And I know of no sane Leftist who believes that had we taken the war to Pakistan after 9/11, the world would be a lot different today.
[/quote]
Really. Most of the world was sympathetic towards America and supported us until Bush took us into Iraq like a bunch of drunken, idiot cowboys. I for one would love to have back that $2 trillion we wasted in Iraq. America would certainly be a lot richer had we not gone into Iraq and there’s a good chance that most of the world would still be supportive of America if Bush hadn’t gone against the international community and taken us into Iraq. The world could be substantially different if the Iraq War never happened.[/quote]
Please re-read what you just wrote and ask yourself whether it even begins to address my comment above. Simply regurgitating complaints about the war in Iraq does not explain why the world would have been a better place had we taken the fight to Pakistan, which is the assertion I took issue with. Any fool knows that Iraq was a pointless war. I knew that 6 years ago before the first shot was fired. Tell me something new, Breeze. Read my exchange with afx and tell me why the world would be safer if we had chosen to retaliate against Pakistan instead of Iraq after 9/11. You have not — and apparently cannot — address that point.
[quote=TheBreeze][quote=partypup]
The Democrats have a problem waging a war in Iraq that enrages Musmilms and emoboldens terrorists, but you don’t think the same would have happened if we had attacked Pakistan? Seriously, how would that have looked any different from Iraq?[/quote]
Are you being willfully ignorant? Obama isn’t planning to “attack Pakistan”. Instead, he is doing the logical thing and is planning to go after the terrorist cells that operate in Pakistan.[/quote]
In your comfortably-cocooned mind, I am sure the fact that 15 people people (some of whom were civilians) were killed in the Pakistani drone incident does not equate to “attacking” Pakistan. So tell me, Breeze, what constitutes an “attack”? I would suggest you familiarize yourself with a book that you appear to have long since forgotten how to use: the dictionary. According to Merriam-Webster, an “attack” occurs when one “begins to affect or to act injuriously on another.” Connect the dots, Breeze. When you send a drone into a sovereign nation, for ANY reason, and kill its citizens, you have attacked them. I can’t believe I have to return to grade school to make this very simple point that is really just common sense, something you apparently lack.
And if people that you cared about and loved where attacked by another country with a drone, I’m sure you’d change your tune. It’s fine and good to discount these casualties when they don’t affect you, Breeze. Such is the province of a hypocrite.
[quote=TheBreeze]Most Americans support Obama’s efforts to go after the terrorist cells in Pakistan.[/quote]
Show me a poll that confirms this. Right now, as Americans are facing lay offs EVERY day in the tens of thousands, as states are going bankrupt, as our country is going bankrupt, I doubt Pakistan is anything that they want to focus on. You can dust off your pom poms and start cheering the terror cell “attacks”, but I don’t think most Americans share your enthusiasm by a long shot.
[quote=TheBreeze]This redeployment is not that controversial and is actually logical. What was illogical was starting a War with Iraq when none of the terrorists were from there and when none of 9/11 terrorists were hiding there [/quote]
I don’t disagree with this point at all. But we’re not talking about Iraq. We’re talking about Pakistan. Why can’t you keep the two countries separate? Why do you insist on lumping Pakistan into a category with Iraq? Could it be because you believe that everyone in a Muslim country should be considered a terrorist? Is that the kind of obtuse thinking that is guiding your party right now? My point is that we shouldn’t have been in Iraq OR Pakistan. There were arguably just as many “terror cells” in Saudi Arabia (the country that provided 75% of the 9/11 hijackers) in 2003, as there were in Iraq or Pakistan. So why is Pakistan a more suitable target than Saudi Arabia? You haven’t addressed this question, because you can’t. The wars and “attacks” that are being waged in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan now are nothing more than the final stages of a long-fought war for resources, and if you actually think that the U.S. presence in the Middle East has to do with anything relating to terrorism, democracy or the other nonsense you are fed, then it’s no wonder you were naive enough to be brainwashed into voting for the Messiah.
[quote=TheBreeze][quote=partypup]
And I might also add, Pakistan poses a slight problem that Iraq did not: it possesses nuclear capability.
[/quote]
Once again, the U.S. is not attacking Pakistan. We are going to go after terrorist cells in Pakistan. I understand that the distinction is subtle (sarcasm), but it is an important difference.[/quote]
And once again, you have not explained to me why sending an unmanned drone into a sovereign nation, without its consent, and killing its people, cannot be considered an “attack”. If Pakistan sent an unmanned drone to New York City and killed 15 people, some of whom were civilians, is there any doubt in your mind that we would consider this to be an attack? Seriously, wake up, pull your head out of your rear end and stop being a hypocrite.
[quote=TheBreeze][quote=partypup]
And where is the proof that Pakistan was one of “the guys who actually attached us”?
[/quote]
Again, attacking 9/11 terrorist cells does not equal attacking Pakistan. Try to keep up. I am really stunned at how ignorant you are being here.[/quote]
And what is stunning is how your hypocrisy blinds you to the truth staring you in the face. You are basically giving the U.S license to “pre-emptively” violate the borders of a sovereign nation simply because we, in our judgment, have determined that “terror cells” are harbored there. Here’s something you might want to think about, Breezie: many nations around the world now consider US to be terrorists. Does that mean that they have the right to send a drone to San Diego and wipe 15 people off the face of the Earth? Your hypocrisy and narrow-mindedness is beyond astounding.
[quote=TheBreeze] [quote=partypup]
My understanding is that the hijackers’ nationalities broke down as follows: 15 Saudis, 1 Egyptian, 1 Lebanese, 2 from union of Arab Emirates. Where is Pakistan on this list? Why didn’t we take the fight to Saudi Arabia, the country that spawned 75% of the hijackers?
[/quote]
Where is Iraq on that list? If the terrorists had been from Canada, should we have then gone to war with Canada? If the terrorists who attacked us had hidden in Canada, should we pursue them in Canada?[/quote]
Who said anything about Iraq? We are talking about Pakistan. This is a feeble attempt to distract from the issue at hand. Just because Iraq was a mistake does NOT mean that launching raids against Pakistan is not a mistake.
[quote=TheBreeze][quote=partypup]
Ugh. I never thought it was possible, but with this type of thinking coming from the Left, and having seen what the Right has to offer, I am actually dreading the next 4 years more than the last 8…[/quote]
With your kind of thinking coming from the right, I’m predicting massive wins for Obama in ’12. Republicans might not win a single state. It’s amazing that all Obama has to do to crush the right is to just continue to do things that make logical sense. It’s like he’s doing battle with a bunch of mental midgets.
[/quote]
Had you paid any attention to my prior emails, you would know that I was a faithful member of the Democratic party until this year, when I saw my party hijacked by clandestine interests and the deepest pockets imaginable. I have always been a supporter of both Clintons, and I was a FERVENT opponent of George Bush. But in your little mind, this qualifies me as a “rightie”, even though I have never voted for a Republican president. The mere fact that I dare to question and criticize the party that has betrayed me and sold itself to corporate and military interests means that I am now a Republican. Is that the level of overly-simplistic thinking that occurs in your pubescent mind, Breeze?
You go right ahead and comfort yourself with the knowledge that a country wracked by 30% unemployment, a dollar collapse and massive unrest bin2012 will provide Obama with the votes he needs to “sweep” into a second term. Are you completely daft? Obama has “One term” written all over his face. He should enjoy the celebrity and fawning while he can. I hope your memory is not so short that you have forgotten how popular GW Bush was only 5 years ago. Or can you even remember what happened 5 years ago?
