rjwould wrote:
How could we have let this happen?
People forgot that it was Reagan, not Clinton, who started the policy of responding with missiles rather than men. When Reagan did it, it was genius; when Clinton did it, it was cowardice.
Thus is the danger of party politics. Politicians are more loyal to their party than to their country.
Taking the war to Pakistan.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Taking the war to Pakistan.
Yea what the hell. Except I think they should do a thorough fly over of any suspected areas Bin Laden might be hiding in. Just get it over with. Then Bush can pat himself on the back from now until eternity.
I AM AWESOME MAN
Taking the war to Pakistan.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/a ... ge_id=1770
Can't find a link for the documentary they mention or I would post it. Must admit reagan went up in my estimation after watching it.
That's twice we've come close to all out nuclear war-it's amazing what comes out after the thirty and sixty year moratoriums. Maybe if politicians knew they would be looked at a bit sooner they might behave better. At least before neither side wanted to go to war now we have nutters that would start one given half a chance.
posted by scrat
This is a pickle, what we should do is go in just one time and take the nuclear toys away from that dimwit dictator of ours. I fear those getting into the wrong hands.
You are right to fear but the stupidest thing that could happen is for the Bush administration to delude themselves there is a simple military solution and use force in Pakistan. That would really set that region on fire and make certain the Islamic fundamentalists get what they want. War between India and Pakistan is perhaps the most likely outcome as i can't see India sitting back and watching Islamic fundamentalists get hold of Pakistan without doing something. India if you recall is the democratic, non Islamic state next door to Pakistan that also has nuclear weapons developed to protect itself from pakistan. Nor are china and russia going to be too thrilled either.
Too bad the bush administration didn't keep trying to stop Pakistan acquiring nuclear weapons with the same enthusiasm they tried to stop Iraq and Iran even worse when they flog them planes capable of delivering them on other countries. Yet again backing up military dictatorships and then wondering why things go wrong.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4384597.stm
Pakistan struck a deal with the US for F-16 jets in the late 1980s, but Washington blocked the sale in 1990 as a sanction against Pakistan's nuclear weapons programme.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/26/polit ... itary.html
But Larry Pressler, a former Republican senator from South Dakota who gave his name to the amendment that halted the F-16 transfers to Pakistan in the 1990's, said Friday that the decision to go ahead with the jet-fighter deal "is a mistake."
"I know that we want to be friends with Pakistan because of the terrorism thing, but you don't fight terrorism with F-16's," he said in a telephone interview. "F-16's are capable of nuclear delivery. That's about the only reason Pakistan wants them. The only people they are in a fight with are in India. India now will have to get the same thing somehow. So it raises tensions and stakes without meeting any of our objectives."
Can't find a link for the documentary they mention or I would post it. Must admit reagan went up in my estimation after watching it.
That's twice we've come close to all out nuclear war-it's amazing what comes out after the thirty and sixty year moratoriums. Maybe if politicians knew they would be looked at a bit sooner they might behave better. At least before neither side wanted to go to war now we have nutters that would start one given half a chance.
posted by scrat
This is a pickle, what we should do is go in just one time and take the nuclear toys away from that dimwit dictator of ours. I fear those getting into the wrong hands.
You are right to fear but the stupidest thing that could happen is for the Bush administration to delude themselves there is a simple military solution and use force in Pakistan. That would really set that region on fire and make certain the Islamic fundamentalists get what they want. War between India and Pakistan is perhaps the most likely outcome as i can't see India sitting back and watching Islamic fundamentalists get hold of Pakistan without doing something. India if you recall is the democratic, non Islamic state next door to Pakistan that also has nuclear weapons developed to protect itself from pakistan. Nor are china and russia going to be too thrilled either.
Too bad the bush administration didn't keep trying to stop Pakistan acquiring nuclear weapons with the same enthusiasm they tried to stop Iraq and Iran even worse when they flog them planes capable of delivering them on other countries. Yet again backing up military dictatorships and then wondering why things go wrong.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4384597.stm
Pakistan struck a deal with the US for F-16 jets in the late 1980s, but Washington blocked the sale in 1990 as a sanction against Pakistan's nuclear weapons programme.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/26/polit ... itary.html
But Larry Pressler, a former Republican senator from South Dakota who gave his name to the amendment that halted the F-16 transfers to Pakistan in the 1990's, said Friday that the decision to go ahead with the jet-fighter deal "is a mistake."
"I know that we want to be friends with Pakistan because of the terrorism thing, but you don't fight terrorism with F-16's," he said in a telephone interview. "F-16's are capable of nuclear delivery. That's about the only reason Pakistan wants them. The only people they are in a fight with are in India. India now will have to get the same thing somehow. So it raises tensions and stakes without meeting any of our objectives."
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Taking the war to Pakistan.
Scrat;754431 wrote: I don't remember Raygun using missiles, I do remember the Lebanon thingy, hell I was on the beach. He did set a lot of precedents, he put the Pershings in europe which served as a catalist for change in Russia and risked a nuclear war. Glad he did not use them. I can't remember him using much else.
I don't think this is just Bush's foreign policy. IT'S NATIONAL POLICY. I suspect the next president will carry it on as the world stands by and does nothing. As a matter of fact I do believe it will become worse.
Sorry, it was bombs, not missiles, but I think my point still stands.
Bombing of Libya (April 1986)
I don't think this is just Bush's foreign policy. IT'S NATIONAL POLICY. I suspect the next president will carry it on as the world stands by and does nothing. As a matter of fact I do believe it will become worse.
Sorry, it was bombs, not missiles, but I think my point still stands.
Bombing of Libya (April 1986)
-
freetobeme
- Posts: 258
- Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2007 1:05 pm
Taking the war to Pakistan.
fuzzy butt;754474 wrote: See gentleman ? what did I tell you:mad:
about what?
about what?
senior's politics and discussion
Taking the war to Pakistan.
Scrat;754333 wrote: Here we go again. Does anyone remember Cambodia? This is a pickle, what we should do is go in just one time and take the nuclear toys away from that dimwit dictator of ours. I fear those getting into the wrong hands.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/washi ... ref=slogin
So what's new? This has been going on for the last sixty years and more.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/washi ... ref=slogin
So what's new? This has been going on for the last sixty years and more.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Taking the war to Pakistan.
Scrat;754533 wrote: Don't believe everything you read. Look it up if you like but Ronnie Raygun deployed the NATO missile systems AFTER he saw the movie "The Day After". Follow your own advice. 
Taking the war to Pakistan.
Scrat;754533 wrote: Don't believe everything you read. Look it up if you like but Ronnie Raygun deployed the NATO missile systems AFTER he saw the movie "The Day After". That fool was ready to kill millions in order to win, for the sake of his reputation. It is my dream to one day **** on his grave.
The writer of this column does a magnificent job of blowing things out of proportion also but that's another topic.
I really wonder what India is going to do in this latest debacle, I agree that she is going to be very nervous about what is going on to the NW of her. I don't think it will spill over though.
Yes I did know that. At least he seems to have appreciated the consequences of a nuclear war. I wonder about the present administration as they seem to believe wars will be short with few casualties with everybody cheering on the Americans and the overwhelming military power will win the day-despite all the evidence to the contrary. They might win the shooting war but not the peace-You would think after vietnam no one would kid themselves.
I really wonder what India is going to do in this latest debacle, I agree that she is going to be very nervous about what is going on to the NW of her. I don't think it will spill over though
Depends who wins out. Religious extremists are, by definition, not rational beings. They don't like their fellow monotheists wonder what they think about hindus? They might see attacking india as an easier option. Will christian fundamentalists in the US be happy to see their govt acting in support of a bunch of heathens? Even is they are a democracy.
The writer of this column does a magnificent job of blowing things out of proportion also but that's another topic.
I really wonder what India is going to do in this latest debacle, I agree that she is going to be very nervous about what is going on to the NW of her. I don't think it will spill over though.
Yes I did know that. At least he seems to have appreciated the consequences of a nuclear war. I wonder about the present administration as they seem to believe wars will be short with few casualties with everybody cheering on the Americans and the overwhelming military power will win the day-despite all the evidence to the contrary. They might win the shooting war but not the peace-You would think after vietnam no one would kid themselves.
I really wonder what India is going to do in this latest debacle, I agree that she is going to be very nervous about what is going on to the NW of her. I don't think it will spill over though
Depends who wins out. Religious extremists are, by definition, not rational beings. They don't like their fellow monotheists wonder what they think about hindus? They might see attacking india as an easier option. Will christian fundamentalists in the US be happy to see their govt acting in support of a bunch of heathens? Even is they are a democracy.
-
changinglanes
- Posts: 72
- Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2008 6:26 am
Taking the war to Pakistan.
In my opinion Iranian prez was clever at diverting US attention to wards him. Our real concerns should be focused on Pakistan. They present the most danger to USA.
I knew (I'm no rocket scientist) upon the return of Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto would be assassinated within in a month or 2 after her return. Politics leave a bad taste in my mouth and trying to keep up with the lies when they own the media is next to impossible.
Pakistan is the rel threat and I believe if Bin Ladin is alive that is where he is hiding in the N.W. mountain regions along with all of the other psycho extremist.
I knew (I'm no rocket scientist) upon the return of Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto would be assassinated within in a month or 2 after her return. Politics leave a bad taste in my mouth and trying to keep up with the lies when they own the media is next to impossible.
Pakistan is the rel threat and I believe if Bin Ladin is alive that is where he is hiding in the N.W. mountain regions along with all of the other psycho extremist.
Taking the war to Pakistan.
changinglanes;755116 wrote: In my opinion Iranian prez was clever at diverting US attention to wards him. Our real concerns should be focused on Pakistan. They present the most danger to USA.
I knew (I'm no rocket scientist) upon the return of Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto would be assassinated within in a month or 2 after her return. Politics leave a bad taste in my mouth and trying to keep up with the lies when they own the media is next to impossible.
Pakistan is the rel threat and I believe if Bin Ladin is alive that is where he is hiding in the N.W. mountain regions along with all of the other psycho extremist.
Are you seriously suggesting that the iranian president is deliberately annoying the US to detract attention from Pakistan?
How on earth is Pakistan a threat to the US? Conceivably some nutter- who may or may not be pakistani but is more likely to be another saudi with a pakistani weapon they have bought-might set off a nuclear weapon in the US somewhere or carry out some other terrorist attack but as a credible threat that poses any real danger leading to the downfall of the US you have got to be kidding. India, Russia and China (russia and china both have muslims as part of their populations) have got more to worry about from pakistan, especially India.
On the other hand Saudi and the other opec countries is in a position to really screw over your economy-switch from trading for oil in dollars to euros or just cut off supplies and the US economy is in trouble. Worry about your dependence on foreign oil and whether you are ready to go to war to control the middle east as some of your nuttier countrymen want to do.
I knew (I'm no rocket scientist) upon the return of Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto would be assassinated within in a month or 2 after her return. Politics leave a bad taste in my mouth and trying to keep up with the lies when they own the media is next to impossible.
Pakistan is the rel threat and I believe if Bin Ladin is alive that is where he is hiding in the N.W. mountain regions along with all of the other psycho extremist.
Are you seriously suggesting that the iranian president is deliberately annoying the US to detract attention from Pakistan?
How on earth is Pakistan a threat to the US? Conceivably some nutter- who may or may not be pakistani but is more likely to be another saudi with a pakistani weapon they have bought-might set off a nuclear weapon in the US somewhere or carry out some other terrorist attack but as a credible threat that poses any real danger leading to the downfall of the US you have got to be kidding. India, Russia and China (russia and china both have muslims as part of their populations) have got more to worry about from pakistan, especially India.
On the other hand Saudi and the other opec countries is in a position to really screw over your economy-switch from trading for oil in dollars to euros or just cut off supplies and the US economy is in trouble. Worry about your dependence on foreign oil and whether you are ready to go to war to control the middle east as some of your nuttier countrymen want to do.