Hello:

Future President Obama, during the debates, said he would attack Al Qaeda INSIDE Pakistan... He was derided by the right for that policy. They kept saying that Pakistan is our ally and they're a sovereign nation...

But, guess what?? Yup, the dufus in chief sent our forces into Pakistan to attack Al Qaeda.

Yo for the future pres.

excon

Maybe we should protest at Kent State over this "invasion" .Either Pakistan is with the AQ jihadists , or against them. When President Bush made that comment he was mocked even though it was a clear message to the government of Musharraf . Now he is gone and as far as I can tell Pakistan is leaderless. He was perhaps the only reason we were showing any restraint.

Perhaps some new ROEs now that Petraeus is in charge there .The news is vague at this point.

I think anyway that Pakistan lost any claim to the territory when they ceded it to the Taliban /AQ coalition of jihadistan. If the Pakis don't want us to cross the border then they should do the things necessary to enforce the rule of law in the border territories .

Edit :The US military in Afghanistan said its forces were not involved.But again . The news is not clear on this TaskForce 88 does not report direct to the command structure as it is a hunter /killer force assigned to take down al Qaeda and the Taliban's command structure.

Let me ask you ; does a Predator strike count as an invasion also ? If so we have been in Pakistan before.

Edit 2:US special operation teams raided an al Qaeda camp in Danda Saidgai in North Waziristan in March 2006.The air assault resulted in the death of Imam Asad a top AQ thug. My guess is that if we went in again it was to target a large prize.

Hello again, tom:

You DO understand that I'm not against attacking in Pakistan. We should have done it way back when.. I'm only pointing out the hypocrisy of the right...

By the way, what change are the Republicans running against? Themselves?? I think so. THEY were, after all, the ones running the show for MOST of the last 8 years. And, I don't have to remind you, that McCain is the consummate Washington INSIDER.

But, I digress.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, tom:

You DO understand that I'm not against attacking in Pakistan. We should have done it way back when.. I'm only pointing out the hypocrisy of the right.....

By the way, what change are the Republicans running against? Themselves???? I think so. THEY were, after all, the ones running the show for MOST of the last 8 years. And, I don't have to remind you, that McCain is the consummate Washington INSIDER.

But, I digress.

excon

---

And Biden is not?

So you can brag that your guy has NO experience and his second is a "consummate Washington INSIDER"?

I think it best to remember that Pakistan DOES have nuclear weapons.

That fact alone is cause for extreme caution when dealing with them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by progunr

I think it best to remember that Pakistan DOES have nuclear weapons...That fact alone is cause for extreme caution when dealing with them.

---

Hello prog:

They have about 6 or 8 of 'em - which is plenty. If we don't do something pretty soon, they're going to be in Bin Laden's hands.

Is the dufus going to sit back and let that happen?? I think so.

Come on prog, tell me how safe the dufus has made us.

excon

Ex
In fairness ,and you know I have disagreed with some of McCain's agenda ; McCain has frequently locked horns with his own party. Ron Paul has been in Congress since forever ,even longer than McCain but you call him a change agent.

I'm not so concerned about their nukes unless they are transferred into the wrong hands As I said ;we sort of forced a reluctant Musharraf to go along with us . Because of that we still have a long land supply route for our troops in Afghanistan. Do you really think we could maintain our presence there supplying them through the former Russian republics alone ?We need a secure land supply route and that runs through Pakistan. We could not handle Pakistan like a bull in a china shop despite all our wishes to do so .

Hello again, tom:

Every time we have one of these discussions, I want to refer to the past where the mistake that brought our present crisis, happened.

ALL of this could have been prevented if we got Bin Laden at Tora Bora. The dufus let him slip away and re-establish himself, in full, in Pakistan.

I don't know what to do now about it.

excon

PS> Yes, I'm a Monday Morning QB. But, I ain't been elected to nothing either.

Do you believe we could've gotten him at Tora Bora or that we didn't ? The fact is that our swift response in Afghanistan instead of a multi-month build up of forces ,and as I said a tricky supply route meant that we could not deploy the full force of US ground troops there. That is why we relied on our primary ally in the country ;the Northern alliance to execute the ground war. That is a fact. More or fewer forces there would not have changed the outcome.

Hello again, tom:

It sounds like the same claptrap about the "progress" we were making in Iraq for the first four years, when in fact we were LOSING.

Look, I don't know the specific tactics nor the strategy behind it. I rely on you to do that kind of stuff. All I know is, for whatever reason, we didn't get him. You say it wasn't the dufus's fault. I don't buy it. IF we needed a surge there, why wasn't THAT called for?

Nope. If the dufus is going to be compared to the guy who had a placard on his desk with the words, "The buck stops here", then the Bin Laden buck stops at the dufus's door.

excon

You do realize that the so called decisive battle of Tora Bora occurred Dec of 2001 a short 3 months after 9-11 ? There was no chance or time for the type of surge you envision where hundreds of thousands of US Troops surround the area and prevent any escape. We relied on the CIA to select local Afghans we could trust. Unfortunately ,some of them,their loyalties were divided. Either way it was no sure thing that the presence of extra US troops would've made a difference in the outcome.
You can call it a failure of Bush if you want to but I don't .And I certainly don't buy the narratives of the CIA agents there who now claim that the presence of extra US troops would've been decisive. That sounds like CYA after we pretty much adopted those agents strategy in the 1st place.
Tommy Franks wrote in his book "We don't know to this day whether Mr. bin Laden was at Tora Bora in December 2001. Some intelligence sources said he was; others indicated he was in Pakistan at the time...Tora Bora was teeming with Taliban and Qaeda operatives ... but Mr. bin Laden was never within our grasp."
So it becomes a question of who do you believe ?

I will point out to you however that Tora Bora was a victory The AQ fighters and Taliban fighters were driven from the field . The remnants that were not killed or captured escaped into Pakistan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, tom:

Every time we have one of these discussions, I want to refer to the past where the mistake that brought our present crisis, happened.

ALL of this could have been prevented if we got Bin Laden at Tora Bora. The dufus let him slip away and re-establish himself, in full, in Pakistan.

I dunno what to do now about it.

excon

PS> Yes, I'm a Monday Morning QB. But, I ain't been elected to nothing either.

---

Actually, Clinton had the best shot at him, and refused to take it.