Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Bush is giving Pakistan a Veto over our Armed Forces

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Roland99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-23-04 09:16 PM
Original message
Bush is giving Pakistan a Veto over our Armed Forces
Why isn't the Kerry campaign ripping Bush to shreds over this???

We've all seen this story:

Bin Laden is located, says 9/11 panelist
http://www.dailystar.com/dailystar/dailystar/44654.php

In the interview, Lehman noted, "There is an American presence in the area, but we can't just send in troops. If we did, we could have another Vietnam, and the United States cannot afford that right now."

When pressed on why the United States couldn't send troops into the region to capture the world's No. 1 terrorist, Lehman said the Baluchistan region of the country is filled with militant fundamentalists who do not recognize the legitimacy of Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, a close ally of the United States.

"That is a region filled with Taliban and al-Qaida members," he said, acknowledging that Pakistan's security services also are filled with many who agree with bin Laden's beliefs and would aid him if U.S. Special Forces entered the region.

"Look," he said, "Musharraf already has had three assassination attempts on his life. He is trying to comply, but he is surrounded by people who do not agree with him. This is not like Afghanistan, where there was no compliance, and we had to go in.



So, because we are deferring to Musharraf, we're not going in after bin Laden? Are we really not concerned with the man responsible for the murders of ~3,000 innocent civilians and the destruction of the World Trade Center? Are we outsourcing the work to Pakistan or just merely letting them determine who we attack and when he attack them??

And why is the Kerry campaign not pouncing on this like a wolf on a stranded sheep?!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-23-04 09:17 PM
Response to Original message
1. It's a really stupid argument.
Seeing as US forces need Pakistan's permission to conduct any operations inside Pakistan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HysteryDiagnosis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-23-04 09:21 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. We didn't need Musharraf's blessings to go into Afghanistan... we didn't
ask for any permission from anyone... same goes for Iraq. Pakistan has nucular (sp) weapons. anyone who has nuclear weapons is safe for now. Nice message to send to the rest of the world.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-23-04 09:23 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. We kinda need the leader of Pakistan's permission to go into Pakistan.
Kerry can't say otherwise.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vpigrad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-23-04 09:52 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. Sigh, think about it
What part of "Bush lied" don't you understand? Bush said many, many, many times that he wouldn't let any country have a veto over his desires. Now he's claiming he let someone else veto his desires. He lied. We need to make sure the people know he lied. Well, lied again! We need to make sure the lies catch-up with him before the election so he can stop misleading the american people and the world.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Career Prole Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-23-04 09:22 PM
Response to Original message
3. "If we did, we could have another Vietnam...
...and the United States cannot afford that right now."

Sharp fella, that Lehman...two Vietnams in a single term would be bad news for shrub.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-23-04 09:28 PM
Response to Original message
5. Translation: Not enough troops
Because they're all in Iraq.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DulceDecorum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-23-04 09:32 PM
Response to Original message
6. The Pakistanis can be vile
Their "peacekeeper" conduct in Somalia was absolutely appalling that Mohammed Aideed told Kofi Annan to remove them at once, or face the consequences.
Annan did not remove them.
Aideed had them killed and skinned.
Then all everyone turned against Aideed and the next thing you know Black Hawks are killing Somali civilians all over the place.

Canada and Belgium and Italy withdrew their "peacekeeper" troops after the found that they were conducting themselves as Inquisitors in Abu Ghraib. They did some unspeakable things to the Somali people, and all in the name of UN Peacekeeping. Annan then had a resolution passed that made peacekeepers have to comply with the Geneva Conventions when it came to treatment of peoples in war-torn areas. The USA vigorously opposed the restrictions of torture, they had Dyna-corp to think of.

Up to this day, no-one has said anything as to why the Pakistanis were singled out by Aideed,
but everyone heartily agrees that
the Pakistanis were absolutely ruthless, vicious
and even US Special Ops are deeply afraid of them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Roland99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-23-04 09:38 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. Well, the PNAC neocons now have a friend helping to run Pakistan...
Prime Minister Aziz worked with Wolfowitz at Citibank.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 01st 2024, 07:57 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC