Redstate

How wude!

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

They should have bombed them back to the stone age that's where their mentality is anyways

Bush lied, people died.

n/t

...some members of the left will react that way, but speaking as someone far to the left of you, jsteele, I can assure you I would have had little problem going to war with Pakistan in 2001-2002 if they had not offered to work with us. Additionallly, I hope we will act aggressively in the province the Pakistanis have ceded to terrorists, assuming we are not doing so already.

I give the Bush Administration credit for the way it has handled the Pakistanis, especially as we try to create closer ties with India. This is such delicate work, hard for anybody, but I think the Bush Administration has done about the best that can be expected.

Perhaps if you limited your generalizations, you would realize that not everyone to the left of you supports retreat or PC cowardice when it comes to fighting Al-Q or other forms of radical Islam.

are your friend.

If you truly stand where you do it must be very lonely for you at local Democratic Party meetings. I'm quite certain that there are some on the left who do not see things in the extreme, but the public face of the party certainly doesn't represent them.

John
---------
True, you can sit outside in Paris and drink little cups of coffee, but why this is more stylish than sitting inside and drinking large glasses of whisky, I don't know.
P.J O'Rourke

win against India if they can't even beat inbred mountain people in Waziristan? Can they really put those nuclear bombs on an accurate missile?

I find it hard t believe Armitage, of all people, would make such a blunt and aggressive statement to anybody, let alone Musharraf.

http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com

"If they attack us, it means we're winning." - Rush Limbaugh

a complete set of cojones to be found within the State Department it is obvious that Armitage was bearing a message that didn't come from Colin Powell.

that Musharraf is telling the truth. Sometimes protecting himself means he has to appeal to his people's Muslim sensitivities.

It's possible he is telling the truth because the ISI created the Taliban, Pakistan had nuclear bombs since at least 1998 and Wahabi-funded madrassas were absolutely everywhere in the country. It's also true that simply buying off Musharraf would not have compelled as much good-faith cooperation, considering how many people in Pakistan's government and military lean towards a jihadist mindset.

but one has to think he would have come up with a lie that didn't make Bush look strong and him look like a wuss.

If he'd said Bush threatened to bomb Pakistan back to the stone age and he replied "yo mamma, bring on the martyrdom" then I say he was lying.

Why lie to make yourself look weak?

It is not that different from what Bush was saying in public: you are either with us or against us, remember? The Taleban was given an ultimatum to expel or kill UBL and the two countries that recognised the Taleban were given an ultimatum to disown them. They both did, sharpish.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

to hear a response from any but most radical left. An invasion of Pakistan would/could have been justified and supported in good faith as fighting the roots of terrorism, unlike our unwarranted nation building exercise in Iraq, using the GWOT as our excuse.

We had a cast-iron case for invading Iraq, and the international left opposed it every step of the way. Why do you imagine that they would support military action against Pakistan?

The left is always hawkish about places we haven't gone and don't intend to go, such as NK. Or places where we have no national security interests, such as the Balkans. If Bush came out with a plan tomorrow for an invasion of Pakistan, how many on the left would support it? About the same number that support Iraq.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

Your argument could have ended at the word 'terrorism' without losing any of its force. Tacking on the gratuitous talking point creates an attractive nuisance; an unwelcome incitement to threadjack. You may safely assume that the merits of our nation's activities in Iraq have been debated in full, both in this forum and in the country at large. You cannot possibly have anything new to add, and even if you did, this was not the place for it. Liberals who incite threadjacks by throwing gratuitous snark spears are frequently sent to do it somewhere else.

Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.

You make a valid point. This is a thread about Pakistan, a known funder and harborer of terrorists. So why didn't we bomb them back to the stone age again?

the quiet threat of doing so was taken seriously and worked well for five years. I would contend that the sniveling, sniping and backbiting/stabbing from certain parties that shall remain nameless may have made him think the threat has now empty.

John
---------
True, you can sit outside in Paris and drink little cups of coffee, but why this is more stylish than sitting inside and drinking large glasses of whisky, I don't know.
P.J O'Rourke

Couldn't resist, eh?

John
---------
True, you can sit outside in Paris and drink little cups of coffee, but why this is more stylish than sitting inside and drinking large glasses of whisky, I don't know.
P.J O'Rourke

A case parallel to Iraq, which provides sufficient evidence to support an invasion of Pakistan might be a good starting point. Just a few simple points like a war (and non compliance with cease fire terms), non compliance with countless UN Resolutions, Non compliance with IAEA, hostile action against our forces, genocide, world condemnation, Senate Resolution for war...

Pakistan - US relations are very complex. For example, this statement is getting more play in the Western press than in Pakistan. What is the story in their newspapers right next to this? "US will take care of Pakistan's Economic Needs". Frankly, Pakistan is used to posturing and tough talk, it is part of the culture. Listen to the way he recounts this as somewhat a matter of fact. This was the right decision in a relationship we actually understand, a fact this State Department never gets credit for.

There is much that goes on behind the scenes and some of the cases Steriff cites are indeed troublesome. However, I also suspect there is much activity (military and otherwise, previously noted here on RS) that is part of our complex relationship.

Finally, I suspect if OBL met a LGB they would lodge a protest and high five each other behind the curtain.

"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"

from Pakistan than we did in Lebanon.

nt

must, from time to time, be reinforced. Some people have short memories.

John
---------
True, you can sit outside in Paris and drink little cups of coffee, but why this is more stylish than sitting inside and drinking large glasses of whisky, I don't know.
P.J O'Rourke

John
---------
True, you can sit outside in Paris and drink little cups of coffee, but why this is more stylish than sitting inside and drinking large glasses of whisky, I don't know.
P.J O'Rourke

http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com

"If they attack us, it means we're winning." - Rush Limbaugh