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

[Ryokan]

I think the problem, Jimmy, isn't that what we are doing isn't working, just that we could do alot better. I expected the casualties from the invasion to be higher than 500. But if we had more American troops, rather than vacillating blue helmets, who pull out at the first sign of trouble anywhere, we would be better off. And only McCain wants to do that.

[$cirisme]

- 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.

I would definately agree that having Pakistan as an ally is a bad idea. Hopefully it won't come back to bite us... but that is unlikely.

[Jeiel]

Off-topic, but I just have to say it.

Wow, I just looked into John McCain, and I must say he has captured my heart.
(Hey I was just 15 in the 2000 elections )

Kerry is just gonna be another Clinton,which is even worse then Bush.
(Which is why I wish Dean would've won over Kerry, he would've had my vote, even though he isn't pro-life.)

But McCain has it all.
Kerry is a wimp compared to what McCain stood thru in Vietnam, and he is fiscally responsible.
(And, I think McCain would've handeld 9/11 much better seeing his great military achievements.)

Plus, I think he would've made much more progress against abortion compared to Bush, who just uses abortion as a carrot to get pro-lifers to vote on him, even though he has made no progress, despite having a majority in Congress and the white house.

All ye conservatives, tired of defending Dubya? You should've gotten someone like McCain.

[Epoetker]

Vork: If we neocons were really interested in that type of "self-serving power lust" that you speak of, we would be following J. Higgins' advice. He's the one who wants the U.S. to be held responsible for every terrorist death in every country around the world.

I hate to tell you this, Jimmy, but responsibility is completely tied up in power. And keeping the power over and consequent responsibility for Iraq's governance is the very last thing we wish to do, and why we haven't overrun the place with troops.

Remember Haiti? The US did the complete-control-set-up-a-paradise-and-leave bit. Way earlier in the century. Didn't go over so well.

(Looks at gas prices) Man, I wish we were stealing oil...

[AtheistArchon]

Wow, I just looked into John McCain, and I must say he has captured my heart.

- I like McCain as well, even if he is a Republican. I'd vote for him if he ran, actually, because I don't think he suffers from many of the stereotypical problems I have with modern-day conservatives.