So Cheney says we cannot invade Pakistan to get Bin Laden?

Question

Because Pakistan is a "soverign nation".

Yet he has no regrets about invading Iraq - ALSO a sovereign nation, which had no military, no ties to international terrorism, and posed no threat to the U.S. or any other country.

Talk about doublespeak!

I don't buy the "but Pakistan has nukes" argument. According to the administration - "Iraq had WMD's", yet they invaded anyway, so that argument is moot.

And if the president of Pakistan is supposed to be our ally, why is he protecting Al Queda instead of either getting them himself or letting us come in and do it for him?

So the question is - why is it okay to invade one soverign nation that is NOT a threat to us, but not a soverign nation that IS?

Answer 1

Cheney stopped having any credibility with the intelligent electorate a very long time in the past. He never could keep his lies straight.

He expected and still apparently expects his belligerent fat guy demeanor to sell his points. And to a certain slice of the demographic, it surely does. Pity.

Answer 2

Three points:

1) Iraq may not have been involved with 9-11, but they weren't 'innocent', nor can it be said that they didn't pose a threat to 'any other country'. Iraq had been muzzled with sanctions, and that was the only reason why they weren't a 'threat'. You may recall that the reason that they were under sanctions in the first place was that they had invaded a sovereign nation (Kuwait) and were threatening to invade a second one.

2) Although Pakistan isn't doing 'enough', they are doing a hell of a lot more to curb Al Quieda than if they stopped being our allies. Invading Pakistan is like burning bridges.

3) Currently, the 'willing' are fighting on two fronts (Afghanistan and Iraq), plus keeping an eye on Iran and North Korea. This is not the time to pick a fight with yet another nation who is NOT "a threat to us", as you have said.

**
Finally, please keep in mind that just because Cheney said that we cannot invade Pakistan doesn't not mean that there are no forays into Pakistani territory by the coalition. There are and have been attacks in Pakistani territory, I wouldn't be surprised if Pakistan knew about them ahead of time as well.

"Plausible deniability". Look it up.

Answer 3

I have literally had enough of stupid questions such as yours!

The fact is that there was no terrorism in Pakistan untill it joined the phoney 'war against terror'.

Pakistan had never experienced a suicide bombing.
Since we have joined the war, and now as an ally of the States, Pakistanis have been the victims of suicide bombing, people are becoming more radicalised, so many bombs are now being set of in Pakistan by these radicals which Pakistan had never experienced before.

When it has joined, America, the ungreatful so and so's keep going on about Pakistan harbouring terrorist and that Pakistan is not doing enough.

The main wanted people who have been caught thus far have been caught by Pakistan...NOT BY AMERICA. It was Pakistan intelligence who told the UK about a planned attack via UK airports. American intelligence came up with zilch! America's intelligence came up with weapons of mass destuction in Iraq. Is that what you call intelligence?

America can barely control Afghanistan by a load of people with not even an army.

How on earth will it invade Pakistan, Pakistan has an extremely powerful army and patriotic nation.
If America does ever attack Pakistan, the likelihood of Pakistan just siiting back is virtually 0!
China has invested billlions of $'s in Pakistan. It will not stand by to see it's investments go down hill, it will most probably provide weapons.

The rest of the Arab world will most probably give financial aid; they want to ensure at least 1 Islamic state has a powerful army.

It's Pakistan's independece on 14 August.

It would be nice, just for a change...if we could have peace in the world. It was never right to invade Iraq, more people have died under Bush's regime than Mr Hussain's regime which lasted decades unlike bush.


We need peace full stop.
No more wars.

Peace to you all.

Answer 4

The sovereignty of Iraq is disputable. I think it's fair to say that prior to 2003 Iraq was less sovereign than Pakistan is. I'm not going to argue against common sense however, I'm all for taking Al Qaeda to task in Pakistan. That's a conflict that most Americans believe in, getting rid of Al Qaeda and bringing Bin Laden to justice.

Answer 5

You might want to check on that part about Iraq having no ties to international terrorism and posed no threat to any other country. While links to Al Qaeda weren't of any substantive nature (yet), Iraq had a long history of supporting several different terrorist groups, most notably Hamas. You also might want to ask a few Kuwaitis about Iraq not being a threat to any other country.

Pakistan is ostensibly our ally. Unfortunately, their government doesn't have total control over all areas of the country, especially the regions bordering Afghanistan where Bin Laden is thought to be hiding. Invading Pakistan would only serve to alienate a country that does support us, something that is rare in that part of the world.

Answer 6

PLEASE read a little history once in awhile! The US had the right to invade Iraq because Saddam was in violation of the UN resolutions dating back to the first Gulf War. The Iraqi military was considered to be one of the best armed and trained military in the Middle East. That they didn't put up a fight is merely a testiment to their fear of the US. And while Iraq was not directly involved in 9/11, it definitely DID have ties to international terrorism. So your entire premise is built on false statements.

Pakistan on the other hand, is under no international sanctions...since it calmed it's saber rattling a few years ago with India. In fact, Mushareff has been one of our few Muslim allies in the Middle East in his efforts to fight terrorism. The primitive and hostile terrain of the mountain areas that are protecting Al Qaeda make his efforts problematic, but it isn't due to lack of trying. Because of his efforts, Mushareff is at grave risk of being KILLED by the radical terrorists within his own country. If he just opened his borders to the US coming and trying to get Al Qaeda, he would almost certainly be thrown out of office by his own people...if not killed outright.

Answer 7

Iraq had no military? Alabama Air National Guardsmen who spent time protecting Kurds in the no fly zone would come back telling about the anti aircraft missiles that the (civilians since they had no military) fired at them before we invaded. The UN did not allow him to possess these missiles. He continuously broke UN resolutions. This was going on ever since we ran the Iraqi military out of Kuwait after Saddam's invasion of that country. Saddam paid the families of suicide bombers $25,000 when they terrorized Israel by blowing themselves up. He posed a threat in the sense that he would have sold terrorists WMD's to use against US interests. Saddam was a sworn enemy of the US. Your facts are wrong in this question. He was not a trustworthy enemy. Also, Bill Clinton signed into law allowing regime change in Iraq.

Answer 8

because it's all bullshit. Pakistan harbors terrorists. Therefore they are an enemy in the war on terror. They say no terrorists were in Iraq before the US invasion. I'm not an expert on the subject, but nothing adds up post 9-11, Iraq, the war on terror, and the Bush administration. we're being fleeced.

Answer 9

1. because you would lose big time, noway an invading force is winning against Pakistan
2. Learn the terrain of Pakistan, good luck finding Bin laden
3. Nukes are allot worse then WMD's especially with Pakistan's range

Answer 10

It's a sovereign Country. This makes it an act of war. Iraq was in violation of UN issues. We intended to go to war. Nothing innocent about saddam and his connections.

How would you feel about someone invading your house because you did not take out the clean the bathroom?