Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: SteveMcKing

"They're taking serious casualties for us. I don't believe this article, at least not at the moment..."

There are parts of Pak that are ungovernable, and the general consensus for some time has been that Bin Lauden is in those areas.

He is "on ice" and we read his mail and listen to his calls.
Regardless of what Kerry thinks, its better to have a stable Pakistan than a dead Bin Lauden.


6 posted on 10/30/2004 5:15:33 PM PDT by konaice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]


To: konaice

Agree. We wouldn't have gotten this far without the Pakistani help. Chalk up another plus for Sec. Powell, too.

UBL may be in Pakistan but he's pinned down. The fact that he couldn't impact the Afghan elections is very telling, considering what his influence used to be. We'll get him in time, of that I'm certain.


13 posted on 10/30/2004 5:59:20 PM PDT by SueRae (Where? Which Church?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: konaice
There are parts of Pak that are ungovernable, and the general consensus for some time has been that Bin Laden is in those areas.

An ungovernable nation, a nuclear power, a haven for the most wanted murder in the world, and a Muslim directed government.

What are you trying to do? Scare the public?

18 posted on 10/30/2004 6:29:36 PM PDT by EGPWS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: konaice
The Pakistan government took tremendous risk for us. Remember the streets were teeming with protestors when he announced he would help us. Mushariff has had attempts on his life countless times.

We are not in a position to invade Pakistan nor are we going to risk american lives to go up in those caves.

Kerry would still be dithering and the Taliban would still be murdering everyone in sight if he had his way.

22 posted on 10/30/2004 6:45:50 PM PDT by OldFriend (It's the soldier, not the reporter who has given US freedom of the press)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: konaice

Screw "collateral damage" if he is given safe harbor any where BOMB IT!!!!!!!!


43 posted on 10/30/2004 7:39:11 PM PDT by Luigi Vasellini
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: konaice
I recently heard a speech from a retired US General who fielded a question from the audience to the effect of "why didn't we just go into Pakistan and get Bin Laden ourselves?". His answer was chilling.

He said that Pakistan's leader has survived THREE assassination attempts. Radical Islamists are out to get him and take over the country. If we go insert ourselves into Pakistan, where the public opinion is more pro-Bin Laden than it is pro-American, it could push the balance of power right into the hands of the radicals.

Pakistan has been helping us. Granted, they're not gung-ho about it and probably couldn't find Bin Laden if they were. But they are at least finding and arresting bad guys.

In case anyone forgot, Pakistan has nuclear weapons. If the Musharrif government falls and the radicals take over, the radical Islamists have nuclear weapons.

It is believed that India would be so afraid of a nuclear strike from Pakistan's radicals THAT INDIA WOULD INITIATE THE NUCLEAR STRIKE THEMSELVES PREEMPTIVLEY.

To recap the scenario:
1) We send our military into Western Pakistan to find Bin Laden ourselves
2) Anti-American radicals topple the Musharrif government
3) India, fearing the impending nuclear attack, strikes first
4) Pakistan strikes back with whatever they have left
5) Presto, nuclear mutual destruction

That's why we don't push too hard on Pakistan's government to cooperate. They are cooperating as much as their domestic politics will allow.
53 posted on 10/30/2004 10:55:40 PM PDT by pie_eater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson