• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Bush is giving Pakistan a Veto over our Armed Forces

conjur

No Lifer
Bin Laden is located, says 9/11 panelist
http://www.dailystar.com/dailystar/dailystar/44654.php
CLAREMONT, Calif. - The Pentagon knows exactly where Osama bin Laden is hiding in Pakistan, it just can't get to him, John Lehman, a member of the 9/11 Commission, said Thursday.

Lehman's remarks echoed those made Tuesday by Secretary of State Colin Powell, who said the al-Qaida leader was alive and operating in the western part of Pakistan.

Bin Laden is living in South Waziristan in the Baluchistan Mountains of the Baluchistan region, Lehman told the San Bernardino Sun after delivering a keynote speech on terrorism at Pitzer College in Claremont.

In the interview, Lehman noted, "There is an American presence in the area, but we can't just send in troops. If we did, we could have another Vietnam, and the United States cannot afford that right now."

When pressed on why the United States couldn't send troops into the region to capture the world's No. 1 terrorist, Lehman said the Baluchistan region of the country is filled with militant fundamentalists who do not recognize the legitimacy of Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, a close ally of the United States.

"That is a region filled with Taliban and al-Qaida members," he said, acknowledging that Pakistan's security services also are filled with many who agree with bin Laden's beliefs and would aid him if U.S. Special Forces entered the region.

"Look," he said, "Musharraf already has had three assassination attempts on his life. He is trying to comply, but he is surrounded by people who do not agree with him. This is not like Afghanistan, where there was no compliance, and we had to go in.


"We'll get (bin Laden) eventually, just not now."

Asked how bin Laden was surviving, Lehman said he was getting money from outside countries, such as the United Arab Emirates, and high-ranking ministers inside Saudi Arabia.

"He is not a wealthy man," Lehman said. "We ran that information into the ground, and discovered he only receives about $1 million a year from his family's fortune. The rest of what he gets comes from radical sympathizers."

Department of Defense spokeswoman Capt. Ronnie Merritt confirmed the U.S. military believes bin Laden is in Pakistan. However, she would not comment on Lehman's remarks, except to say that he normally didn't speak about these issues, and she was surprised he had.

Lehman, secretary of the Navy under President Ronald Reagan, was one of the 10 members of the bipartisan commission that examined the terrorists attacks on the United States.

He also is the author of three books about military tactics.

So, because we are deferring to Musharraf, we're not going in after bin Laden? Are we really not concerned with the man responsible for the murders of ~3,000 innocent civilians and the destruction of the World Trade Center? Are we outsourcing the work to Pakistan or just merely letting them determine who we attack and when he attack them??

:|
 
It's been like this since 911. As Bush said : "If you harbor terrorists, you are a terrorist.", just like Iraq*.


*exceptions: Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran and many others@.


@ Iraq did not harbor terrorist.
 
so...wait are you saying invade Pakistan against their will?

That would inflame the Pakistani people, and might cause Musharraf to be overthrown and replaced by a fundamentalist nutjob. Plus it will seem like another Iraq where we just attack Muslim countries even though the terrorists are muslim and hide in muslim areas. This will just inflame the muslim world even further. It also makes us look worse in the eyes of the world and the UN.

Plus even if Musharraf stays in power, he will still be left with the mess after we go through the area and clean it up of Taliban. They might flee and go deeper in Pakistan. Also the local tribes would be so mad. So in the end Musharraf would probably be hanging in there by a thread.
 
Originally posted by: conjur
So, because we are deferring to Musharraf, we're not going in after bin Laden? Are we really not concerned with the man responsible for the murders of ~3,000 innocent civilians and the destruction of the World Trade Center? Are we outsourcing the work to Pakistan or just merely letting them determine who we attack and when he attack them??

:|
Are you really unaware that the overthrow of the Pakistani government is one of al Qaeda's primary goals? Do you want them to have control of a nation with nukes?

Just as you so fervently argue regarding Saddam: bin Laden right now is contained in a sovereign state.
 
Who's saying overthrow the Pakistani government? I'm saying we send the troops in along with Pakistani troops and destroy Al Qaeda, Taliban, and bin Laden!!

But...nnoooOOOOOoooo...we can't do that because our armed forces are doing extended tours and stretching themselves dangerously thin in Iraq, a place we had no need invading!!

Musharraf isn't much of an ally anyway. I'm sure Bush could install someone more to his liking. He already has Aziz as the new Prime Minister. Aziz is a Citibank buddy of Wolfowitz's!
 
So I'm sure Kerry has A Plan for this. The only logical assumption would be Kerry plans to invade this area of Pakistan, correct?

no wait - he has to have a summit, then pass the global test, then he'll invade that area.
 
Originally posted by: conjur
Who's saying overthrow the Pakistani government? I'm saying we send the troops in along with Pakistani troops and destroy Al Qaeda, Taliban, and bin Laden!!

But...nnoooOOOOOoooo...we can't do that because our armed forces are doing extended tours and stretching themselves dangerously thin in Iraq, a place we had no need invading!!

Musharraf isn't much of an ally anyway. I'm sure Bush could install someone more to his liking. He already has Aziz as the new Prime Minister. Aziz is a Citibank buddy of Wolfowitz's!
Yes, because there will be no repercussions if the beloved patriot military rolls up there and starts shooting. There will be even less repercussion if the US joins them. I'm hardly an intelligence expert, nor are you. Thus, I put my trust in the people who are, whereas you choose to second guess them. The actions you propose have the ramifications that I posted previously, whether you acknowledge them or not. How do I know? That's what the experts tell us.
 
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: conjur
So, because we are deferring to Musharraf, we're not going in after bin Laden? Are we really not concerned with the man responsible for the murders of ~3,000 innocent civilians and the destruction of the World Trade Center? Are we outsourcing the work to Pakistan or just merely letting them determine who we attack and when he attack them??

:|
Are you really unaware that the overthrow of the Pakistani government is one of al Qaeda's primary goals? Do you want them to have control of a nation with nukes?

Just as you so fervently argue regarding Saddam: bin Laden right now is contained in a sovereign state.

What surprises me is that you are all for getting rid of a guy who never attacked your country, but at the same time you are against getting a guy who did attack your country.

How unpatriotic of you.

Unlike in Iraq, Bush has an international support in catching bin Laden. I?m sure that if Bush asked for increased help capturing bin Laden from NATO countries like Spain, Canada, Turkey etc. he would get it.

Talk about getting your priorities straight.
 
Originally posted by: Todd33
It's been like this since 911. As Bush said : "If you harbor terrorists, you are a terrorist.", just like Iraq*.


*exceptions: Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran and many others@.


@ Iraq did not harbor terrorist.

Link to your claim that Iraq did not harbor terrorists?
 
Originally posted by: Siwy
What surprises me is that you are all for getting rid of a guy who never attacked your country, but at the same time you are against getting a guy who did attack your country.

How unpatriotic of you.

Unlike in Iraq, Bush has an international support in catching bin Laden. I?m sure that if Bush asked for increased help capturing bin Laden from NATO countries like Spain, Canada, Turkey etc. he would get it.

Talk about getting your priorities straight.
Way to change the subject. Thankfully, you don't even live in the US so I have little trouble ignoring your opinion with regard to our actions. If you want me to start telling you how to run Canada, just let me know.
 
Originally posted by: Siwy

Unlike in Iraq, Bush has an international support in catching bin Laden. I?m sure that if Bush asked for increased help capturing bin Laden from NATO countries like Spain, Canada, Turkey etc. he would get it.

Talk about getting your priorities straight.

I don't think Bush would get NATO support for sending NATO troops into Pakistani area against the wishes of the Pakistan government even if it is to get Bin Laden.
 
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: conjur
Who's saying overthrow the Pakistani government? I'm saying we send the troops in along with Pakistani troops and destroy Al Qaeda, Taliban, and bin Laden!!

But...nnoooOOOOOoooo...we can't do that because our armed forces are doing extended tours and stretching themselves dangerously thin in Iraq, a place we had no need invading!!

Musharraf isn't much of an ally anyway. I'm sure Bush could install someone more to his liking. He already has Aziz as the new Prime Minister. Aziz is a Citibank buddy of Wolfowitz's!
Yes, because there will be no repercussions if the beloved patriot military rolls up there and starts shooting. There will be even less repercussion if the US joins them. I'm hardly an intelligence expert, nor are you. Thus, I put my trust in the people who are, whereas you choose to second guess them. The actions you propose have the ramifications that I posted previously, whether you acknowledge them or not. How do I know? That's what the experts tell us.
Ah, so you support ceding military decisions to other countries. Gotcha.

Flip-flopper deluxe!
 
Originally posted by: TheGameIs21
Originally posted by: Todd33
It's been like this since 911. As Bush said : "If you harbor terrorists, you are a terrorist.", just like Iraq*.


*exceptions: Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran and many others@.


@ Iraq did not harbor terrorist.

Link to your claim that Iraq did not harbor terrorists?

911 Commision, buy it on Amazon.
 
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: Siwy
What surprises me is that you are all for getting rid of a guy who never attacked your country, but at the same time you are against getting a guy who did attack your country.

How unpatriotic of you.

Unlike in Iraq, Bush has an international support in catching bin Laden. I?m sure that if Bush asked for increased help capturing bin Laden from NATO countries like Spain, Canada, Turkey etc. he would get it.

Talk about getting your priorities straight.
Way to change the subject. Thankfully, you don't even live in the US so I have little trouble ignoring your opinion with regard to our actions. If you want me to start telling you how to run Canada, just let me know.

I'm from the US and you gave a cop out answer.
 
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: Siwy
What surprises me is that you are all for getting rid of a guy who never attacked your country, but at the same time you are against getting a guy who did attack your country.

How unpatriotic of you.

Unlike in Iraq, Bush has an international support in catching bin Laden. I?m sure that if Bush asked for increased help capturing bin Laden from NATO countries like Spain, Canada, Turkey etc. he would get it.

Talk about getting your priorities straight.
Way to change the subject. Thankfully, you don't even live in the US so I have little trouble ignoring your opinion with regard to our actions. If you want me to start telling you how to run Canada, just let me know.

I honestly was expecting that hypocritical response. It?s precisely how the world feels about America ~ especially pretentious Americans like you who have ideological ideas on how to run other countries.
 
Originally posted by: maddogchen
Originally posted by: Siwy

Unlike in Iraq, Bush has an international support in catching bin Laden. I?m sure that if Bush asked for increased help capturing bin Laden from NATO countries like Spain, Canada, Turkey etc. he would get it.

Talk about getting your priorities straight.

I don't think Bush would get NATO support for sending NATO troops into Pakistani area against the wishes of the Pakistan government even if it is to get Bin Laden.

US went into Afghanistan against the wishes of Afghanistan?s government and had international support; of course the two countries are vastly different and would require different diplomatic and military measures.

The point I?m trying to make is that if Bush was really interested in getting bin Laden and in fact knows where bin Laden is hiding, he would get him. But we already know that Bush has different priorities than capturing the man who is leading worldwide terror organization that murdered 3000+ Americans.

 
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: TheGameIs21
Originally posted by: Todd33
It's been like this since 911. As Bush said : "If you harbor terrorists, you are a terrorist.", just like Iraq*.


*exceptions: Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran and many others@.


@ Iraq did not harbor terrorist.
Link to your claim that Iraq did not harbor terrorists?
http://forums.anandtech.com/search.aspx

I like how when someone posts something you demand a link or you ignore... If a RBH doesn't provide a link then it's ok...
 
Sorry, but sending troops into a country without that country's permission is an act of war, and not to be taken lightly. Would you stretch it to say that China has control of U.S. troops because they don't let them operate inside their boarders?
 
Originally posted by: conjur
Ah, so you support ceding military decisions to other countries. Gotcha.

Flip-flopper deluxe!
I support listening to experts tell us what they think regarding situations on which I am ignorant. You would be wise to follow suit.
 
If Pakistan said you cannot send troops to their country then you cannot. Do you really want Pakistani troops fighting U.S troops? This is not Afghanistan who had control over Osama. Pakistan does not have control over Bin Laden. Pakistan is doing what they must to crack down on Al Qaeda/Taliban. They don't even get much from the U.S for it either. They are doing it on their own.

The current regime is great for a country like Pakistan. I wonder if it can hold power. If not good bye world
 
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: conjur
Ah, so you support ceding military decisions to other countries. Gotcha.

Flip-flopper deluxe!
I support listening to experts tell us what they think regarding situations on which I am ignorant. You would be wise to follow suit.

So would the president.
 
Originally posted by: conjur
Who's saying overthrow the Pakistani government? I'm saying we send the troops in along with Pakistani troops and destroy Al Qaeda, Taliban, and bin Laden!!

But...nnoooOOOOOoooo...we can't do that because our armed forces are doing extended tours and stretching themselves dangerously thin in Iraq, a place we had no need invading!!

Musharraf isn't much of an ally anyway. I'm sure Bush could install someone more to his liking. He already has Aziz as the new Prime Minister. Aziz is a Citibank buddy of Wolfowitz's!

for one, there's no proof that bin Laden is even ALIVE.

Secondly, I, from a Pakistani perspective totally unwelcome ANY foreign military force on Pakistan's soil. I dont wish to generalize, but I believe a vast majority of Pakistanis feel the same way.

Third, Pakistan is doing all it can to rid the nation of Al-Qaeda remnants, without causing internal political turmoil.

Fourth, if this panelist knows where Bin Laden is, please let the world know.
 
Back
Top