Should Pakistan be the next major front in the US war on terror?

Question

"Almost every major terror attack since 9/11 has been traced back to Pakistani territory, leading many who work in intelligence to believe that Pakistan, not Iraq, is the place Mr. Bush should consider the “central front” in the battle against terrorism. It was also the source of the greatest leakage of nuclear arms technology in modern times."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/21/world/asia/21musharraf.html?hp

mahal - US intelligence is not "liberal"

Answer 1

Sure -- at least it would be a change of pace.

Attacking a country we know for a fact has nuclear weapons -- as opposed to attacking countries because we think they might have nuclear weapons.

The fact that the Pakistani govt has never been involved in any of these attacks should dissuade us -- it never has before.

Answer 2

Almost every major terror attack since 9/11 has been traced back to Pakistani territory - This is a lie , every major attack has been traced to Saudi Arabia including supplying weapons to Iraqi insurgents - stop watching Fox news , its all lies Iran is not supplying anyone and the Pentagon knows it and Pakistan is really a non issue until Musharraf dies .

Answer 3

America has beefed up it's Afgani bases. It's no secret Al-Qaeda does not want Bhutto back as PM. Because she is a strong figure there and can gain much support . Currently their President has been failing in the battle. Together they can make some real noise.

NO, America is more likely preparing for the ultimate confrontation with Iran. Also note a mall in Manila was targeted yesterday. I have been in it. It's large and heavily populated yet they hit the storage or loading area? Also tied to Al Qaeda. They're back out again making statements we all need to look for.

Location, location. Stick to your friendlies when you can find them and work from within. We have no business attacking these people. Each country has EXTREMIST groups inside with the good ones. SO we have got to work around them as well. As Bin Laden lerks in Afghanistan? We support them too.
Iraq was Saddam H and is a key location in the region. We just built the largest Embassy ever in Baghdad. Must be a good reason for that one. Thanks.

Answer 4

NO! This ficticious war on terror shouldn't have been fabricated in the first place. It is solely designed to be a war to be perpetuated and feed the corporations that benefit on human misery. Pakistan is not a threat to the United States. If India is having some issues with Pakistan, they can take care of it themselves.

We should trade with other countries, not threaten or invade them. Lead by example, not by force.

Answer 5

What do you propose we use to invade Pakistan? We don't have enough troops to take care of Iraq, and the ones in Afghanistan are diligently looking for Osama bin-Laden, I hope. Then, of course, Bush has thrown down the gauntlet to Iran and Russia responded in Iran's favor, so we are short of people to fight them also. How about pushing for diplomacy? Send somebody who can speak well and can negotiate. It would be great if people started thinking of peace, instead of who we should attack next! Without a draft, any other attack seems impossible anyway.

Answer 6

Terror receives funding from all over the world. From South America (Tri-Border area) to Indonesia. Attacking Pakistan now would be stupid, we need as much help in the Middle East as possible regardless of how slight it might be. We need focus on Iraq and Afghanistan while leaving an option for Iran if necessary.

Answer 7

I wasn't conscious that he wasn't attending. although, the decrease back drop to all of it's that 6 international places interior the ecu are on the element of default. they're bankrupt, so help won't in any respect be coming from eire, Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy, etc. considering the fact that we are close to default ourselves, perhaps Obama thinks he needs to look someplace else for help. i think of the conflict in Afghanistan warrants help from NATO international locations interior the ecu through fact removing the basis of terrorism helps those international locations besides. So, why no longer share the artwork. As for Iraq, that's our own deal. we are going to get little or no help from any united states. besides, i think of Obama is on the incredible song. that's purely in our maximum suitable hobbies if we are able to defray the expenses of conflict with different international locations which will earnings from the Afghan conflict.

Answer 8

I think we should stay where we're at until stability as been restored and then, consider our options.

The only exception to this would be to move into Iran if it continues to be proven that they are a major cause of the instability within Iraq.

Answer 9

Musharraf and Bhutto are allies.

It's typical of liberals to demand that America attack it's own allies. Where were you when al Qaida declared war on Pakistan a few weeks ago?

(This is why I call the NY Times the "Cenile Old Lady".)

*************************************

Since when is the NY Times = US Intelligence?

Find me an intelligence web site and I'll believe it. The NY Times is not a credible source.

(If you want an easier task, try www.state.gov and do a search for Pakistan. The articles will give you our current diplomatic status and activity with the country.)

And if you ever want an education on the country, let me know.

Answer 10

did u loose Ur mind that will never happen . did u know that Pakistan own nukes .
plus i think the U.S learned a Liston , and if that gives us the right to do so then no one and i mean no one souled blame the Palestinians by killing Israel supporters