- Joined
- Dec 6, 2011
- Messages
- 6,248
- Reaction score
- 2,439
- Location
- Upstate New York
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
In a perfect world type scenario I would be in full agreement with you, but as long as we are pursuing interests in the region with a focus in Afghanistan we are stuck with them. For better or worst
hope he's not holding his breath. His O'ness would not rescue his own ambassador, why should he give a damn about this guy?
Perhaps you'd be happy if the O'ness shouted nonstop "America does not negotiate with terrorists" then, behind the scenes, he could sell weapons to Iran to fund a war in that region that congress rejected.
Nahhh.. you'd probably still not approve. It takes an (R) beside their name to get some people's approval I suppose.
The fact that we're not in a perfect world is why I don't advocate cutting our ties with Pakistan completely, sealing off the Afghan/Pakistani border to quarantine them, and then letting them deal with the Taliban - their Frankenstein - on their side of the border.
Perhaps you'd be happy if the O'ness shouted nonstop "America does not negotiate with terrorists" then, behind the scenes, he could sell weapons to Iran to fund a war in that region that congress rejected.
Nahhh.. you'd probably still not approve. It takes an (R) beside their name to get some people's approval I suppose.
If there was an intended point to be made by your comment... it never got loose. I submitted a comment on the irony of the situation, nothing more. but i guess you read what you want....
I guess someone is unfamiliar with Iran contra. Further proving my point of your selective outrage.
Well you coulda stopped right there ... I suspect you may be the only one who still believes whatever the hell he's shouting.nonstop "America does not negotiate with terrorists" then, behind the scenes, he could sell weapons to Iran to fund a war in that region that congress rejected.Perhaps you'd be happy if the O'ness shouted
Nahhh.. you'd probably still not approve. It takes an (R) beside their name to get some people's approval I suppose.
Well you coulda stopped right there ... I suspect you may be the only one who still believes whatever the hell he's shouting.
Who's been saying that?Considering all the behind-the-scene maneuvering going on, is there any wonder that people don't trust our government? They get us into wars that sacrifice our young people, and we don't half the time understand why! The media helps by telling us who we need to hate this month, and people buy it? Unfortunately, yes. Case in point:, after being told for years they are the enemy we are fighting? Right! .Welcome to 1984!We're now supposed to believe that Al Queda are our friends
Greetings, bubba. :2wave:
Well you coulda stopped right there ... I suspect you may be the only one who still believes whatever the hell he's shouting.
I think maybe the most transparent administration ever could try to "negotiate" (read: pressure ... threaten) an (ahem) ally like Pock-ees-tahn without having it plastered all over the news to show how tough they are.
But that effort wouldn't fit in with the nationalization of the healthcare system component of their redistribution plans so I wouldn't count on it.
I'm sure you'd like to believe that anyone who disagrees with you or doesn't hate Obama as much as you is therefore in lockstep with Obama. Sorry to inform you that there is a whole world out there beyond the black and white boxes you prefer to put people in.
(Leaving aside whether we should have been involved with toppling some of those on the list you mentioned.)The Pakistanis hid OBL in safety for years, they have the doctor who helped them find OBL in jail, and now they are holding this American. It seems to me that there is no reason that it couldn't be mentioned what happened to Gaddafi, Mubarak and Hussein when they are talking negotiation, and let it be known that it can happen again.
the problem ( as previously stated) is we have a security pact pending with Afg. We cannot stabilize that gov't, and alienate Paki.The Pakistanis hid OBL in safety for years, they have the doctor who helped them find OBL in jail, and now they are holding this American. It seems to me that there is no reason that it couldn't be mentioned what happened to Gaddafi, Mubarak and Hussein when they are talking negotiation, and let it be known that it can happen again.
Faced with Anti-Drone Blockade Disrupting NATO Supply Route, US Warns Pakistan Aid Could Be Cut Off | The DissenterProtests spearheaded by the political party, Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI), have been blockading a NATO supply route to Afghanistan since November 23. They pushed the US to suspend military shipments on the route last week because the officials were afraid they endangered drivers.
Therefore, it is not surprising that what was reported is Pakistani leaders would take “immediate action”—whatever that might means—so that the “shipment problem” with land routes from the port of Karachi to Afghanistan were resolved.
Representatives from NATO issued requests to PTI to reopen supply routes. Khan denied the request and pledged to keep the protests going until drone strikes are stopped.
The protests have been a part of an escalation of resistance against US drone protests
I doubt there will be any security with Afghanistan because they won't recognize any pacts. Those are for our consumption in an attempt to define that we are 'leaving with honor'.the problem ( as previously stated) is we have a security pact pending with Afg. We cannot stabilize that gov't, and alienate Paki.
Sure they hate the US (yet want to live there) but they hate the Indians as well. India, working with other democracies, could contain Pakistan quite easily if they put a mind to it, and just took them out of the picture, much like what happened in the ME. Do that once or twice and they'll come to their senses. In fact the entire country might advance as a consequence.Paki pretty much loathes the US, especially our drones ( a whole national party is now formed because of droning). and is blocking the Kyber Pass, for supply lines
The position of the the United States in accordance to a terrorist has always been no negotiations. I see no reason why this should be different.
It depends on what those negotiations involved. If it involves financial payoffs, then no, but if it involves the idea of dropping a drone on their personal homes than that is another thing.
Then I don't trust the dhimmi Obama to conduct it.
Obama's ordered more drone strikes than any other president. I'd be surprised if he negotiated rather than blasting the scum who carried this out.
You can have influence without bribing. It's a simple thing, if they want U.S. money, then they need to do something about this. If they can't, they aren't worth pouring money into. You used NK as an example, how has internationally aid worked to help the country?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?