The problem for me is…we are spending money we don’t have.
[/quote]
True. Some Western countries should be helping more too.
[quote]
Hard line Islamic fundamentalists are perhaps the biggest threat this country has ever faced.[/quote]
True. Military intervention in Libya was a big mistake in my opinion. Libya under Gaddafi had become a containable threat. Now that the fighting has ceased a power struggle within the NTC will occur. The west has many ‘assets’ within the NTC, the west controls their access to funds to some extent and oil contracts have been drawn up but the outcome is still uncertain.
Psst…to the neocon idiots…The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. GET IT?
[/quote]
By ‘neo-cons’ you mean the architects of the Iraqi war(Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and strongman Bolton?) They were foreign policy dilettantes(although Bolton is a capable diplomat and I like him.) Pakistan should’ve been ‘heavily pressured’ after al-Qaeda/Taliban fled across the Durand line into the tribal areas in 2002. US had overwhelming support from the free world for the ‘war on terror’ prior to the Iraqi beatup and this would’ve been a tremendous help in ‘dealing’ with Pakistan.
…extensive destruction of the Taliban and al Qaeda
[/quote]
Disagree. Between 2002 and 2008 al-Qaeda grew to become a far greater threat than they ever were before. During this period al-Qaeda was able to not only infiltrate the tribal areas of Pakistan but destabilise the entire country and bring it to the brink of war with India. Having said that, I was only against the 2003 Iraqi invasion on strategic grounds.
…extensive destruction of the Taliban and al Qaeda
[/quote]
Disagree. Between 2002 and 2008 al-Qaeda grew to become a far greater threat than they ever were before…
[/quote]
Sorry but the actual results differ from your above claim.
However, notice I did NOT say “complete” or “utter” or “permanent” or “magnificent.” I said “extensive.”
[/quote]
Results as in prevention of terrorist attacks against western civilians yes. But AQ is now a state player and in a much better strategic position than ever before. But you’re right about the chick in the video.
so what do you think about Karzai saying if Pakistan and the US went at it, Afghanistan would back Pakistan? I know Sex Machine said he was just blowing hot air in one thread, but think about it, if it wasn’t for the US invasion, Karzai would be holed up in a small fragment of Afghanistan with his Northern Alliance. The Northern Alliance would have probably been exterminated unless supplied by Uzbegistan or the Ruskies…
The only reason we are at odds with Pakistan is because their intelligence agency is aiding the Haqqani terrorist group. So if the US does go to war with Pakistan, it will be to stop terrorists there from operating in Afghanistan.
And this fuckwad said he will back Pakistan? Back them how, why? So they can continue to harbor terrorists who cross your border and kill your citizens? What a pussy thing to say! Afghanistan can go screw itself as far as I’m concerned. Go fight the terrorists yourself, and if they attack us again, use pat’s idea and bomb Afghanistan further into the stone age, shit bomb them into the dinosaur age.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
so what do you think about Karzai saying if Pakistan and the US went at it, Afghanistan would back Pakistan?
[/quote]
Just caught out playing the duplicity game that’s the norm in that part of the world.
Yes, extremely ungrateful.
Untrue. The army/ISI(real power in Pakistan) has resolved to wage war against the west. The US’s ‘end game’ in Pakistan is to secure their nuclear weapons.
[quote]
And this fuckwad said he will back Pakistan? Back them how, why? So they can continue to harbor terrorists who cross your border and kill your citizens? What a pussy thing to say! Afghanistan can go screw itself as far as I’m concerned. Go fight the terrorists yourself, and if they attack us again, use pat’s idea and bomb Afghanistan further into the stone age, shit bomb them into the dinosaur age. [/quote]
I’m not defending Karzai. I agree with the first half of what you said there.
True about securing nukes. But if Pakistan was truly an ally, would we have to even worry about it?
and why would the ISI want to wage war against the West? To stop us from aiding India and making them economically or militarily stronger, perhaps?
Does China have a role in this game in Pakistan, if so, what’s at stake for them? Do you think terrorist attacks from the Ughur minority might make them act one day?
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
True about securing nukes. But if Pakistan was truly an ally, would we have to even worry about it?
[/quote]
There are pro-western elements in Pakistan but our chances of forming them into a civilian government died with Bhutto.
We don’t ‘aid’ India. They get a little bit of the uncle Sam pie like everyone else but we have refused to share weapons technology with them. PAKISTAN gets the big slice to “sort of sometimes” protect our supply line from Karachi through Balucistan and the Kyber and allow drones and CIA in country.
[quote]
Does China have a role in this game in Pakistan, if so, what’s at stake for them? Do you think terrorist attacks from the Ughur minority might make them act one day?[/quote]
The key players are US/India, Pakistan and Russia. China has interests too of course. Interests of China, Pakistan and Russia overlap in some areas. The East Turkistan Islamic Movement has not been a major problem for the Chinese yet but large numbers of Uyghur from Xianjeng province have ‘answered the call to jihad’ and are fighting in Af-Pak.
EDIT: I should include the UK as a key player in the region too. The EU is far more dependent on oil from this region than is the US. However the region is, and always will be of vital importance because it strategically commands an area which comprises 75% of the world’s population AND 75% of the world’s petroleum and mineral resources.
We don’t ‘aid’ India. They get a little bit of the uncle Sam pie like everyone else but we have refused to share weapons technology with them. PAKISTAN gets the big slice to “sort of sometimes” protect our supply line from Karachi through Balucistan and the Kyber and allow drones and CIA in country.
[quote]
So, there are various interests to keep us in Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Don’t you agree that there are similar interests to keep troops in Iraq? So, what’s the logic of the troop pullout there?
Once the US troops leave, do you forsee a war between Sunni Al-Qaeda Saudi backed forces and Iran’s proxy’s in Iraq? If so, wouldn’t that be a reason for us to stay there?
So, there are various interests to keep us in Afghanistan, and Pakistan.
[/quote]
Absolutely. Pakistan is also a massive threat to US and western national security.
Absolutely.
Obama wants to get re-elected so he’s trying to pretend that he’s stabilised Iraq and brought the troops home. Strategic blunder. Besides US has troops in Kuwait and Bahrain.
[quote]
Once the US troops leave, do your forsee a war between Sunni Al-Qaeda Saudi backed forces and Iran’s proxy’s in Iraq? If so, wouldn’t that be a reason for us to stay there?[/quote]
Saudi government doesn’t back al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda does get funds from oil sheiks in the kingdom though. US forces are not really leaving the region. However this withdrawal will embolden Iran and further Iranian interests in Iraq.
and why would the ISI want to wage war against the West? To stop us from aiding India and making them economically or militarily stronger, perhaps?
[/quote]
That’s the old Pakistani nationalist agenda that the ISI used to direct Kashmiri militants and the Taliban in Afghanistan towards Pakistani interests. Between the period 2002-2006 al-Qaeda and Islamic fundamentalist elements in the ISI and army infiltrated these groups and turned their agenda into a global jihad against the west. Al-Qaeda also infiltrated the powerful autonomous tribes of the North West Frontier Province and the Federally Adminstrated Tribal Areas. In December 2007 after the assassination of Benazir Bhutto they formed the Pakistani taliban(Tehrik-i-taliban) and the term ‘neo-taliban’ came into use to describe these various groups that now share al-Qaeda’s global agenda.