• 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.

Pakistani Army, With U.S. Help, Pushes Into Tribal Areas

Todd33

Todd33

Diamond Member
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/20/international/asia/20CND-AFGH.html?hp

The United States military, which has 17,000 troops across the border in Afghanistan, has provided satellite intelligence and aerial surveillance to assist Pakistani operations. Last month a Pakistani tribal leader was killed in what officials in Pakistan have said was a hellfire missile strike from an American unmanned drone. Both Pakistan and the United States have strenuously denied any participation of American troops on Pakistani territory.

United Nations and Afghan refugee officials have raised grave concerns with the Pakistani government about the refugee exodus, protesting that if there are military operations in such areas, that people at least be given adequate warning to collect their belongings and some choice as to where to go.
Click to expand...

Smells like an election year push to me, but we know this from that article last week. They want good news just in time for the DMC convention. They should have done this two years ago instead of Iraq. Better late than never.
 
Well, it takes almost 3 years to drum up enough troops to be able to squash any resistance in an area smaller than the State of Massachusetts.

Even though we took over Iraq, which is 17 times larger, in just a few months.


But, bin Laden? Nah....he's not a priority anymore according to our President.
 
Originally posted by: Todd33
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/20/international/asia/20CND-AFGH.html?hp

The United States military, which has 17,000 troops across the border in Afghanistan, has provided satellite intelligence and aerial surveillance to assist Pakistani operations. Last month a Pakistani tribal leader was killed in what officials in Pakistan have said was a hellfire missile strike from an American unmanned drone. Both Pakistan and the United States have strenuously denied any participation of American troops on Pakistani territory.

United Nations and Afghan refugee officials have raised grave concerns with the Pakistani government about the refugee exodus, protesting that if there are military operations in such areas, that people at least be given adequate warning to collect their belongings and some choice as to where to go.
Click to expand...

Smells like an election year push to me, but we know this from that article last week. They want good news just in time for the DMC convention. They should have done this two years ago instead of Iraq. Better late than never.
Click to expand...

Remember the last time this happened and they suggested they were about to capture Al Qaeda big wigs. Claimed they has them surrounded in a house and they could not even storm the house.
 
Originally posted by: villager
Originally posted by: Todd33
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/20/international/asia/20CND-AFGH.html?hp

The United States military, which has 17,000 troops across the border in Afghanistan, has provided satellite intelligence and aerial surveillance to assist Pakistani operations. Last month a Pakistani tribal leader was killed in what officials in Pakistan have said was a hellfire missile strike from an American unmanned drone. Both Pakistan and the United States have strenuously denied any participation of American troops on Pakistani territory.

United Nations and Afghan refugee officials have raised grave concerns with the Pakistani government about the refugee exodus, protesting that if there are military operations in such areas, that people at least be given adequate warning to collect their belongings and some choice as to where to go.
Click to expand...

Smells like an election year push to me, but we know this from that article last week. They want good news just in time for the DMC convention. They should have done this two years ago instead of Iraq. Better late than never.
Click to expand...

Remember the last time this happened and they suggested they were about to capture Al Qaeda big wigs. Claimed they has them surrounded in a house and they could not even storm the house.
Click to expand...

It was more like a Waco style compound than a house, they actually lost quite a number of troops trying to storm the place.

But I doubt anything serious is going to happen. Much like what happened last time, Pakistan just doesn't have the will to clamp down on the local tribes that are giving shelter to Al Qaida. Its all pretend to try to show the US that its doing something against terrorists, hoping we'd reward them some more if it seems like they're working with us.
 
Just like my other thread stated.. if Bush gets Bin Laden, it will be 'Oh, nice timing.. he should have done that 2 years ago'... If Bush doesn't get him.. its 'Why hasn't Bush gotten Bin Laden yet?'
 
Originally posted by: Crimson
Just like my other thread stated.. if Bush gets Bin Laden, it will be 'Oh, nice timing.. he should have done that 2 years ago'... If Bush doesn't get him.. its 'Why hasn't Bush gotten Bin Laden yet?'
Click to expand...

Remember dead for alive, we will smoke him out blah blah blah. Bush himself raised the expectations for this. But dont you think capturing Osama is an important goal?
 
Originally posted by: Crimson
Just like my other thread stated.. if Bush gets Bin Laden, it will be 'Oh, nice timing.. he should have done that 2 years ago'... If Bush doesn't get him.. its 'Why hasn't Bush gotten Bin Laden yet?'
Click to expand...

And your answer is? Who can claim that Bush didn't sideline Afghanistan for Iraq? He IS two years late. Not that terrorism or AQ will evaporate with the capture of OSL.

"The most important thing is for us to find Osama Bin Laden. It's our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."

- George W. Bush - Sept. 13 2001

Exactly 6 Months Later.......

"I don't know where he is. I have no idea and I really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."

- George W. Bush - March 13 2002
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by: conjur
Well, it takes almost 3 years to drum up enough troops to be able to squash any resistance in an area smaller than the State of Massachusetts.

Even though we took over Iraq, which is 17 times larger, in just a few months.
Click to expand...

In fairness, going into the tribal region presents a lot of problems (tactical and political) versus rolling into iraq with the 6th A.D. Does Pakistan get to keep MFN status if there's a[nother] coup?
 
Originally posted by: onelove
Originally posted by: conjur
Well, it takes almost 3 years to drum up enough troops to be able to squash any resistance in an area smaller than the State of Massachusetts.

Even though we took over Iraq, which is 17 times larger, in just a few months.
Click to expand...

In fairness, going into the tribal region presents a lot of problems (tactical and political) versus rolling into iraq with the 6th A.D. Does Pakistan get to keep MFN status if there's a[nother] coup?
Click to expand...

Well, by GW's own words we should invade Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Oh wait, we should just invade the ones with oil who we are not in bed.

"We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them." -- George W. Bush, 9/20/01

"And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation in every region now has a decision to make: Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime." -- George W. Bush, 9/20/01
Click to expand...
 
If troops die trying to get Bin Laden, the left will claim they died in a unjust war. If Bush doesn't go after him, the left will claim Bush isn't doing enough to get Bin Laden. If we get Bin Laden, the left will claim it took too long. If we pull Bin Laden out of a hole without anyone dying, the left will claim it was staged. If we find out Bin Laden was killed 30 minutes into the Afghanistan campaign, the left will claim Bush hid the information from the public to instill fear. If Bush enlists the help of Pakistani troops the left will claim Bush couldn't do it alone, if we do it alone, the left will claim we are ignoring key international allies. If Bush asks for help, the left will claim he is weak.. if he doesn't ask for help the left will claim he is arrogant.

Thats all every argument is from the left.. partisan BS.
 
tod33, you can't just take out the entire axis of evil in one term, you gotta leave the climax for the end of the world, I mean, for the second term.

as far as OBL goes, Buuush's position is that he has been chasing him flat-out 100% since the days after 9-11 - who are we peasants to say that this isn't true? I mean, we can't just park ALL our military hardware in Afghanistan - the war in Iraq was all part of the Divine Plan. If we hadn't attacked Iraq, OBL might have sought refuge in a Baghdad hospital or perhaps in one of Saddam's numerous terrorist training camps.

One thing you can bet on, if Buush hasn't caught OBL before AQ strikes again, you can bet a few posts will monday-morning quarterback the last 3 years.
 
It boils down to one thing, timing. Bush should have made AQ and OSL the goal from 9/12 until they were eliminated. He didn't much care for that war, so he invented another. This isn't partisan, it American. Don't put blind trust in your leaders, hold them accountable. The country was fired up and pissed off because off 9/11, instead of going after those who did it, would put a half-ass effort and then started a new war, based on everything but terrorism and 9/11.

Abuse of trust and power. But, if you want to bend over, feel free.
 
Originally posted by: Crimson
If troops die trying to get Bin Laden, the left will claim they died in a unjust war. If Bush doesn't go after him, the left will claim Bush isn't doing enough to get Bin Laden. If we get Bin Laden, the left will claim it took too long. If we pull Bin Laden out of a hole without anyone dying, the left will claim it was staged. If we find out Bin Laden was killed 30 minutes into the Afghanistan campaign, the left will claim Bush hid the information from the public to instill fear. If Bush enlists the help of Pakistani troops the left will claim Bush couldn't do it alone, if we do it alone, the left will claim we are ignoring key international allies. If Bush asks for help, the left will claim he is weak.. if he doesn't ask for help the left will claim he is arrogant.

Thats all every argument is from the left.. partisan BS.
Click to expand...

Ok you read the Lowery piece so does that mean you will parrot him over and over again on every post? Are these the new talking points for shilling for Bush?
 
Originally posted by: villager
Originally posted by: Crimson
If troops die trying to get Bin Laden, the left will claim they died in a unjust war. If Bush doesn't go after him, the left will claim Bush isn't doing enough to get Bin Laden. If we get Bin Laden, the left will claim it took too long. If we pull Bin Laden out of a hole without anyone dying, the left will claim it was staged. If we find out Bin Laden was killed 30 minutes into the Afghanistan campaign, the left will claim Bush hid the information from the public to instill fear. If Bush enlists the help of Pakistani troops the left will claim Bush couldn't do it alone, if we do it alone, the left will claim we are ignoring key international allies. If Bush asks for help, the left will claim he is weak.. if he doesn't ask for help the left will claim he is arrogant.

Thats all every argument is from the left.. partisan BS.
Click to expand...

Ok you read the Lowery piece so does that mean you will parrot him over and over again on every post? Are these the new talking points for shilling for Bush?
Click to expand...

May as well, since clearly you have no intelligent response to it.
 
Well, if you read my posts, I've wanted OBL since Afghanistan wrapped up (DAMMIT), so yeah it's about damn time. Iraq was a diversion from the real enemy. I fault the administration for getting distracted.
 
Originally posted by: Todd33
Way to parrot Crimson CADkindaGUY, maybe you can read the thread next time? Hmmm...
Click to expand...

Way to ignore the point Todd33, maybe you can understand things if you click(read) the link and then try to put that info together with the quotes of yours. Is this thread because your fax machine is broken? Talking points didn't make it so you had to ask your fellow leftists on how to spin it?...or is this really supposed to be an anti-Bush thread instead of an Afghanistan(and surrounding area) post?

The news of more collaberation is quite positive though. I hope this development and others have/can produce more results.🙂

CkG
 
Originally posted by: Crimson
Originally posted by: villager
Originally posted by: Crimson
If troops die trying to get Bin Laden, the left will claim they died in a unjust war. If Bush doesn't go after him, the left will claim Bush isn't doing enough to get Bin Laden. If we get Bin Laden, the left will claim it took too long. If we pull Bin Laden out of a hole without anyone dying, the left will claim it was staged. If we find out Bin Laden was killed 30 minutes into the Afghanistan campaign, the left will claim Bush hid the information from the public to instill fear. If Bush enlists the help of Pakistani troops the left will claim Bush couldn't do it alone, if we do it alone, the left will claim we are ignoring key international allies. If Bush asks for help, the left will claim he is weak.. if he doesn't ask for help the left will claim he is arrogant.

Thats all every argument is from the left.. partisan BS.
Click to expand...

Ok you read the Lowery piece so does that mean you will parrot him over and over again on every post? Are these the new talking points for shilling for Bush?
Click to expand...

May as well, since clearly you have no intelligent response to it.
Click to expand...

Intelligent response to what? You denounce others as partisan while you are clearly as partisan as the people you criticize. Should I have pointed out the hypocrisy? You admit you are coping someone elses work, should I point out that you are plagiarizing? No I wont do that. I will just copy your idol Scott Mc Clellen and say I dont answer hypotheticals.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top