Page 2 of 4 First 12 34 Last

okay keep impeding on their sovrigenty squander any sort if diaoulge we can have them. Squander any sort of sway we have with the general populace. Squander it all for what? More miles of terrorists? Does Pakistan need to get on the ball? yes, however poaching on their lands is more likely to make them want to help them then it will make them want to help us. I like to play Rambo to but sometimes you have to look at the big picture.

Big picture? Like playing whack-a-mole for ages against forces you can't pin down because they keep prancing back across the border to safety? This would be different if there was ANY indication that Pakistan was actually DOING something that was helping us put down the taliban and Al Qaeda. However, I have yet to see any evidence that they're actually doing anything to us. So yes, in the big picture, lets not cross into Waziristan so we can continue to fight a war we can't win until we eventually drain our resources and eventually have to withdraw because the American people get sick of sending their sons over to a country all the way across the globe to fight an unwinnable war only to have them come back maimed or worse.

Pakistan is pissed because they were having fun as 3rd party blackmailers. They say "if only we had attack choppers we could effectively deal with the Taliban threat", "if only we had enough anti-India missiles or fighter aircraft". They love terrorism within their borders, it allows them to engage in unparalleled extortion. If the U.S. does the job themselves, Pakistan's military gifts would dry up - they won't have that.

We need to let them know that the party is over - we've come to collect. All those years of military aid should mean cooperation in eliminating mutual threats.

and yet you just said...
Elevator doesn’t go all the way to the top anymore does it?


As to the topic, a boarder is a boarder and out of policy we need to get permission to cross. If that permission is given thanks to coercion then so be it, there are things that Pakistan wants that I am sure the US has to negotiate with.

If thats what you wanna do fine but be prepared for a war. The US needs to find another way in. Directly is not going to work. Time to think outside the box

TuffStuffMcGruff, can you honestly say the USA is keeping their promise of rebuilding the country? People have it worse now than before you started the bombings, no?

Drone, I more pity the country the US leadership choose to but the blame on... Concrete evidence has never been much of a factor when it comes to US bombings.

makaikhaan, crossing the border (uninvited) with more than 10 men in uniform is called an "invasion". Are you seriosly arguing US legitimacy to invade any country they want to?

Yesdachi, Being against something, and believing the world would be a better place if it happened, is not the same thing...

I believe the world would be a better place without uggly people, however, I do not think we should kill all uggly people. Get the point?

What is it with the air and water in Sweden?

Among the cleanest in the world, back on topic? Are you claiming the USA is doing much about afghanistan these days?

To put a stop to a group of international (war)criminals? Yes.

I never said it was. I'm just saying that if someone plants a nuke in the US and sets it off, your "better world" theory will not stand up. There will be vengeance and bloodshed and the world will not be a better place for it. Fear, anger, politics, and a whole arsenal of toys makes for a bad combination. The country with the reactor that matches the isotope fingerprint will be the first on the list.

I would not necessarily agree with the reprisal, but I know my country and it's people. The response would be horrific.

So... by your logic, it is ok if some country invaded US and arrested some of your warcriminals?

Or, heck, why cant some country break your boarders just in the search of warcriminals?

...

They are free to try.


If a nation can't contain and control terrorism and insurgency within its borders and it is affecting the security of a neighboring country - they can expect help, whether they'd like it or not.

Let's use a hypothetical Russian-Georgian conflict as an example. If North Ossetia was in rebellion from Russia and the Russians secured North Ossetia - but South Ossetia was part of Georgia and Georgia couldn't keep South Ossetians from doing cross border raids and then returning to safety... I would have supported a Russian incursion into South Ossetia to do the job that Georgia was responsible for, but unable to accomplish.

ESPECIALLY if Russia had been giving freebies and military aid to Georgia for a decade for the expressed purpose of securing their borders.

So... your point is that power = right?

Did I get you right?

*again, this is a great thread to show americans who dont understand why people over the world has a problem with them*

EDIT: Oh, you added more... In that case, what is the difference between a "freedom fighter" and a terrorist?
Afghanistan has been invaded, doesnt that mean the people opposing are freedom fighters, rather than terrorists?

That'd be quite okay, as long as they didn't wreck the place up while they were here, and left once they got their man.

What? We are not allowed to do any "collateral damage"?

Say Russian special forces blew up a house containing a warcriminal, like someone who had fought in Vietnam, and the neighbouring houses blew up too (as is often the case with US bombings, as you might know). Would that be ok?

Since your statement has the Swedes calling for the nuking of the US, Caius are you even from the US?

Second, both the Pakistani military and the ISAF claim this never happened.

Third, Afghan reconstruction is alive and well. It might not be as fast as we all would like, but with at least half the population (women) already experiencing a better life-style it would be wrong to say that Afghanistan is worse off. Afghanistan had one of the poorest economies in the world, since like forever, that they're struggling should not surprise anyone.

First off: if the Russians payed for the damages in the form of an international 'civil' case, then yes.

Second: Contrary to popular belief, we don't just bomb everything; rather to the contrary as of recently, as we have discovered that the only possible way to deal with terrorists in hiding is through boots on the ground, particularly in desolate, mountainous regions such as Waziristan. So the whole argument for this case is rather ineffectual.



Third, to your point on people not liking Americans: please refer to my previous 'whack-a-mole' statements. You seem to be operating under the belief that America should follow procedure to its own death when its enemies quite clearly do not. I feel that we do not 'owe' Pakistan anything: as far as I'm concerned, they're harboring terrorists, and until there is some kind of actual evidence that they're actually holding up to their end of our deal to help us out, they are simply taking advantage of the US desire for an ally somewhere in the middle east.

I am reminded of an excellent quote by non other than the vile oppressor and former hydra head Abraham Lincoln :

makaikhaan, US war criminals dont face international courts... why should others?
*I think all should, I am just interested in your reasoning why america should be an exception*

TuffStuffMcGruff, great quote, now if it only made sence in the current situation too...

I used it in regards to whether or not the taliban and their supporters are terrorists or freedom fighters. I maintain that they are the wolves, seeking only the "freedom" to ravage the sheep.

Ok... but are you open to others seeing them as freedom fighters?

Nelson Mandela was also called terrorist, it's quite arbitrary who gets what label these days, you know...

Heck, JESUS was a terrorist according to the Romans, the equivalence of the US when it comes to super power...

Do you think Jesus was a terrorist?

I dont expect others to face an international court either, the court of the nation that captures them is acceptable, or as with Saddam a trail by their own people.

International law is nothing other then international treaties - they are not enforcable by a soverign government hence they ebb and flow according to how nations desire to deal with each other. The United States has always mainten its national soveriegnity over its soldiers. However ask yourself why there are United States Soldiers serving time in a South Korean prison is you believe we don't allow other nations to prosecute American soldiers. Same can be said of Germany and a few other nations.

As some who claims to understand the situation in Afganstan - your sadly misinformed about several things. For instance your claim is that a greater burdern is carried by other nations, or as you state "You see, USA long ago gave up on that war, and left other countries to do their dirty job of cleaning up."

Unfortunately for your comment the facts dont really hold up - the United States still has the largest committed force in Afganstan. Yes the United States has asked for help from its allies and many have agreed to assist in the effort, but your claim is in complete error.

OMG Strike! I literally loled that that

Bravo!

Yes - Wolves may see other wolves as freedom fighters against shepherds if you insist.

Romans called Jesus a terrorist? They said that he used terror for his purposes? I had no idea...

WHERE DOES THAT LEAVE ME????

As much as I like Abe, that quote uses a poor analogy. The end result for the sheep is the same, the shepherd isn't minding the flock out of the kindness of his heart.

And Jesus wasn't a terrorist, he was a hippie trying to shake up the system.

Jesus and Mandela attacked civilian targets of those who opposed them? That's news to me.

He was a pretty conservative hippie.

Define "conservative", in Jesus' sense.

C'mon. He wasn't pulling a Herod Antipas, there is no material evidence that he used drugs. Without the sex and drugs he wouldn't have been much of a hippie at all. He seemed to have been even more intense in many parts of his religious observance than the traditionalists; if your eye, hand, foot offends you with sin cut/pluck them off/out.

Also - we don't know what happened after our second cheek was struck. "If a man strikes you, turn the other cheek" could have been followed by "if they strike the other cheek, drop the mother-effing hammer".

Page 2 of 4 First 12 34 Last