US troop movements into Pakistan

What are your thoughts on all of this? Apparently Bush approved movement of our troops into Pakistan, in July, without any need to ask the Pakistan govt.

?

The Associated Press: Pakistan orders troops to open fire if US raids

If Taliban and al-Qaeda is housed in that ungoverned region of Pakistan, i do not see the problem why are troops can't be there. Pakistan doesn't even control the part of the government. If they were to open fire on our troops in that region, they would have been harboring those terrorists. If they were allies with us, why aren't they opening fire on taliban hot spots or al-Qaeda training camps.

I believe this stemmed from the U.S. believeing governments in the regions weren't doing enough to ge to Al Queda and the taliban in those regions. I don't really see the need to ask for permission to go after a group that has attacked us.

__________________
It's time for another Ronny in the White House.

The Democrats have complained we were not doing this, now they are against it, go figure.

__________________
The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd. Indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.
-Bertrand Russell

Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are more pliable
-Laurence J. Peters

I never said that you had no right to have an opinion. I just said that it was, in fact, worth nothing.
-Maineman ( on 12 June 2007)

Of course they are against it, because a republican is doing it.

__________________
Charles_Main

"Whenever a man has cast a longing eye on offices, a rottenness begins in his conduct."
Thomas Jefferson

"Dependence begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition."
Thomas Jefferson

I haven't heard anyone complain necessarily, personally. I think Obama said we should do this.

I just can't decide what I personally think about it and am curious what others think. Is it a good idea? Would it be OK if the tables were turned? Ex if Pakistan sent troops into the US to chase down someone they were trying to get, without asking us.

Is it OK for Pakistan to open fire on our troops if we go into Pakistan chasing Taliban?

How hard should we fight over this, is it worth going to war with Pakistan (a nuclear power) over this?

Bush wants to get Bin Ladin before he gets out of office. Or at least look like he tried. Too little too late.

And what ever happened to not going in because Pakistan is a soverign nation? I guess Obama was right again.

How many things does Obama have to be right about before people will vote for him?

Exactly the point. Democrats support the Idea when Obama talks about it, and rail against it when Bush does it.

Typical!

__________________
Charles_Main

"Whenever a man has cast a longing eye on offices, a rottenness begins in his conduct."
Thomas Jefferson

"Dependence begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition."
Thomas Jefferson

About half the people will vote for him. What more do you want. You want us all to? Sorry that only happens in Communist Dictatorships and despotic regimes like Saddam ran. Be happy we live in a democracy where only half the people will ever agree on anything

__________________
Charles_Main

"Whenever a man has cast a longing eye on offices, a rottenness begins in his conduct."
Thomas Jefferson

"Dependence begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition."
Thomas Jefferson

My thoughts is Pakistan must have a surplus of troops its looking to pear down...

But this is what happens when Democracy fails and a nation elects a pack of leftists... I suggest that Pakistan's government revist recent history and see what happens to governments which make war on the US and tie that understanding with the certainty that Governments which fire on US troops are making war on the US.

Spare me the nonsense about the US 'invading Pakistan.' President Bush made it clear that the US will go wherever our terrorist enemy is found and that we do not find a distinction between terrorists and those governmen which lend them safe harbor.

Sure... That's reasonable... If the US were asked to turn over those who had attacked Pakistan, assuming Pakistan is an ally of the US at the time, and the US government refused to do so; then it would be reasonable for Pakistan to send armed troops into the US to find them. Naturally Pakistan would have to face the consequences of that action...

Now what those consequences would be is hard to say, as the scenario doesn't say what government the US would be suffering at the time; we can assume that because the US Government was unable to enforce a given segment of its terroritory, that the government would be an impotent leftist government on a par with 'Jimma Carta;' clearly such would not be the case with an American administration, but what's fair is fair...

The new Pakistan definitely aint Kansas no more... The US needs pakistans support in this war.. we cannot make things difficult for the new leader and his peeps.. we, on the other hand need to make cross border raids.. its called diplomacy and the next president needs to look into it... god forbid palin be given the reigns.. I mean its not like she can see pakistan from her front porch...

oddly enough ...no one cared when saddam gassed the kurds....saddam got a key to the city of detroit....seems we didnt always find so much fault with saddam. Do you advocate overthrow of all despotics? ie. north korea

__________________

as for the attacks.....you find the rats where they run and hide....you dont have neutral zones for them..but again i will say it....if 100 muslims die to save one american soldier...so be it. the sooner more americans are aware of the committment it will take to end the terrorism of a cultural. It is hard to understand these people..they kill each other like it is nothing...it is what they understand...they see the us as weak for being so pc....the reason saddam could keep the shiitees from killing the sunnis and vice versus is that he would kill more then they could imagine. violence is what controls them. not religion.

__________________

ROFLMNAO.. that's rich... Bin Laden is a hostage to whomever it is that he is leaning on for safe harbor. Suggesting that Bush has not pursued Bin laden is absolute idiocy and a position wholly detached from reality.

Hussein hasn't been right about anything so far, but even a blind nut inds a squirrel now and then... The US did not pursue terrorists into Pakistan because it was giving the Pakistani government the time it said it needed to put assets in place to stop those in their naton from using Pakistan as a base of operations from which to attack Afghanistan.

Since the recent regime change in Pakistan, the Taliban and al Qaeda operatives have exponentially increased their ingressing from Pakistan to attack Afghanistan and regressing back into Pakistan to avoid getting attacked by US and NATO forces...

The new regime has made it cear that they are far less interested in policing that area and with this latest move have made it just as clear that they are now interested in following the fate of the regional neighbor who promoted the interests of Islamic Terrorists...




Name one thing that Hussein has gotten right?