This does not say much for Obamas acceptance speech and his bit on "peace". He is either, outright dishonest, or at the mercy of his minders. Either way, this is not the right way to go about stabilizing this arena. Its more than insane. But then, why would we expect a different approach? US military may escalate 'war on terror' by striking deeper into Pakistan (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/18/us-pakistan-terror-air-strikes) Pentagon urges Obama to widen reach of strikes Islamabad warns of public backlash against move (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/19/pakistan-us-national-security) Can someone explain to me why these actions CANNOT be avoided?
Not broke enough yet. But wait, Social Security and Medicare is looming. The WOT will not be stopped due to any changes inside Pakistan or Afghanistan. The war is an effective drain on the US economy and they just haven't realised how f*cked they are.Yet.
Who are you that anyone should care to explain it to you? What is your interest in US affairs? Why do you care? And who are you to be telling the USA what to do and how to do it? Baron Max
1. I am StrawDog ... to you. 2. What is your interest in my interest in US affairs? 3. I care for justice and honesty. 4. Last I checked, this is a debating forum and I have the right to express my opinion, just as you have the right to counter my opinion with your own. OR WOULD YOU RATHER WE CLOSE THE BOARD DOWN SO WE CANNOT EXPRESS OUR OPINIONS?
According to your ideals of justice and honesty? Or according to the Muslim laws of revenge for percieved past slights? Personally, I like war ....I think we need more of it in the world, lots more! And not just little plaything wars, but big fuckin' wars with big fuckin' weapons and lots of big fuckin' bombs!! Baron Max
America's massive military aid package to Pakistan has come under scrutiny after allegations that as much as 70% of $5.4bn in assistance has been misspent. The official said the US did not know what happened to the remaining 70% - approximately $3.8bn - but suspected that some may have been spent on F-16 fighter jets or a new house for an army general. Other than that, he said, at least half the money was thought to have disappeared. "Who knows, the roads on Constitution Avenue [in Islamabad] may have been paved with part of this money." http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/27/pakistan.usa
My sweet child. You have no idea who or what I am. And yes, you can form opinions based on my posts, and yes, that would be all, just "your opinion". Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! You, unfortunately, are doing a great disfavor to my favorite great American, and, you are epitomizing why the Muslim world abhors the US.
Dont take Baron Max seriously. He was just born that way, he cant help it. Not all Americans are like that.
And what, do you suppose, would be the right way? And, in the first place, what does "stabilizing this arena" imply, and why should the US be interested in it?
Dialogue, not death and destruction. That has not worked now has it? That would be the Afghanistan theater of operations, which the recent surge is supposed to stabilize. They (Afghanistan and Pakistan) share a HUGE border and populace.
Nothing has worked because no one attacks the real problem, opium fields. If they were all destroyed then there would be no money to be made and no one would give a damn about Afghanistan. IMHO
If you destroy opium fields your destroying the income of a lot of people. Those people wont want anything to do with you then. I read somehwere a couple of years ago that the thing most Afghans were the most depressed about was that no aid is coming through. They were showing how their hospitals and factories were destroyed and or run down and promises were made, but nothing was done about it.
Like this? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! http://www.crikey.com.au/Politics/20070629-A-triumph-for-Afghan-democracy.html
My point is that if no opium was there no one would make any money to buy weapons to keep a war going. What you imply is that only with certain people in charge will "control" be had but that could easily change if those in charge wanted to use the opium for their own money making ways in the future. People change as do administrations so who is to say what will happen in 5 years from now with the Taliban in charge?
No problem my friend. American literature is sublime. No amount of Barons can change that. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Ah but that assumes that the Taliban need money to buy weapons. They just make them themselves. You cant stop the weapons trade there.
Dialogue with who, to what end? It's fine and good to prefer diplomacy to war, but that, on its own, doesn't add up to an actual strategy. Again, what does "stabilize" imply here?
Well, with whoever they are bombing. The "terrorists". the "Taliban", the "Pashtuns", "Al Qaeda", the "insert enemy of the day here". Of course, in conjunction with the "insert present puppet boss here", Pakistani government. Why are US forces in Afghanistan? Apparently they are occupying the country so that they can stabilize the populace into a democratic mindset.
