Pakistan & bin Laden... what's going on here?

[AtheistArchon]

- Today (this morning) Colin Powell announced that we are making Pakistan a non-NATO military ally. This gives them a certain amount of prestige, and much easier access to military hardware (because we will give it to them or sell it to them at much reduced prices). This is despite Pakistan's rigid Islamic system, human rights abuses, nuclear blunders of late, and overall beligerence towards the United States.

- Right now on CNN, there's an article saying that Musharraf has a "high value target" of al-Qaeda surrounded near the Afghanistan/Pakistan border.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapc...eda/index.html

- It may or may not be bin Laden. My personal guess is that it's going to be a false alarm. But if it is, and they capture him... what timing eh? Almost like Pakistan has been negotiating for upgraded diplomatic status while we wasted time in Iraq. And that little thing about selling nuclear secrets to loose-cannon governments... we'll overlook that as being a weapon of mass destruction for the time being, we like you. No really. That Saddam guy was too smelly, but you bathe more regularly... go ahead and develop and sell nuclear weapons and secrets. And here, have a barge of U.S. made Stinger missles too, just like kids in Afghanistan carry from back when we supplied the Mujahideen and the Taliban. I'm just sure you won't eventually use them against us.

[Noesis]

pakistan is smelling more and more like a bargain with the devil to me, and I believe we've made enough of those, including similar deals with Saddam Hussein, Manuel Noriega, Pinochet. I don't think we will ever learn the lesson that small short term gain and big long term pain both come with choices based on expediency.

[Jeiel]

I think the US is just a little desperate to have Islamic allies in it's combat against T'rism.

Maybe it will backfire, hopefully not.

It's a hard dilemma, to make or not to make friends with untrustworthy, but important people.

[BeHereNow]

Great.. you know what this means, right? When Jeb Bush gets elected president in 8 or 12 years, we'll be invading Pakistan and decrying them for having WMDs.

[Mujibur]

Yeah, looks like another move that has a high potential to come back and hurt in the future. Very shortsighted. I agree with working with Pakistan in the fight against terrorism but there has to be checks and balances for how much power and access to weapons is given to them. Once weapons are in the country and in the hands of the people, it is very hard to get them back or to control who gets their hands on them. After all, many of the stinger missiles and other weapons that Al-Qaeda got their hands on in Afghanistan were American weapons that had been given to Pakistani agencies to distribute to Afghan soldiers that were fighting the Russians, but the weapon distribution was done very recklessly. I read about that in "Holy War, Inc." by Peter Bergen, and don't remember the exact details as it is at home. I will have to check it tonight to confirm the history.

[Mujibur]

According to CBC's website as of a few minutes ago, it looks like the target is not Bin Laden, but the second in command - Ayman al-Zawahri.

ISLAMABAD, PAKISTAN - Ayman al-Zawahri, al-Qaeda's second-in-command next to Osama bin Laden, has been surrounded by Pakistani troops near the Afghan border, according to reports.

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/03/18.../alqaeda040318

[Chuck Lee]

From the sound of it on the news, the US is leaving it to Pakistan since it's on their side of the border. The US is watching the border in case any of the bad guys cross into Afghanistan.

That's going to make it tougher on the Pakistan troops, but then again it sounds like Pakistan doesn't like the idea of the US forces bombing territory where innocent Pakistani civilians could be hit accidentally. Pakistan does have to try and win the locals in the region over if it wants to fight the terrorists more effectively.

[Epoetker]

Today (this morning) Colin Powell announced that we are making Pakistan a non-NATO military ally. This gives them a certain amount of prestige, and much easier access to military hardware (because we will give it to them or sell it to them at much reduced prices). This is despite Pakistan's rigid Islamic system, human rights abuses, nuclear blunders of late, and overall beligerence towards the United States.

When the United States says "Jump," Musharraf says "How High?" This is the primary reason for Pakistans upgraded diplomatic status.

It may or may not be bin Laden. My personal guess is that it's going to be a false alarm. But if it is, and they capture him... what timing eh? Almost like Pakistan has been negotiating for upgraded diplomatic status while we wasted time in Iraq.

Do you believe Pervez Musharraf wants to launch attacks on the United States, pay money to terrorists to do so, or encourage in any way?

And that little thing about selling nuclear secrets to loose-cannon governments... we'll overlook that as being a weapon of mass destruction for the time being, we like you. No really.

Would we have gotten Abdul Khadeer Khan and his extremely extensive list of contacts without invasion if we hadn't had such close relations with Pakistan? Would you support a U.S. invasion of Pakistan?

That Saddam guy was too smelly, but you bathe more regularly... go ahead and develop and sell nuclear weapons and secrets. And here, have a barge of U.S. made Stinger missles too, just like kids in Afghanistan carry from back when we supplied the Mujahideen and the Taliban. I'm just sure you won't eventually use them against us.

Back up, back up. You seriously think that the United States is going to attack a nuclear-armed nation with conventional weapons if it ever goes Islamist rogue?

And are you forgetting India, full of Hindus who absolutely hate Pakistan's guts and would dearly love to get the chance to launch some of its own nukes on the place if it gets a chance to re-snag Kashmir?

Just stop talking about US politics until you're ready to take note of international politics.

[Jimmy Higgins]

When the United States says "Jump," Musharraf says "How High?" This is the primary reason for Pakistans upgraded diplomatic status.

You forgot the Military Dictator part in front of Musharraf.

Do you believe Pervez Musharraf wants to launch attacks on the United States, pay money to terrorists to do so, or encourage in any way?

After Afghanistan was invaded by the USSR, I doubt many Americans ever thought they would be a threat either.

Would we have gotten Abdul Khadeer Khan and his extremely extensive list of contacts without invasion if we hadn't had such close relations with Pakistan? Would you support a U.S. invasion of Pakistan?

• Edited by a Moderator •! These are all the same stupid reasons people made to support Hussein, ie lesser of two evils. OY! I can't stand the logic of the Neocons anymore. My brain is literally melting, trying to jump out of my head so it can press the HOME key so I go back to Yahoo.

And are you forgetting India, full of Hindus who absolutely hate Pakistan's guts and would dearly love to get the chance to launch some of its own nukes on the place if it gets a chance to re-snag Kashmir?

Ya, that almost makes sense. Nuke your neighbor. The US and USSR had the luxury of nuking themselves from thousands of miles away. You just don't nuke your neighbor and wash your hands of it.

Just stop talking about US politics until you're ready to take note of international politics.

Why don't you read some history books?

[Vorkosigan]

Damn it! These are all the same stupid reasons people made to support Hussein, ie lesser of two evils. OY! I can't stand the logic of the Neocons anymore. My brain is literally melting, trying to jump out of my head so it can press the HOME key so I go back to Yahoo.

It's easy to understand, Jimmy. It's just ruthless application of self-serving power lust. I think you should stop searching for rationality in the NeoCon heart, and instead listen to the way it speaks in the idiom of Goering, Molotov, Pol Pot and Chou En-lai.

Vorkosigan

[Jimmy Higgins]

It's easy to understand, Jimmy. It's just ruthless application of self-serving power lust. I think you should stop searching for rationality in the NeoCon heart, and instead listen to the way it speaks in the idiom of Goering, Molotov, Pol Pot and Chou En-lai.

Vorkosigan

It just really angers me. I mean Bush goes up today saying the US will stay the course. So did the Titanic! And then jerks around here make it sound like we want the Titanic to turn back round to Britain, when what we want is a course adjustment. We need as many troops in Iraq as possible. We need to overwhelm and crush these cells that have popped up due to the instablity caused by the removal of Hussein. But Bush doesn't want that. He wants to pretend that all will be well if we pray. I'm tired of putting our soldiers lives on the whim of a 2000 year late deity! The US needs regime change. We need to change our strategy of reaction in Iraq to one of action. And we need to do it before US soldiers are overwhelmed by mobs of rioters.

[Ryokan]

I totally agree, Jimmy, but neither candidate is interested in doing that. In fact, the only man who I think would, McCain, isn't running.

[spl_cadet]

The US-Pakistani alliance is similar to the US-Soviet alliance of WWII.

We need to overwhelm and crush these cells that have popped up due to the instablity caused by the removal of Hussein.

90% of these "cells" are thugs and criminals who get paid to launch attacks on the US. They've been dying quite rapidly.

[Jimmy Higgins]

The US-Pakistani alliance is similar to the US-Soviet alliance of WWII.

It is? It reminds me alot more of the US-Iraq alliance of the Iran-Iraq war.

90% of these "cells" are thugs and criminals who get paid to launch attacks on the US. They've been dying quite rapidly.

Wow. And that's almost substantiated by the mere fact of typing it. And was that Hotel attack a suicide attack? I don't believe it was.

[Jimmy Higgins]

I totally agree, Jimmy, but neither candidate is interested in doing that. In fact, the only man who I think would, McCain, isn't running.

I think Kerry is willing to change the course, certainly involve the UN to get more troops. He's gotta do something different. Bush's plan of stay the source has killed over 500 troops and has seen over 650 victims from bombing attacks. With absolutely no look of changing. The only real change is the attention of the attacks, from soldiers to civilians, Iraqi or Foreign.