then the question is ,who is pulling the strings?

delayjf
01-02-2008, 02:59 PM
In the case of Pakistan it was in our interests, without a doubt.
I see a big difference between Afg and Pakistan. You could make the above argument for a lot of spots on the Globe. Our differences aside, I doubt US Security would have made a difference. Can you imagine the uproar had US security attempted to control that crowd?

Tom
01-02-2008, 03:04 PM
Maybe if she got the protection she was promised and asked for shortly before her death,she wouldn't look so "stupid" to you.

Maybe is she wasn't STUPID she would not have died.
You call it smart riding through uncontrolled crowds like that the hallmark of intelligence? Rhetorical question.:D

Tom
01-02-2008, 03:05 PM
What about US soldiers guarding foreign oil fields? Is that OK?

JM :confused:


Duh. You really have to ask that?

delayjf
01-02-2008, 03:22 PM
What about US soldiers guarding foreign oil fields? Is that OK?
If your refering to Iraq, then yes given the circumstances. If the US is going to send security forces, we should send them to guard Pakistan's nuclear arsenal.

Greyfox
01-02-2008, 03:29 PM
Maybe is she wasn't STUPID she would not have died.
You call it smart riding through uncontrolled crowds like that the hallmark of intelligence? Rhetorical question.:D

I don't think that you get it Tom. She went there knowing that she would die.

Tom
01-02-2008, 04:02 PM
Then that is even stupider!

Light
01-02-2008, 05:07 PM
What's stupid is these responses about Bhutto being stupid.

Light
01-02-2008, 05:09 PM
I thought Snag didn't get it. But you guys make him look like Einstein.

Gittup
01-02-2008, 05:45 PM
If your refering to Iraq, then yes given the circumstances. If the US is going to send security forces, we should send them to guard Pakistan's nuclear arsenal.
Delay,
You might be surprised to know that Pak (via Mush) has reportedly (unnamed) sold its nuclear ( Dub speak: nook-u-ler) technology to the following countries: N Korea, Iran, Syria, and possibly several in Africa.

Now, if we could just find those darned WMD's in Iraq, fer shure!, everything will be just dandy.

btw, do a wik on Benezar. She was called in so that Mush boy didn't have a revolution on his hands. Looks like that's now a foregone... Good article at Common Dreams if you're interested.

Any news from Kenya?

delayjf
01-02-2008, 06:21 PM
technology to the following countries: N Korea, Iran, Syria, and possibly several in Africa.
You forgot to mention Libya - who got caught red handed with centifuge equipment and then surrendered their WMD one month later - with a little motivation. We will deal with N Korea and Iran. We'll leave Syria to the Israelis.
Any news from Kenya?
Their marathon runners look strong again this year.

Bye the Bye all this talk about elections in Pakistan - does everyone understand that it was for Parliment and not President. Mush has already been re-elected.

Greyfox
01-02-2008, 08:14 PM
The election has been postponed until February.



"ISLAMABAD (Reuters) - Pakistan put off its general election by 6 weeks to February 18 on Wednesday following the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, over the objections of the main opposition parties which fear a delay will work against them.

The killing of the charismatic opposition leader has fuelled doubts about stability and the transition to democratic rule in nuclear-armed Pakistan, a key ally in the U.S. anti-terrorism drive."

Tom
01-03-2008, 07:33 AM
Hey Jeff,
HILLARY didn't know that! :lol: Even Joe Biden called her on that one!
Talk about W...this dame is clueless.

ljb
01-03-2008, 10:28 AM
Hey Jeff,
HILLARY didn't know that! :lol: Even Joe Biden called her on that one!
Talk about W...this dame is clueless.
tom,
Keep attacking Hillary, Republican lite we don't need.

delayjf
01-03-2008, 12:13 PM
Keep attacking Hillary
Hey, if the cigar fits!!
According to Bill she's a genius.

Snag
01-03-2008, 09:29 PM
I thought Snag didn't get it. But you guys make him look like Einstein.

Thank you, I think! LOL!

ddog
01-04-2008, 12:38 AM
You forgot to mention Libya - who got caught red handed with centifuge equipment and then surrendered their WMD one month later - with a little motivation. We will deal with N Korea and Iran. We'll leave Syria to the Israelis.

Their marathon runners look strong again this year.

Bye the Bye all this talk about elections in Pakistan - does everyone understand that it was for Parliment and not President. Mush has already been re-elected.

prime minister and parliment.

oh and by the way, having so called centrifuge equipment doesn't make a hill of beans.
I could obtain the "equipment" now getting it to spin up and stay stable, that's the first of MANY tricks.
It ain't as easy as all that.

ddog
01-04-2008, 12:46 AM
I see a big difference between Afg and Pakistan. You could make the above argument for a lot of spots on the Globe. Our differences aside, I doubt US Security would have made a difference. Can you imagine the uproar had US security attempted to control that crowd?

Blackwater would have been fine.
Other than a few guys in that crowd I have to assume (not being there at the time) it was an overwhelming PRO BHUTTO crowd.
Hell you could slap on a fake beard and a rag and a little food coloring and I think any of us could pass ok in that crowd.
We have done many jobs like this for a long time.
Someone dropped the ball on this one, on purpose or not, I don't know.

PaceAdvantage
01-04-2008, 03:00 AM
BTW, PA, I didn't send you a private message. Remember in an earlier post I mentioned something regarding "reality" (yours), and "truth". If you are having trouble making the destinction, might be time for rehab.Just what this board needs. ANOTHER GUY with NO SENSE OF HUMOR!

Gittup
01-04-2008, 05:10 PM
Just what this board needs. ANOTHER GUY with NO SENSE OF HUMOR!
Yikes! I certainly have one, PA. Though at times, I have a bit of difficulty distiguishing what's "funny" and a lie. "Bear" or "bare" with me (lol).
No offense intended....carry on.
So it goes..................