Sorry, Pakistan

[M14 Shooter]

Paris was liberated before November, dear. The Government was not recognised until after the liberation, which was before November. Pulling dates out of your arse again, Forrest?

YOUR words:
It wasn't until after the liberation of Paris that the US, Britain and the Soviet Union formally recognized the deGaulle regime as the provisional government of France, on Oct 23, 1944.

I'm asking you about Metz, in Novermber 1944.
And YOU are avoiding the queston, AGAIN.

Did we attack France, or did we attack Germans who were IN France?

You've been led to water - do you have the intellectual honesty to take a drink?

 

[Pacridge]

YOUR words:
It wasn't until after the liberation of Paris that the US, Britain and the Soviet Union formally recognized the deGaulle regime as the provisional government of France, on Oct 23, 1944.

I'm asking you about Metz, in Novermber 1944.
And YOU are avoiding the queston, AGAIN.

Did we attack France, or did we attack Germans who were IN France?

You've been led to water - do you have the intellectual honesty to take a drink?

I agree with you. This "yes, we bombed France but France wasn't France when we bombed it" is beyond a stretch. The Germans were occupying France and we bombed them in France while they were occupying France. Twist the facts or revisit which government recognized which government in which country on which date all you want. We still bombed France. And we bombed France to get to the Germans and those who decided to support them. Just like we bombed a house in Pakistan to get to the Taliban and those who have chosen to support them.

But I think I would disagree with you on some other issues regarding this. I think we bombed them because we're at war them, not Pakistan but the Taliban. Using your military to bomb people is an act of war. Maybe not one strike here and there, but when you're engaged in a deployment at length, like we are- you're at war. And when you're at war there are rules. Rules we agreed to and signed off on. When we take prisoners, like we are, there are rules on how those prisoners are to be treated. The fact that the other side doesn't follow those rules doesn't release us from doing so. It didn't in WW II and it doesn't now. And I think not following those rules is hurting us in the long run.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Well, I -think- you agree with me...

The point is, we didn't bomb Pakistan in the context that Pakistan is our enemy and that we were attacking Pakistan because of it, just that we didnt bomb France in the context that France was our enemy and that we were attacking France because of it -- in both cases, we dropped the bombs to get at the enemy assets IN Pakistan/France.

When you're dealing with state actors -- that is, legitimate militaries of legitimate states, things are much clearer. When you're dealing with non-governmental organizations (like AQ and the Taliban), things are less clear -- especially when these NGOs dont play by the established rules.

 

[Pacridge]

Well, I -think- you agree with me...

The point is, we didn't bomb Pakistan in the context that Pakistan is our enemy and that we were attacking Pakistan because of it, just that we didnt bomb France in the context that France was our enemy and that we were attacking France because of it -- in both cases, we dropped the bombs to get at the enemy assets IN Pakistan/France.When you're dealing with state actors -- that is, legitimate militaries of legitimate states, things are much clearer. When you're dealing with non-governmental organizations (like AQ and the Taliban), things are less clear -- especially when these NGOs dont play by the established rules.

Yes........................

 

[TimmyBoy]

Well, I -think- you agree with me...

The point is, we didn't bomb Pakistan in the context that Pakistan is our enemy and that we were attacking Pakistan because of it, just that we didnt bomb France in the context that France was our enemy and that we were attacking France because of it -- in both cases, we dropped the bombs to get at the enemy assets IN Pakistan/France.

When you're dealing with state actors -- that is, legitimate militaries of legitimate states, things are much clearer. When you're dealing with non-governmental organizations (like AQ and the Taliban), things are less clear -- especially when these NGOs dont play by the established rules.

All is fair, in love and war.

 

[Thorgasm]

The difference was that France couldn't, or wouldn't, defend itself and needed the allied forces to drive the Germans out. Pakistan could have done this themselves. They chose to let us do this. The didn't wan't the political fallout from this due to a possible fear of civil war. They passed the responsibility on to us. The terrorists will hate us regardless of an apology. An apology may help us appear reasonable to possible allies who may be sitting on the fence so to speak. The terrorists think we are weak because we are infidels, not because of apologies.

 

[vergiss]

My God, you guys are idiots and so deeply in denial it's beyond pathetic. :roll:

So, if one of Osama's buddies somehow got his way into Australia, would you be okay with sending a missile into downtown Sydney?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

My God, you guys are idiots and so deeply in denial it's beyond pathetic. :roll:

So, if one of Osama's buddies somehow got his way into Australia, would you be okay with sending a missile into downtown Sydney?

First off that's a totally false analogy this wasn't in a metropolitan area this was in some goat herders farm second off if we had credible intel proving that Osamma bin Ladin was in the outback of Australia, if your citizenry was giving him safe haven, and your government refused to eliminate him then you're damn right I would support bombing the sh!t out of him and anyone who harbored him but that's not the case because your government would do the job for us the Pakistanis won't.

This is not just a war against terrorists but is a war with the people who support, harbor, and share mutual interests with the terrorists.

 

[vergiss]

The Pakistani government has done more to save the world from terrorism than almost any other country. They're doing exceptionally well, especially considering the internal chaos in their country.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

The Pakistani government has done more to save the world from terrorism than almost any other country. They're doing exceptionally well, especially considering the internal chaos in their country.

Ya ya ya half of the Pakistani security forces are allied with AlQaeda how do you think that O.B.L. is able to move so freely between the Afghan and Pakistani borders? Pakistan supported the Taliban and the only reason they weren't attacked by us is because they have nukes. The tyrant leading Pakistan is playing both sides of the fence.

 

[vergiss]

Ya ya ya half of the Pakistani security forces are allied with AlQaeda how do you think that O.B.L. is able to move so freely between the Afghan and Pakistani borders? Pakistan supported the Taliban and the only reason they weren't attacked by us is because they have nukes. The tyrant leading Pakistan is playing both sides of the fence.

I think your tinfoil hat's fallen off.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

I think your tinfoil hat's fallen off.

The man is a tyrant he took power by force:

Although officially a federal republic, Pakistan has experienced some instability lately. In October 1999, General Pervez Musharraf overthrew the civilian government and assumed executive authority, although he did not declare himself president until 2001. Because of the government's dependence on foreign aid and the nation's distrust of dictators, Musharraf is probably reluctant to risk offending world and domestic opinion by becoming a permanent dictator. A new parliament has been elected and Zafarullah Khan Jamali, a prominent politician from Balochistan, has been appointed as Prime Minister.

http://academickids.com/encyclopedia/p/pa/pakistan.html

EDIT ok upon closer inspection he allowed for elections I suppose we can let him live . . . for now.

Nation-wide parliamentary elections were held in October 2002, with the PML-Q winning a plurality of seats in the National Assembly of Pakistan, and Zafarullah Khan Jamali of that party emerging as Prime Minister. Jamali resigned on June 26, 2004. PML-Q leader Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain became interim PM, and was succeeded by Finance Minister and former Citibank Vice President Shaukat Aziz, who was elected Prime Minister on August 27, 2004 by a National Assembly vote of 191 to 151.

I still don't trust him anyone who takes over a Democratic country by military force needs to be watched very carefully.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

There's actually a good show about Pakistan on right now I think on BBC.

 

[M14 Shooter]

My God, you guys are idiots and so deeply in denial it's beyond pathetic.

Thats what I thought.
You don't have a shred of intellectual honesty.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I think your tinfoil hat's fallen off.

And yours is clearly well-stapled, directly to your skull.

 

[cherokee]

And one of my points was missed completely.
What ever happened to covert operations?
Why is it we have to use a missile knowing the amount of blowback that will follow?

 

[M14 Shooter]

And one of my points was missed completely.
What ever happened to covert operations?
Why is it we have to use a missile knowing the amount of blowback that will follow?

Apparently, there were reaons for using the missile over a gound team, reasons tha neither you nor I will every be privy to. The missile was launched from a Predator UAV, which probably means we had the ability to get an air asset on target, but not ground units. There are also political strings attached to operating ground forces in a friendly country.

But, the missile used, a Hellfire ATGM, is small and has a small warhead -- leading me to believe that we used the smallest weapon we could and still do the job. if we werentl worried about civilian casualties, we choudl have dropped a 500lb (or 1000lb or 2000lb) JDAM.

 

[MSgt]

My God, you guys are idiots and so deeply in denial it's beyond pathetic. :roll:

So, if one of Osama's buddies somehow got his way into Australia, would you be okay with sending a missile into downtown Sydney?

Wouldn't be an issue. The Government of Australia would choose to do the right thing as our ally and not choose to appease the enemy for fear of antagonizing them. I thought I explained the inner workings of the Pakistani Government.

 

[MSgt]

And one of my points was missed completely.
What ever happened to covert operations?
Why is it we have to use a missile knowing the amount of blowback that will follow?

Location. Sometimes the "blowback" is safer than the alternative. The thing about Pakistan is that we are not "loved" by the people and we cannot work inside their borders. The Pakistani military is having a hard time holding that country together as it is without having to defend why they helped the infidels kill fellow Muslims in their country. The "blowback" of having to explain why American soldiers, Marines, or CIA operatives were captured in their country and putting the Pakistani military between a rock and a hard place would have been worse.

Also, bombing a Terrorist den publicly sends a clear message to other terrorists and their harborers. When terrorists attempt to hide amid the civilian population, we will pursue them without hesitation. They will not be allowed a single safe haven. If they use their neighbors as shields, it is the terrorists who are to blame should those civilians die. If they attempt to use their families as cover, they will be responsible for the deaths of their own loved ones. The world must learn that, when civilians allow terrorists to use them, the civilians become legitimate military targets. This has been true in every war.

This is not about diplomatic table manners. It is a fight to exterminate human monsters and the people that protect and feed them are susceptible to the their fate.

 

[Thorgasm]

Location. Sometimes the "blowback" is safer than the alternative. The thing about Pakistan is that we are not "loved" by the people and we cannot work inside their borders. The Pakistani military is having a hard time holding that country together as it is without having to defend why they helped the infidels kill fellow Muslims in their country.

Also, bombing a Terrorist den publicly sends a clear message to other terrorists and their harborers. When terrorists attempt to hide amid the civilian population, we will pursue them without hesitation. They will not be allowed a single safe haven. If they use their neighbors as shields, it is the terrorists who are to blame should those civilians die. If they attempt to use their families as cover, they will be responsible for the deaths of their own loved ones. The world must learn that, when civilians allow terrorists to use them, the civilians become legitimate military targets. This has been true in every war.

This is not about diplomatic table manners. It is a fight to exterminate human monsters and the people that protect and feed them are susceptible to the their fate.

So did you support Janet Reno burning the Branch Davidians in Waco?

 

[M14 Shooter]

So did you support Janet Reno burning the Branch Davidians in Waco?

Um...
How are the two events related?

 

[Thorgasm]

Um...
How are the two events related?

An enemy of the state was using women and children as a shield and were subsequently killed by the govt.

 

[MSgt]

So did you support Janet Reno burning the Branch Davidians in Waco?

I cared less. They were all wackos with guns and posed a threat to the officers who were trying to do their jobs.

Besides that.....comparing some looneys that lost it along the way to individuals that have been indoctrinated from birth to cheer for or be a "martyr" of murder and destruction is wrecklessly naive.

 

[MSgt]

An enemy of the state was using women and children as a shield and were subsequently killed by the govt.

They were killed because they screwed up. Nothing more. Besides that, safety was being stressed for the good guys...not for the criminal and his sheep.

 

[M14 Shooter]

An enemy of the state was using women and children as a shield and were subsequently killed by the govt.

There's less than a fine line between 'surrounding yourself with and hiding behind human shields' and 'being trapped in a building w/ your family'.