Let's say we were to go ahead with the Democrats idea of moving 150,000 troops from Iraq to fight in Afghanistan . Then we lose Pakistan's cooperation in the effort .

Afghanistan is land locked with Pakistan and Iran owning the direct routes from the nearest ocean . Currently 75 percent of all of our supplies flow either through or over Pakistan.40 percent of the fuel shipped to U.S. forces comes directly from Pakistani refineries.

How would we supply that many troops with the supplies needed to conduct long term operations ? An interesting logistical dilemma.

I have my thoughts on the subject but I'd like to hear yours.

Dark_crow

“Although supplies through Pakistan were not currently affected, Morrell said, "we are not taking it for granted. There are efforts underway right now to figure out contingency supply lines to our troops in Afghanistan if it becomes necessary."


In Islamabad, Pakistan's director-general of military operations, Lt.-Gen. Ahmad Shujaa Pasha told reporters that the state of emergency made no difference one way or another to the war against terrorism.

He vowed that the army would bring stability back to Swat within six weeks.”


This is just another case of Idealism in action; the sacrifice of the pragmatic for a principle.

Just as our government has had to do on so many occasions, we need to stay the course with Musharraf, not because it is the ‘Good’ thing to do, but rather the ‘Right’ thing to do.

Pakistan Army Says Anti-Terror Campaign Not Affected by Emergency -- 11/15/2007

excon

Hello DC:

The principle being what???? That even though we mouth the words about supporting democracy and freedom in the world, we support a despot????

And you think the world is fooled????

There's only one group of people in the world who are being fooled - and they are us.

excon

speechlesstx

Why let a fact get in the way of a good conspiracy? In all fairness though, he did mention oil in 2005:


But leave it to the left to profoundly misinterpret that:


To which the moonbats left these comments:


Let's see, he mentioned democracy, freedom, a "murderous ideology," "a test of American credibility and resolve," intimidation, terrorists, "totalitarian ideologies," "the bombings of the Marine barracks in Lebanon, the first World Trade Center attack, the killing of American soldiers in Somalia, the destruction of two U.S. embassies in Africa, and the attack on the USS Cole," 9/11, responsibilities, "murderous regimes," insurgents, "a brutal campaign of terror," killing "innocent men and women and children" and "that when America gives its word, America keeps its word" - among other things.

The only thing the left got out of that was 'oil.'

tomder55

Here are a couple of quotes from Barak Obama's National Security speech at the Woodrow Wilson Center .

BarackObama.com | Sam Graham-Felsen's Blog: Senator Obama Delivers Address on National Security

I do not think his policy is viable . But he should be taking a fresh look at former Sec. Def. Donald Rumsfeld's thoughts on transformation of the military .Victory there requires lighter forces and unconventional means . President Bush and Rumsfeld realized this from the beginning . That is why there wasn't a massive presence .That is why we let the Northern Alliance do the bulk of the fighting during OEF. That is why our special forces were riding horses into battle . The whole line that "we took our eyes off the prize" is baloney .

Bobby is right . Taking on Iran would open up a direct supply route to Afghanistan.

Dark_crow

Perhaps if you had read further you would not need to ask the question…”Just as our government has had to do on so many occasions, we need to stay the course with Musharraf, not because it is the ‘Good’ thing to do, but rather the ‘Right’ thing to do.”

So what am I trying to hide?

excon

Hello Steve:

"If Zarqawi and bin Laden gain control of Iraq, they would create a new training ground for future terrorist attacks; they'd seize oil fields to fund their ambitions; they could recruit more terrorists by claiming an historic victory over the United States and our coalition."

I dunno. Sounds to me like he's saying we better grab it first, and they made us do it.

Yeah, I've heard that kind of spin before. Bwa, ha ha ha.

excon

excon

Hello again, DC:

I found NO difference between the sentences. Doing a thing because it's the RIGHT thing to do, is the SAME thing as doing it for a principle?

I don't think you're hiding a thing. You believe the Bush schtick. I don't.

excon

ETWolverine

Steve,

Bush mentioned seizure of the oil fields by terrorists as a strategic result of pulling out of Iraq, not as a justification for having gone there in the first place. He listed that among the many other strategic results of a pullout. But you are right... all the Libs got out of what he said is "oil".

The Libs are like a Beavis and Butthead cartoon...

Butthead: "Heh heh... he said the word 'oil'..."
Beavis: "Sheah heh heh...That Bush is such a buttmunch..."

Geeze, they really need to grow up.

Elliot

Dark_crow

Sorry you misunderstand what I said, but I can’t help you. I am what I am, and that’s all that I am and I don’t make room for word games.

excon

Hello again, DC:

That might all go away if you understood the language better. But, I'll try to work with you in any case.

excon