The london bombers did not go to madrassas in Pakistan.

Someone sharing the name with one of the bombers did, whilst the actual person was in iirc Dubai. (another supposedly went aswell, but never attended...)

Even if they did go to madrassas, big deal. You get bad apples, you get good apples.

America is using terrorism as an excuse. It has no real gain in destroying Pakistan.

because if you ever picked up a newspaper or watched the news, you would know they are allies. pakistan are trying to help USA crack down on the 'terrorists'

As long as Musharraf remains somewhat liberal, and supports the war on terror, there will be no war with Pakistan.

If that changed I wouldn't be surprised if we invaded.

"Dave" wrote:

As long as Musharraf remains somewhat liberal, and supports the war on terror, there will be no war with Pakistan.

If that changed I wouldn't be surprised if we invaded.

[b]remain liberal[/b]- which means? do whatever Bush and Blair say???
[b]
supports the war on terror[/b]- which means? support the illegal war on Iraq, support threatening to attack Iran- but they ignore North Korea and others who have nuclear weapons, support the bombing of Afghanistan to the dark ages, support puppet regimes and leaders like Karzai, support Israel no matter what, call terrorist Sharon a 'Man of Peace' .....
mmmhhh....

[b]
and if he doesnt do the above America has a right to bomb Pakistan...[/b]i dont think so mate! who does the U.S. think they are? who made them in charge of the world? who made them God?

america says jump and everyone else must say how high.... :twisted:

"TheRevivalEditor" wrote:

[b]remain liberal[/b]- which means? do whatever Bush and Blair say???

As far as I understand it Musharraf is secular (after a fashion), capitalist, has a functioning parliament and is generally tolerant of dissent. Thus it is moderately liberal. Don't get me wrong, the man is a dictator with a freedomhouse rating of 5 on civil liberties - but that's certainly better than many regimes in the region, and far better than most central african regimes.

"TheRevivalEditor" wrote:

[b]
supports the war on terror[/b]- which means? support the illegal war on Iraq, support threatening to attack Iran- but they ignore North Korea and others who have nuclear weapons, support the bombing of Afghanistan to the dark ages, support puppet regimes and leaders like Karzai, support Israel no matter what, call terrorist Sharon a 'Man of Peace' .....
mmmhhh....

That's a bit of a loaded response Editor, but I meant he has provided intelligence and access to Al Qaeda terrorists that live along the border of Pakistan and Afghanistan - most importantly Waziristan. The valuable information and access we have been provided with brings us closer to capturing bin Laden, and provides greater security to the new fledgling Afghani state - who desperately need help if they are going to have any kind of fair and just government.

"TheRevivalEditor" wrote:

[b]
and if he doesnt do the above America has a right to bomb Pakistan...[/b]i dont think so mate! who does the U.S. think they are? who made them in charge of the world? who made them God?

america says jump and everyone else must say how high.... :twisted:

Again... That's mighty loaded - Nobody said the US is God, I am simply highlighting why it is heavily [b]UN[/b]likely America would attack Pakistan. There are many reasons (I outlined above) that it is within our interest to maintain our good relations with Afghanistan. However it stands to reason that if those good reasons evaporated and the regime became hostile to US interests in the area (id est, security for Afghanistan, liberalization of Pakistani society, and capturing terrorists) war would not be out of the question.

In short as long as it remains a poodle, it has nothing to worry.

America doesnt rely fancy going to war with third world countries that have nothing to offer it and be a bigger weight on their shoulders. They have nothing to gain by going to war with Pakistan so they wont.

Unless they discover diamonds like in Sierra Leone or have huge stocks of Oil like in the gulf it wont happen.

"Yous19" wrote:

America doesnt rely fancy going to war with third world countries that have nothing to offer it and be a bigger weight on their shoulders. They have nothing to gain by going to war with Pakistan so they wont.

Unless they discover diamonds like in Sierra Leone or have huge stocks of Oil like in the gulf it wont happen.

....we've never gone to war with Sierra Leone - so you pretty much just defeated your own point.

Well done.

Nor have we gone to war with Venezuela - a very hostile country to the US, with vast resources of oil, far closer than the gulf.

Now i've defeated your point.

That's teamwork baby.

I wasnt talking about The US in that instance i was on about the amount of forces the Uk has had in recent years in Sierra Leone.

Also Venezuala may be a bit close to home for the US as was the the Falkland Islands when the Uk was at war, and the US didnt bat an eyelid.

"Dave" wrote:

Nor have we gone to war with Venezuela - a very hostile country to the US, with vast resources of oil, far closer than the gulf.

You may not have gone to war with Venezuela but you wouldn't mind a bit of regime change in that oil-rich corner of the world.

"irfghan" wrote:

"Dave" wrote:

Nor have we gone to war with Venezuela - a very hostile country to the US, with vast resources of oil, far closer than the gulf.

You may not have gone to war with Venezuela but you wouldn't mind a bit of regime change in that oil-rich corner of the world.

true.

The opposition seems to be tarred by the fact that their pay cheques can be traced all the way back to washington!

I think after 9/11 Musharraf had no choice but to side with America, with India's hostilities at peak at that time, Pakistan needed a cool headed person like Musharaf to get Pakistan out of the mess. Musharaff is not the ideal leader that an Islamic country should have but true ideal muslims leaders can't exist in Pakistan either due to corruption and hatred for the rival sects. I think Paksitan needs be in strong position, with strong legs to stand on before the world will take it seriously.

As far as America bombing Pakistan is concerned I don't think they would dare unless as stated in other posts regarding America's material interests in that case it would think twice, thanks to the Nuclear deterrent and the rivalry with India.

Anyone know what happened to the great Roman Empire, or more recently the Great British Empire?

"irfghan" wrote:

"Dave" wrote:

Nor have we gone to war with Venezuela - a very hostile country to the US, with vast resources of oil, far closer than the gulf.

You may not have gone to war with Venezuela but you wouldn't mind a bit of regime change in that oil-rich corner of the world.

The Monroe doctrine existed well before external oil became a US interest.

Chavez is a dictator who has driven his country into the ground - I feel totally confident that the people will overthrow him given the latest intensity of protest.

"Admin" wrote:

"irfghan" wrote:

"Dave" wrote:

Nor have we gone to war with Venezuela - a very hostile country to the US, with vast resources of oil, far closer than the gulf.

You may not have gone to war with Venezuela but you wouldn't mind a bit of regime change in that oil-rich corner of the world.

true.

The opposition seems to be tarred by the fact that their pay cheques can be traced all the way back to washington!

?

Could you hook me up with something about that, I've never read that and Chavez pretty well hates the States.

"Dave" wrote:

"irfghan" wrote:

"Dave" wrote:

Nor have we gone to war with Venezuela - a very hostile country to the US, with vast resources of oil, far closer than the gulf.

You may not have gone to war with Venezuela but you wouldn't mind a bit of regime change in that oil-rich corner of the world.

The Monroe doctrine existed well before external oil became a US interest.

Chavez is a dictator who has driven his country into the ground - I feel totally confident that the people will overthrow him given the latest intensity of protest.

Just because you have a 'docrine' doesn't mean you can go around interfereing in the affairs of other countries.

Besides, I doubt that oil-executives will do a better job than Chavez.

"Dave" wrote:

The Monroe doctrine existed well before external oil became a US interest.

Chavez is a dictator who has driven his country into the ground - I feel totally confident that the people will overthrow him given the latest intensity of protest.

Hugo chavez is elected (and fairly at that!)
There have been a couple of coup attempts against him. He only survived because the population rebelled IN HIS FAVOUR.

"irfghan" wrote:

Just because you have a 'docrine' doesn't mean you can go around interfereing in the affairs of other countries.

Besides, I doubt that oil-executives will do a better job than Chavez.

All I am saying is that American intervention in Latin American governance is nothing new to the Bush Admin and has little to do with Oil and lots to do with official US foreign policy since the early 1800s.

What do oil execs have to do with 150 years of foreign policy?

"Dave" wrote:

What do oil execs have to do with 150 years of foreign policy?

The Venezuelan opposition has many oil excecutives among it. If there was any regime-change then these oil men would take charge.

"Admin" wrote:

"Dave" wrote:

The Monroe doctrine existed well before external oil became a US interest.

Chavez is a dictator who has driven his country into the ground - I feel totally confident that the people will overthrow him given the latest intensity of protest.

Hugo chavez is elected (and fairly at that!)
There have been a couple of coup attempts against him. He only survived because the population rebelled IN HIS FAVOUR.

Elected yes, fairly is highly disputed. Already it looks like there are fraud charges in connection to his latest recall vote http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A4208-2004Aug16.html

As for 2005 he is expanding the reserve army to 1.5 million

Which will be nice for him since he has been institutionalizing the military (traditionally the beginning of a sad cycle in latin american politics) as of 2002

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=45&ItemID=2841

I still don't see how he is on Washington's payroll though

he isn't. The opposition are.

Quote:

What do oil execs have to do with 150 years of foreign policy?

U being serious?

In my opinion America's only real interest in Pakistan is that it dont become a rogue state. A large proportion of Pakistans budget goes into the armed forces who pretty much live for Kashmir, as do some of the jihadi organisations and some of the religious parties. However Pakistans neighbour India is home to atleast three dozen American companies and in return makes a good $10 billion a year.
Whom use the tension between Pakistan and India as a scapegoat to distract the population from the real issues that need to be addressed in Pakistan.

Pakistan produces nothing that can help America grow. It possesses nothing that could be of value to American companies. The new façade we have now erected is just too transparent. Pakistans goals do not overlap America's. Americas real interest in Pakistan, as a consequence, is that we do not become a rogue state and that we do not become an agent of instability in the region. No more, no less

wow all this rogue state stuf is dizzying!

I try not to use the term roue state, as its a way of justifying action against another state. Its a political term.

"Admin" wrote:

wow all this rogue state stuf is dizzying!

I try not to use the term roue state, as its a way of justifying action against another state. Its a political term.

Its just a word that needs to be used every once in a while.

No need to fear it as it only increases the fear of the thing.... does that even make sense?

Its a term used to justify violence.

"Admin" wrote:

Its a term used to justify violence.

It doesnt justify anything.

Its only used to describe a state thats doing something that according to you (UK or the US... not you you) its not supposed to be doing.

'rogue state' is a whole ideology.

Its the current basis for action used by neocons.

We will take out rogue states. The populations of rogue states need to be liberated. rogues states gives wmd to terrorists. Rogue states fund terrorism. Rogue states eat babies.

Once we start to use the term, violence can easily be justified.

You will not beat them on their own ground.

Instead of arguing wether we should attack a country, we will debate wether the country is a rogue state or not, implying if it is, invasion is justified.