Of course not. Starting wars with countries is not the way to fight terrorism. You would think we would have learned that by now. Fighting terrorism is a law enforcement, undercover, CIA, NOC, spying, working with intelligence officials in other countries, type battle. We won't win by invading countries that have nothing to do with it, killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians....that is exactly what is making us lose this war.

Well, as of right now, Pakistan isn't willing to let us into their country to go hunt for Bin Laden in the place where he is most likely hiding (like the cowardly piece of shit he is).

Therefore, the only way we can go hunting for him there is to invade Pakistan against their will.

Matt

Pakistan is just as capable of finding him, probably more so, than the US. The US and Pakistan are sharing intelligence, its not as if American troops on the ground would make any difference, other than angering millions of people and increasing the chance of Mousharraf getting couped. That would not really be a good thing would it?

Andrew

__________________
Ethanol is a fabulous solution to our energy dilemma because it will provide more fuel for us to drive around and look for food.

-- Unknown

Well, we invaded Iraq on the premise that we were there to avenge 9/11 didn't we? By the way, Pakistan has WMD's No doubt about it and you claim they won't let us search for Bin Laden. Sounds like more reason to go after them than Iraq. Doesn't it?

Like I said, the war on terror is a covert, undercover, spying, top secret NOC, CIA venture. Working WITH our allies such as Pakistan, NOT INVADING THEM. The kind people like Valerie Plame did when she was a NOC, tracking WMD around the world, undercover of Brewster Jennings the fake energy company used by CIA agents, and outted by Robert Novak in his follow-up article about Plame a few days after the initial outting of her CIA status.

So you're fine with sending in covert operatives against Pakistan's will to hunt for him?

Because Pakistan does not want our folks out there looking for him.

Matt

No legal way?????

Okay - I guess you really do believe there was no terrorism before Bush

I thought Iraq was about Oil, not about terror? So this shouldnt count. The correct number for the war on terror is 329.

Seriously though, body counts are pointless. If anything they show how damn good we are at fighting now, with the number of casualties very low when compared historically.

__________________
http://www.fairtax.org

Elminate all taxes on income and replace with a national sales tax.

its their motus operata

and it is stupid

While less soliders are getting killed. Iraqi numbers dead due to this war are looking like they are well over 200,000 and going towards 250,000.

The thing is in Iraq what has it accomlished except put the US in what increasing looks like an unwinnable position. Bush and Rumsfeld don't help the position by repeating the unrealistic situation on the ground and ignoring generals.

I know people are saying there is a lot of Bush bashing going on but the guy seems totally unwilling to see his mistakes and aknowleadge them. He is almost expecting people just to forget his continuing errors...

Not against. Working WITH. Pakistan, UK and USA worked together to stop the latest terrorist plan of blowing up planes from UK to USA, remember? That is the way to stop terrorism. The war in Iraq isn't stopping terrorism, it is CAUSING terrorism.

You guys are really flying off the handle lately! Under Clinton, the first WTC bombing, we saw the terrorists responsible picked up, jailed, tried and sentenced and they sit in jail today.

When Clinton tried to bomb Bin Laden, the UAE Royal family was visiting him and Clinton had to call off the bombers. When Bin Laden was getting thrown out of the Sudan, Clinton couldn't legally arrest him and begged the Saudis to take him and they refused. Iamwhatiseem, do you and Matt just conveniently forget facts when you discuss this stuff? WTF? You are both really smart guys, why do I have to discuss this stuff with you as if you have no idea about recent history?

Sam, you are not following me.

If Bin Laden is in Pakistan, he's in the border provinces where tribalism is the name of the game and the Pakistani government isn't really in control.

The only way you re going to find him there is to physically go look for him.

Pakistan won't let us do that.

So do we just go ahead and do it anyway?

Matt

Absolutely. It was better to let him kill 3,000 people before going after him, rather than apprehend him first and prevent the whole thing from ever happening.

Strange. You claim to be so horrified by all the death, but here you just defended the killing of 3,000.

__________________
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."

President George W. Bush, 8-5-2004

Carolina Politics Online

THIS IS REAL HOPE AND CHANGE!

Nope.

__________________
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."

President George W. Bush, 8-5-2004

Carolina Politics Online

THIS IS REAL HOPE AND CHANGE!