be a major US ally on the war on terror?
2006-12-12 14:07:10 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Are Bush's actions with Pakistan just showing Iran that if you have a nuclear weapon you can get away with anything you want?
2006-12-15 04:04:13 · update #1
This is a question I have asked before.
It is KNOWN that the Taliban and al-Qaeda have training camps in Pakistan.
It is KNOWN that Pakistan have supplied Iran and Syria with nuclear weapons technology.
It is KNOWN that the men who carried out the bombings in London in 2005 were of Pakistani origin and received their training in Pakistan.
I can only think that the fact that Pakistan is a nuclear nation is what stops Bush/Blair and the rest of the coalition from doing anything about it.
2006-12-12 14:15:55 · answer #1 · answered by rosbif 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
They are a major ally on the GWOT because the military is trying to contain Taliban influence. Both the Pakistan military and the US military are incapable of taking out the Taliban for reasons too complex to go too far into.
Briefly, Pakistan can't take care of this because Mush. is hanging on by a thread. The Pakistanis already see him as Bush's lapdog. If he goes any further the military will turn on him, and not only will he be useless to us, I get the feeling that the next guy won't be all that cooperative.
We can't do it because bombing targets in Pakistan isn't effective, of the 10K madrasas in Pakistan our government estimates that only a handful is involved in terrorism. This means that a vast majority are filled with orphans... actual orphans, poor kids who live in Madrasas because they would starve otherwise. Everytime we screw up they will be carrying dozens of lifeless prepubecent bodies away from smoldering ruins. Bombing is a nonstarter.
A ground offensive can't work. The British didn't even try to take on the areas we would need to control. We tend to compare other countries to us, this really isn't the case. The government has absolutely no control in the FATA or the NWFP.
All of this equals casualty rates hitting 5,000 in the first three months. We won't do it, not after Iraq. Bush has left us in a position that we don't have the troops or international credibility to invade. The UN would be waiting for Ashton Kutcher to walk in with his hat on sideways if we start talking about having intel that supports an invasion, and if we expand the Afghanistan thing you can forget about NATO. The Brits are begging us to come up with another wacky idea that they can oppose to shut their own people up.
Can't happen.
2006-12-15 10:22:30 · answer #2 · answered by calmflow_21 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is easier to ignore the problem in Pakistan and use it as a military base then to attack Pakisan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran pretty soon, not to mention that by the same logic of spreading democracy, we would have to invade Saudia Arabia, but that would only be after we made up some lies about them having WMD's then we don't find them, and THEN we decide that all along it was about the democracy...... Anywways I just wish I could just wake up from this nightmare and we would have a new president....
2006-12-13 01:40:19 · answer #3 · answered by armoredviolence 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yellow.
2006-12-12 22:17:46 · answer #4 · answered by robert m 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Are you aware what is happening to the US troops in Iraq?They are destined to meet the same fate in Afghanistan.
2006-12-12 22:22:52 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
apparently if you say "we are your friends"... that's all Bush requires?
I'm not buying it...
2006-12-12 22:23:27 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋