olyclimber Posted June 12, 2008 Posted June 12, 2008 so are they the reason why we don't have bin laden by now? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7449060.stm Quote
Dechristo Posted June 12, 2008 Posted June 12, 2008 They were maligned in Vertical Limit. Which, sadly, was the film's only flaw. Quote
olyclimber Posted June 12, 2008 Author Posted June 12, 2008 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,365821,00.html Quote
scott_harpell Posted June 12, 2008 Posted June 12, 2008 Hmmm... If someone fired an RPG at me, I think I would have done the same thing. Especially given the location of the "attack." That is a real hotspot for AlQueda. Seems to me that there was a communication breakdown between the forces or the "Pakistani" soldiers might have not been who they said they were. Quote
olyclimber Posted June 12, 2008 Author Posted June 12, 2008 more than this particular incident, i'm wondering why the "war on terror" has not shown up in pakistan to begin with. given their relationship with the arise of the taliban and the existing elements in pakistan....coupled with the rumor that bin laden is hidden in the border region makes it seem (from the arm chair) that more of the incidents SHOULD be happening in looking for osama. but then i'm not even sure where that is on the priority list these days. Quote
STP Posted June 13, 2008 Posted June 13, 2008 more than this particular incident, i'm wondering why the "war on terror" has not shown up in pakistan to begin with. given their relationship with the arise of the taliban and the existing elements in pakistan....coupled with the rumor that bin laden is hidden in the border region makes it seem (from the arm chair) that more of the incidents SHOULD be happening in looking for osama. but then i'm not even sure where that is on the priority list these days. Talking about priorities... Why Is Bush Helping Saudi Arabia Build Nukes? ---WSJ Quote
olyclimber Posted June 15, 2008 Author Posted June 15, 2008 http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article4138791.ece Quote
olyclimber Posted June 30, 2008 Author Posted June 30, 2008 http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2008024853_binladen30.html Quote
kevbone Posted June 30, 2008 Posted June 30, 2008 so are they the reason why we don't have bin laden by now? Nope...this is the reason. Quote
olyclimber Posted July 1, 2008 Author Posted July 1, 2008 latest from the lib media http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=5275304&page=1 Quote
akhalteke Posted July 2, 2008 Posted July 2, 2008 But sending U.S. forces into Pakistan would be controversial and risky. To say the very fucking least. What does Pakistan have to say about this matter? I thought you guys were all about respecting the sovereignty of nations? Seems to me a slight deviation of course. You have no idea the logistics needed to pull this off with the current state of affairs. Quote
Serenity Posted July 2, 2008 Posted July 2, 2008 But sending U.S. forces into Pakistan would be controversial and risky. To say the very fucking least. What does Pakistan have to say about this matter? I thought you guys were all about respecting the sovereignty of nations? Seems to me a slight deviation of course. You have no idea the logistics needed to pull this off with the current state of affairs. Why don't you enlighten us? Quote
Hugh Conway Posted July 2, 2008 Posted July 2, 2008 Why don't you enlighten us? Fuck politics, got anymore cool pictures/movies from that neck of the woods? Quote
olyclimber Posted July 2, 2008 Author Posted July 2, 2008 But sending U.S. forces into Pakistan would be controversial and risky. To say the very fucking least. What does Pakistan have to say about this matter? I thought you guys were all about respecting the sovereignty of nations? Seems to me a slight deviation of course. You have no idea the logistics needed to pull this off with the current state of affairs. you should clarify who you mean by "you guys". the vast conspiracy against you? i'm just finding it interesting the power Pakistan apparently holds over the US. what ever happened to "if you ain't with us, you're against us?" The ultimate goal of the "war on terror" has definitely changed if one of the primary goals isn't to still to get the guy who masterminded the reason we went to war in the first place. a guy who apparently is still plotting against us? makes me think we are losing the war on terror. i'll leave the logistics to what it would take to take out Osama to the experts, but from an arm chair it seems like one opportunely placed predator with sufficient munitions could do the job. and yes, agree with my stalker Hugh, pics pleez. Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted July 2, 2008 Posted July 2, 2008 Pakistan isn't just a smaller, dustier U.S. where people have, on average, better tans. It's structured completely differently, and that makes things complicated. Our military is completely loyal and obedient to the Executive Branch. Pakistan's military and intelligence services are not; they are rife with divided loyalties are are a political force in their own right that must be negotiated with by the Pakistani government. "Why doesn't Pakistan help us fight the WOT?" is a question that doesn't make sense in this context. Which Pakistan are we talking about? At any given time Pakistan's executive may have only some or little power over the military and intelligence services, never the the population at large, much of whom hate our fucking guts. In addition, Pakistan's got nukes; something that gives them a hell of a lot of bargaining power, as North Korea proved just recently. Finally, Pakistan is involved in a number of conflicts at present; a low level civil war, Kashmir, and the Taliban's shinanigans, to name a few. It's a very unstable country, and the U.S. doesn't need another government-less shithole like Iraq, particularly just as it's planning on stirring up yet another major clusterfuck with Iran. Our sway over a fractionalized Pakistan, given its instability and nuclear capability, is limited at best. On any given day, the best we can probably hope for is that they won't do anything completely fucked up. Quote
mattp Posted July 2, 2008 Posted July 2, 2008 You have no idea the logistics needed to pull this off with the current state of affairs. True that, but I'm wondering: why didn't Bush order him targeted back in 2001? Clearly, in announcing our plans for two months in advance, capturing Bin Ladin either dead or alive was not our objective. Quote
KaskadskyjKozak Posted July 2, 2008 Posted July 2, 2008 Why don't you enlighten us? Fuck politics, got anymore cool pictures/movies from that neck of the woods? fuck the pictures, I want to see couloir's avatars back Quote
Serenity Posted July 2, 2008 Posted July 2, 2008 Why don't you enlighten us? Fuck politics, got anymore cool pictures/movies from that neck of the woods? Inshallah Quote
olyclimber Posted July 14, 2008 Author Posted July 14, 2008 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25665381/ Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.