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

To: DB
What happened to "If you harbor terrorists, you are a terrorist. If you train or arm a terrorist, you are a terrorist. If you feed a terrorist or fund a terrorist, you're a terrorist and you will be held accountable." - Our President make that statement to the world Nov 21/01.

If Pakistan won't take care of the terrorists within its borders and won't allow us to take them out then they are harboring terrorists.
So our current position is what? we were just kidding?
So now, just because a Democrat reaffirms a key principle of the Bush doctrine, we're going to disavow it?

18 posted on 08/11/2007 3:43:52 PM PDT by Riodacat (Ignorance is bliss. Knowledge, truth and reality sucks....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]


To: Riodacat
Ya, lets open a few more fronts while we try to contain Iran...

If we have intelligence on the whereabouts of top al Qaeda leaders in Pakistan then we should quietly just take them out - just like we have been doing.

19 posted on 08/11/2007 3:49:25 PM PDT by DB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]

To: Riodacat

>>So now, just because a Democrat reaffirms a key principle of the Bush doctrine, we’re going to disavow it?

Nobody is saying any such thing. If you read the OP you would know that I argue it is perfectly possible that the West might have to go in to Pakistan without the government’s support. We might have to go to war with Pakistan. There are any number of things that might happen.

What is grossly irresponsible is for a credible candidate for President to go round saying things that make this more likely. Undermining Musharraf’s authority is exactly such a thing.

It is far better to quietly and effectively take out al-Qaeda operatives with the co-operation of the Pakistani government than to create a situation where the pro-Western government might fall, and we might find ourselves in a regime change situation. This is a country with three times the population of Iraq and Afghanistan combined and with nuclear weapons. You want to put a Taleban lookalike in power there? You want to have to engineer regime change?

Since Obama’s speech, Musharraf had to postpone his trip to Kabul to speek to the Loya Jirga about joint operations to take more effective control of tribal regions. Well-sourced media outlets suggested he was close to declaring a state of emergency. This would have brought an end to his (apparent) agreement with Benazir Bhutto to form a pro-Western modernising alliance against the Islamists.

Obama’s speech was specifically condemned by both government and opposition figures in Pakistan as describing a situation which would be likely to push Pakistan into the Islamist camp.

Do I think that Obama’s speech was the only, or even the main, factor which destabilised Musharraf’s government this week? No, of course not? Was it mind-bogglingly irresponsible and incredibly badly timed? Oh yeah!


26 posted on 08/12/2007 9:51:49 AM PDT by qlangley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | 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