[TheBreeze]

Allan,

I get it. You know a lot about the Middle East and its history. Good for you. But instead of trying to impress everyone with trivia, why don’t you just come out and tell us what you would do?

Would you pull the U.S. military out of Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and the Middle East entirely? What would you do differently from Obama?

As for the Iraq War, I believe that Bush/Cheney was looking out for Haliburton’s interests and not the U.S.’s when they made the decision to go to war with Iraq. Bush/Cheney wanted to get the military bogged down in a hopeless situation in Iraq so that Haliburton could benefit for year’s to come. I believe that when the Iraq War started Cheney knew that it would be very hard for the U.S. military to ever completely pull out of Iraq and that Haliburton (and thus Cheney as a stockholder) would benefit for years to come. Bush/Cheney will be judged by history as one of the most evil and corrupt regimes in U.S. history.

Al Gore was clearly against unilateral action in Iraq, so stop trying to make it look like Clinton/Gore would have taken the same actions in Iraq as Bush did:

http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/gore/gore092302sp.html

And are you trying to say that Al Qaeda is not in Pakistan? Please point me to some credible source that agrees with you.

If your next post is full of trivia with no indication of how you would act in the Middle East, then I’ll consider our conversation in this thread over.

[TheBreeze]

Allan,

I get it. You know a lot about the Middle East and its history. Good for you. But instead of trying to impress everyone with trivia, why don’t you just come out and tell us what you would do?

Would you pull the U.S. military out of Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and the Middle East entirely? What would you do differently from Obama?

As for the Iraq War, I believe that Bush/Cheney was looking out for Haliburton’s interests and not the U.S.’s when they made the decision to go to war with Iraq. Bush/Cheney wanted to get the military bogged down in a hopeless situation in Iraq so that Haliburton could benefit for year’s to come. I believe that when the Iraq War started Cheney knew that it would be very hard for the U.S. military to ever completely pull out of Iraq and that Haliburton (and thus Cheney as a stockholder) would benefit for years to come. Bush/Cheney will be judged by history as one of the most evil and corrupt regimes in U.S. history.

Al Gore was clearly against unilateral action in Iraq, so stop trying to make it look like Clinton/Gore would have taken the same actions in Iraq as Bush did:

http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/gore/gore092302sp.html

And are you trying to say that Al Qaeda is not in Pakistan? Please point me to some credible source that agrees with you.

If your next post is full of trivia with no indication of how you would act in the Middle East, then I’ll consider our conversation in this thread over.

[TheBreeze]

Allan,

I get it. You know a lot about the Middle East and its history. Good for you. But instead of trying to impress everyone with trivia, why don’t you just come out and tell us what you would do?

Would you pull the U.S. military out of Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and the Middle East entirely? What would you do differently from Obama?

As for the Iraq War, I believe that Bush/Cheney was looking out for Haliburton’s interests and not the U.S.’s when they made the decision to go to war with Iraq. Bush/Cheney wanted to get the military bogged down in a hopeless situation in Iraq so that Haliburton could benefit for year’s to come. I believe that when the Iraq War started Cheney knew that it would be very hard for the U.S. military to ever completely pull out of Iraq and that Haliburton (and thus Cheney as a stockholder) would benefit for years to come. Bush/Cheney will be judged by history as one of the most evil and corrupt regimes in U.S. history.

Al Gore was clearly against unilateral action in Iraq, so stop trying to make it look like Clinton/Gore would have taken the same actions in Iraq as Bush did:

http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/gore/gore092302sp.html

And are you trying to say that Al Qaeda is not in Pakistan? Please point me to some credible source that agrees with you.

If your next post is full of trivia with no indication of how you would act in the Middle East, then I’ll consider our conversation in this thread over.

[TheBreeze]

Allan,

I get it. You know a lot about the Middle East and its history. Good for you. But instead of trying to impress everyone with trivia, why don’t you just come out and tell us what you would do?

Would you pull the U.S. military out of Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and the Middle East entirely? What would you do differently from Obama?

As for the Iraq War, I believe that Bush/Cheney was looking out for Haliburton’s interests and not the U.S.’s when they made the decision to go to war with Iraq. Bush/Cheney wanted to get the military bogged down in a hopeless situation in Iraq so that Haliburton could benefit for year’s to come. I believe that when the Iraq War started Cheney knew that it would be very hard for the U.S. military to ever completely pull out of Iraq and that Haliburton (and thus Cheney as a stockholder) would benefit for years to come. Bush/Cheney will be judged by history as one of the most evil and corrupt regimes in U.S. history.

Al Gore was clearly against unilateral action in Iraq, so stop trying to make it look like Clinton/Gore would have taken the same actions in Iraq as Bush did:

http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/gore/gore092302sp.html

And are you trying to say that Al Qaeda is not in Pakistan? Please point me to some credible source that agrees with you.

If your next post is full of trivia with no indication of how you would act in the Middle East, then I’ll consider our conversation in this thread over.

[TheBreeze]

Allan,

I get it. You know a lot about the Middle East and its history. Good for you. But instead of trying to impress everyone with trivia, why don’t you just come out and tell us what you would do?

Would you pull the U.S. military out of Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and the Middle East entirely? What would you do differently from Obama?

As for the Iraq War, I believe that Bush/Cheney was looking out for Haliburton’s interests and not the U.S.’s when they made the decision to go to war with Iraq. Bush/Cheney wanted to get the military bogged down in a hopeless situation in Iraq so that Haliburton could benefit for year’s to come. I believe that when the Iraq War started Cheney knew that it would be very hard for the U.S. military to ever completely pull out of Iraq and that Haliburton (and thus Cheney as a stockholder) would benefit for years to come. Bush/Cheney will be judged by history as one of the most evil and corrupt regimes in U.S. history.

Al Gore was clearly against unilateral action in Iraq, so stop trying to make it look like Clinton/Gore would have taken the same actions in Iraq as Bush did:

http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/gore/gore092302sp.html

And are you trying to say that Al Qaeda is not in Pakistan? Please point me to some credible source that agrees with you.

If your next post is full of trivia with no indication of how you would act in the Middle East, then I’ll consider our conversation in this thread over.

[TheBreeze]

[quote=partypup]
In your comfortably-cocooned mind, I am sure the fact that 15 people people (some of whom were civilians) …
[/quote]

The issue of civilian deaths is a difficult one. Defense Secretary Gates is aware that it is a problem:

Gates said that despite the obstacles, U.S. forces must strive to avoid civilian deaths.

“I believe that the civilian casualties are doing us enormous harm in Afghanistan, and we have got to do better in terms of avoiding casualties, and I say that knowing full well that the Taliban mingle among the people, use them as barriers,” the U.S. defense secretary told the Senate Armed Services Committee.

“My worry is that the Afghans come to see us as part of their problem rather than part of their solution, and then we are lost.”

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jtaz8ci5L2h4fxIcbJzq-YK4p0DwD95VN5O00

[quote=partypup]
…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.
[/quote]

What if the U.S. has the consent of the Afghani and Pakistani government? Sure the Afghani and Pakistani governments condemn these drone attacks publicly, but what is going on between the U.S. government and the Afghani/Pakistani government privately?

[quote=partypup]
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]

So you think we should just pull out of Pakistan and let the terrorists there do whatever they want and hope we don’t get attacked again? How would you deal with the Middle East?

[quote=partypup]
[quote=TheBreeze]Most Americans support Obama’s efforts to go after the terrorist cells in Pakistan.[/quote]

Show me a poll that confirms this.
[/quote]

Fifty-five percent of people questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Thursday back the president-elect when it comes to reducing the number of American combat troops in Iraq and increasing the number in Afghanistan.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/04/poll.troops/

[quote=partypup]
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.
[/quote]

We are in Pakistan because that is where the terrorists are. Even one of your compatriots admits to that:

Based upon the ludicrous premise that Afghanistan is the biggest military threat facing the US today, our new president, Barack Obama, is preparing to send another 30,000 US troops to that country, effectively doubling the number of American soldiers already there. Inevitably, this will mean more killing and more anger towards America among the local population.

Al Qaeda members, meanwhile, have largely moved away from the battle to Pakistan, a much larger nation to the east of Afghanistan, which raises the question: What the hell are we trying to do in Afghanistan?

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Obama-Wake-Up-Call-Afghan-by-Dave-Lindorff-090126-97.html

[quote=partypup]
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]

I disagree. If we totally pulled out of Afghanistan/Pakistan what would stop the Taliban/Al Qaeda from overthrowing the Pakistani government and then gaining control of those nukes. The redeployment could be about resources, but it could just as easily be about keeping Al Qaeda from getting a hold of Pakistan’s nukes.

[quote=partypup]
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”.
[/quote]

But only one day after President Obama signed the order respecting the rights of detainees, the C.I.A. once again used an unmanned Predator drone to attack Pakistan. The media is reporting that the President approved the strike. (Richard A. Opel, Jr., “Strikes in Pakistan Underscore Obama’s Options”, N.Y.Times.com, Jan. 24, 2009.) It is unclear whether these strikes have Pakistan’s consent or Afghanistan’s consent—the territory from where they are launched.

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2009/01/president-obama-new-hope-for.php

[quote=partypup]
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.
[/quote]

After 8 years of Chimpy/Cheney I can see why many nations would consider the U.S. to be a terrorist nation. Obama is working hard to change the image of the U.S.:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D95VL5A01&show_article=1

[quote=partypup]
Just because Iraq was a mistake does NOT mean that launching raids against Pakistan is not a mistake.
[/quote]

Yes, redeploying troops to Pakistan could end up being a mistake. But, myself, along with 55% of my fellow Americans believe that it is the right thing to do at this time. No one knows for sure the right course to take in the Middle East but at least Obama’s actions aren’t illogical like Bush’s were.

[TheBreeze]

[quote=partypup]
In your comfortably-cocooned mind, I am sure the fact that 15 people people (some of whom were civilians) …
[/quote]

The issue of civilian deaths is a difficult one. Defense Secretary Gates is aware that it is a problem:

Gates said that despite the obstacles, U.S. forces must strive to avoid civilian deaths.

“I believe that the civilian casualties are doing us enormous harm in Afghanistan, and we have got to do better in terms of avoiding casualties, and I say that knowing full well that the Taliban mingle among the people, use them as barriers,” the U.S. defense secretary told the Senate Armed Services Committee.

“My worry is that the Afghans come to see us as part of their problem rather than part of their solution, and then we are lost.”

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jtaz8ci5L2h4fxIcbJzq-YK4p0DwD95VN5O00

[quote=partypup]
…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.
[/quote]

What if the U.S. has the consent of the Afghani and Pakistani government? Sure the Afghani and Pakistani governments condemn these drone attacks publicly, but what is going on between the U.S. government and the Afghani/Pakistani government privately?

[quote=partypup]
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]

So you think we should just pull out of Pakistan and let the terrorists there do whatever they want and hope we don’t get attacked again? How would you deal with the Middle East?

[quote=partypup]
[quote=TheBreeze]Most Americans support Obama’s efforts to go after the terrorist cells in Pakistan.[/quote]

Show me a poll that confirms this.
[/quote]

Fifty-five percent of people questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Thursday back the president-elect when it comes to reducing the number of American combat troops in Iraq and increasing the number in Afghanistan.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/04/poll.troops/

[quote=partypup]
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.
[/quote]

We are in Pakistan because that is where the terrorists are. Even one of your compatriots admits to that:

Based upon the ludicrous premise that Afghanistan is the biggest military threat facing the US today, our new president, Barack Obama, is preparing to send another 30,000 US troops to that country, effectively doubling the number of American soldiers already there. Inevitably, this will mean more killing and more anger towards America among the local population.

Al Qaeda members, meanwhile, have largely moved away from the battle to Pakistan, a much larger nation to the east of Afghanistan, which raises the question: What the hell are we trying to do in Afghanistan?

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Obama-Wake-Up-Call-Afghan-by-Dave-Lindorff-090126-97.html

[quote=partypup]
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]

I disagree. If we totally pulled out of Afghanistan/Pakistan what would stop the Taliban/Al Qaeda from overthrowing the Pakistani government and then gaining control of those nukes. The redeployment could be about resources, but it could just as easily be about keeping Al Qaeda from getting a hold of Pakistan’s nukes.

[quote=partypup]
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”.
[/quote]

But only one day after President Obama signed the order respecting the rights of detainees, the C.I.A. once again used an unmanned Predator drone to attack Pakistan. The media is reporting that the President approved the strike. (Richard A. Opel, Jr., “Strikes in Pakistan Underscore Obama’s Options”, N.Y.Times.com, Jan. 24, 2009.) It is unclear whether these strikes have Pakistan’s consent or Afghanistan’s consent—the territory from where they are launched.

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2009/01/president-obama-new-hope-for.php

[quote=partypup]
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.
[/quote]

After 8 years of Chimpy/Cheney I can see why many nations would consider the U.S. to be a terrorist nation. Obama is working hard to change the image of the U.S.:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D95VL5A01&show_article=1

[quote=partypup]
Just because Iraq was a mistake does NOT mean that launching raids against Pakistan is not a mistake.
[/quote]

Yes, redeploying troops to Pakistan could end up being a mistake. But, myself, along with 55% of my fellow Americans believe that it is the right thing to do at this time. No one knows for sure the right course to take in the Middle East but at least Obama’s actions aren’t illogical like Bush’s were.

[TheBreeze]

[quote=partypup]
In your comfortably-cocooned mind, I am sure the fact that 15 people people (some of whom were civilians) …
[/quote]

The issue of civilian deaths is a difficult one. Defense Secretary Gates is aware that it is a problem:

Gates said that despite the obstacles, U.S. forces must strive to avoid civilian deaths.

“I believe that the civilian casualties are doing us enormous harm in Afghanistan, and we have got to do better in terms of avoiding casualties, and I say that knowing full well that the Taliban mingle among the people, use them as barriers,” the U.S. defense secretary told the Senate Armed Services Committee.

“My worry is that the Afghans come to see us as part of their problem rather than part of their solution, and then we are lost.”

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jtaz8ci5L2h4fxIcbJzq-YK4p0DwD95VN5O00

[quote=partypup]
…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.
[/quote]

What if the U.S. has the consent of the Afghani and Pakistani government? Sure the Afghani and Pakistani governments condemn these drone attacks publicly, but what is going on between the U.S. government and the Afghani/Pakistani government privately?

[quote=partypup]
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]

So you think we should just pull out of Pakistan and let the terrorists there do whatever they want and hope we don’t get attacked again? How would you deal with the Middle East?

[quote=partypup]
[quote=TheBreeze]Most Americans support Obama’s efforts to go after the terrorist cells in Pakistan.[/quote]

Show me a poll that confirms this.
[/quote]

Fifty-five percent of people questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Thursday back the president-elect when it comes to reducing the number of American combat troops in Iraq and increasing the number in Afghanistan.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/04/poll.troops/

[quote=partypup]
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.
[/quote]

We are in Pakistan because that is where the terrorists are. Even one of your compatriots admits to that:

Based upon the ludicrous premise that Afghanistan is the biggest military threat facing the US today, our new president, Barack Obama, is preparing to send another 30,000 US troops to that country, effectively doubling the number of American soldiers already there. Inevitably, this will mean more killing and more anger towards America among the local population.

Al Qaeda members, meanwhile, have largely moved away from the battle to Pakistan, a much larger nation to the east of Afghanistan, which raises the question: What the hell are we trying to do in Afghanistan?

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Obama-Wake-Up-Call-Afghan-by-Dave-Lindorff-090126-97.html

[quote=partypup]
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]

I disagree. If we totally pulled out of Afghanistan/Pakistan what would stop the Taliban/Al Qaeda from overthrowing the Pakistani government and then gaining control of those nukes. The redeployment could be about resources, but it could just as easily be about keeping Al Qaeda from getting a hold of Pakistan’s nukes.

[quote=partypup]
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”.
[/quote]

But only one day after President Obama signed the order respecting the rights of detainees, the C.I.A. once again used an unmanned Predator drone to attack Pakistan. The media is reporting that the President approved the strike. (Richard A. Opel, Jr., “Strikes in Pakistan Underscore Obama’s Options”, N.Y.Times.com, Jan. 24, 2009.) It is unclear whether these strikes have Pakistan’s consent or Afghanistan’s consent—the territory from where they are launched.

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2009/01/president-obama-new-hope-for.php

[quote=partypup]
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.
[/quote]

After 8 years of Chimpy/Cheney I can see why many nations would consider the U.S. to be a terrorist nation. Obama is working hard to change the image of the U.S.:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D95VL5A01&show_article=1

[quote=partypup]
Just because Iraq was a mistake does NOT mean that launching raids against Pakistan is not a mistake.
[/quote]

Yes, redeploying troops to Pakistan could end up being a mistake. But, myself, along with 55% of my fellow Americans believe that it is the right thing to do at this time. No one knows for sure the right course to take in the Middle East but at least Obama’s actions aren’t illogical like Bush’s were.

[TheBreeze]

[quote=partypup]
In your comfortably-cocooned mind, I am sure the fact that 15 people people (some of whom were civilians) …
[/quote]

The issue of civilian deaths is a difficult one. Defense Secretary Gates is aware that it is a problem:

Gates said that despite the obstacles, U.S. forces must strive to avoid civilian deaths.

“I believe that the civilian casualties are doing us enormous harm in Afghanistan, and we have got to do better in terms of avoiding casualties, and I say that knowing full well that the Taliban mingle among the people, use them as barriers,” the U.S. defense secretary told the Senate Armed Services Committee.

“My worry is that the Afghans come to see us as part of their problem rather than part of their solution, and then we are lost.”

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jtaz8ci5L2h4fxIcbJzq-YK4p0DwD95VN5O00

[quote=partypup]
…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.
[/quote]

What if the U.S. has the consent of the Afghani and Pakistani government? Sure the Afghani and Pakistani governments condemn these drone attacks publicly, but what is going on between the U.S. government and the Afghani/Pakistani government privately?

[quote=partypup]
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]

So you think we should just pull out of Pakistan and let the terrorists there do whatever they want and hope we don’t get attacked again? How would you deal with the Middle East?

[quote=partypup]
[quote=TheBreeze]Most Americans support Obama’s efforts to go after the terrorist cells in Pakistan.[/quote]

Show me a poll that confirms this.
[/quote]

Fifty-five percent of people questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Thursday back the president-elect when it comes to reducing the number of American combat troops in Iraq and increasing the number in Afghanistan.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/04/poll.troops/

[quote=partypup]
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.
[/quote]

We are in Pakistan because that is where the terrorists are. Even one of your compatriots admits to that:

Based upon the ludicrous premise that Afghanistan is the biggest military threat facing the US today, our new president, Barack Obama, is preparing to send another 30,000 US troops to that country, effectively doubling the number of American soldiers already there. Inevitably, this will mean more killing and more anger towards America among the local population.

Al Qaeda members, meanwhile, have largely moved away from the battle to Pakistan, a much larger nation to the east of Afghanistan, which raises the question: What the hell are we trying to do in Afghanistan?

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Obama-Wake-Up-Call-Afghan-by-Dave-Lindorff-090126-97.html

[quote=partypup]
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]

I disagree. If we totally pulled out of Afghanistan/Pakistan what would stop the Taliban/Al Qaeda from overthrowing the Pakistani government and then gaining control of those nukes. The redeployment could be about resources, but it could just as easily be about keeping Al Qaeda from getting a hold of Pakistan’s nukes.

[quote=partypup]
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”.
[/quote]

But only one day after President Obama signed the order respecting the rights of detainees, the C.I.A. once again used an unmanned Predator drone to attack Pakistan. The media is reporting that the President approved the strike. (Richard A. Opel, Jr., “Strikes in Pakistan Underscore Obama’s Options”, N.Y.Times.com, Jan. 24, 2009.) It is unclear whether these strikes have Pakistan’s consent or Afghanistan’s consent—the territory from where they are launched.

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2009/01/president-obama-new-hope-for.php

[quote=partypup]
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.
[/quote]

After 8 years of Chimpy/Cheney I can see why many nations would consider the U.S. to be a terrorist nation. Obama is working hard to change the image of the U.S.:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D95VL5A01&show_article=1

[quote=partypup]
Just because Iraq was a mistake does NOT mean that launching raids against Pakistan is not a mistake.
[/quote]

Yes, redeploying troops to Pakistan could end up being a mistake. But, myself, along with 55% of my fellow Americans believe that it is the right thing to do at this time. No one knows for sure the right course to take in the Middle East but at least Obama’s actions aren’t illogical like Bush’s were.

[TheBreeze]

[quote=partypup]
In your comfortably-cocooned mind, I am sure the fact that 15 people people (some of whom were civilians) …
[/quote]

The issue of civilian deaths is a difficult one. Defense Secretary Gates is aware that it is a problem:

Gates said that despite the obstacles, U.S. forces must strive to avoid civilian deaths.

“I believe that the civilian casualties are doing us enormous harm in Afghanistan, and we have got to do better in terms of avoiding casualties, and I say that knowing full well that the Taliban mingle among the people, use them as barriers,” the U.S. defense secretary told the Senate Armed Services Committee.

“My worry is that the Afghans come to see us as part of their problem rather than part of their solution, and then we are lost.”

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jtaz8ci5L2h4fxIcbJzq-YK4p0DwD95VN5O00

[quote=partypup]
…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.
[/quote]

What if the U.S. has the consent of the Afghani and Pakistani government? Sure the Afghani and Pakistani governments condemn these drone attacks publicly, but what is going on between the U.S. government and the Afghani/Pakistani government privately?

[quote=partypup]
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]

So you think we should just pull out of Pakistan and let the terrorists there do whatever they want and hope we don’t get attacked again? How would you deal with the Middle East?

[quote=partypup]
[quote=TheBreeze]Most Americans support Obama’s efforts to go after the terrorist cells in Pakistan.[/quote]

Show me a poll that confirms this.
[/quote]

Fifty-five percent of people questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Thursday back the president-elect when it comes to reducing the number of American combat troops in Iraq and increasing the number in Afghanistan.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/04/poll.troops/

[quote=partypup]
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.
[/quote]

We are in Pakistan because that is where the terrorists are. Even one of your compatriots admits to that:

Based upon the ludicrous premise that Afghanistan is the biggest military threat facing the US today, our new president, Barack Obama, is preparing to send another 30,000 US troops to that country, effectively doubling the number of American soldiers already there. Inevitably, this will mean more killing and more anger towards America among the local population.

Al Qaeda members, meanwhile, have largely moved away from the battle to Pakistan, a much larger nation to the east of Afghanistan, which raises the question: What the hell are we trying to do in Afghanistan?

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Obama-Wake-Up-Call-Afghan-by-Dave-Lindorff-090126-97.html

[quote=partypup]
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]

I disagree. If we totally pulled out of Afghanistan/Pakistan what would stop the Taliban/Al Qaeda from overthrowing the Pakistani government and then gaining control of those nukes. The redeployment could be about resources, but it could just as easily be about keeping Al Qaeda from getting a hold of Pakistan’s nukes.

[quote=partypup]
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”.
[/quote]

But only one day after President Obama signed the order respecting the rights of detainees, the C.I.A. once again used an unmanned Predator drone to attack Pakistan. The media is reporting that the President approved the strike. (Richard A. Opel, Jr., “Strikes in Pakistan Underscore Obama’s Options”, N.Y.Times.com, Jan. 24, 2009.) It is unclear whether these strikes have Pakistan’s consent or Afghanistan’s consent—the territory from where they are launched.

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2009/01/president-obama-new-hope-for.php

[quote=partypup]
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.
[/quote]

After 8 years of Chimpy/Cheney I can see why many nations would consider the U.S. to be a terrorist nation. Obama is working hard to change the image of the U.S.:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D95VL5A01&show_article=1

[quote=partypup]
Just because Iraq was a mistake does NOT mean that launching raids against Pakistan is not a mistake.
[/quote]

Yes, redeploying troops to Pakistan could end up being a mistake. But, myself, along with 55% of my fellow Americans believe that it is the right thing to do at this time. No one knows for sure the right course to take in the Middle East but at least Obama’s actions aren’t illogical like Bush’s were.

[TheBreeze]

[quote=partypup]

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=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.

Most Americans support Obama’s efforts to go after the terrorist cells in Pakistan. 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=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=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=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=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.

[TheBreeze]

[quote=partypup]

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=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.

Most Americans support Obama’s efforts to go after the terrorist cells in Pakistan. 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=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=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=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=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.

[TheBreeze]

[quote=partypup]

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=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.

Most Americans support Obama’s efforts to go after the terrorist cells in Pakistan. 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=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=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=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=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.

[TheBreeze]

[quote=partypup]

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=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.

Most Americans support Obama’s efforts to go after the terrorist cells in Pakistan. 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=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=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=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=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.

[TheBreeze]

[quote=partypup]

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=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.

Most Americans support Obama’s efforts to go after the terrorist cells in Pakistan. 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=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=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=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=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.

[Author]

Posts