Reply With Quote
"They will not undertake any terrorist activity.
There will be no parallel government,
and foreigners will leave the area."
GMAFB
"Appeasement Not So Bad'
Pakistan Throws in the Towel
September 05, 2006 1:04 PM
Gretchen Peters and Habibullah Khan Report:
ABC NewsTaliban peace - The Pakistani military will no longer operate in the area where Osama bin Laden and other top al Qaeda operatives are believed to be hiding, according to terms of what the Pakistan government calls a "peace deal," signed today with militant tribal groups allied to the Taliban and al Qaeda.
It is a stunning setback for U.S. efforts to root out al Qaeda and Taliban strongholds.
The agreement, signed in the North Waziristan district of Pakistan's volatile tribal belt, calls for the military to return to its barracks and for the insurgents to stop launching attacks on Pakistani troops.
"The army will pull back to its camps," spokesman Major General Shaukut Sultan told ABC News. "They will not undertake any terrorist activity. There will be no parallel government, and foreigners will leave the area."
In the words of Carlos Duran, 'no mas'!
"They will not undertake any terrorist activity.
There will be no parallel government,
and foreigners will leave the area."
GMAFB
....well everybody knows the Talliban and AlQueda were good to their word.
This isn't good news.
Well, Dan seems glib, almost giddy about it.
How's that 'war on terra' going now?
This is not good for the "war on terror" or "spreading democracy", but it's better than a destabilized Pakistan that goes radical with nuclear weapons. However, this puts Afghanistan into greater risk. I think the US has the choice of maybe saving Afghanistan or Iraq, but not both.
I'm confused.
Why exactly would you be gloating about a setback in the war against Islamic extremists?
A) You are an Islamic extremist
B) You think America is worse than Islamic extremists
C) You don't think there are actually any Islamic extremists committing acts of terrorism, and that the variety of "attacks" over the past 13 years were carried out by some secret cabal of neo-cons
D) Anything that is bad for George W. Bush is good for you, up to and including events that lead to your own death
E) In your worldview, submitting to a repressive dhimmitude is preferrable to fighting a war
F) You think that Islamic extremists are extremely sophisticated people who are simply waiting for America to adopt leftist political ideologies, following which they will declare a truce
G) Other???
Wow, I'm surprised it took you that long to play the appeaser card. I kinda expected that from AHF.
Can you not give a straight answer? Why does bad news -- not in Iraq, mind you, but in south Asia -- make you happy?
Wow, I'm surprised it took you that long to play the appeaser card. I kinda expected that from AHF.
Do you not want to answer?
Are you too cowardly to answer?
Pakistan hasn't been operating in the tribal regions of western Pakistan in years (going back to pre-9/11 days).
So they put it down on paper, BFD.
Can't wait to hear Dan's answer, if he even bothers to respond.
Pakistan threw in the towel years ago. They have no interest in capturing ObL or allowing us to. Musharraf will continue his repressive ways against his countrymen until they kill him, or he falls from grace with the US, a la Saddam, and we decide on regime change. He's the ultimate fence rider.
What's to answer? I've always contended that the strategery the W.H. is using in Iraq and in the general war on terra was just gonna make things worse. This is just further confirmation of what I have been saying all along. It now seems evident that Pakistan sent troops into the tribal region to appease the U.S. War on Terra to keep the U.S. money and weapons coming and they were never really serious about starting a tribal war, especially since the Pakistan ISI (you remember them right? They were the organization that sent money to Muhamed Atta before the attacks) has deep roots in the region.
Meanwhile, under terms of the new agreement, as we pause to reflect on 911, Bin Laden and Al-Zawhiri are free too walk around the streets of Southern Pakistan without fear of arrest or attack and the U.S. is mostly powerless to do anything about it because we are bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's been a dandy war.
I suppose If I were to say something snarky like "How's that war on drugs going?", Extra Stout would say:
I'm confused.
Why exactly would you be gloating about a setback in the war against illegal drugs?
A) You are an drug user.
B) You think sobriety is worse than drug addiction
C) You don't think there are actually any illegal drugs being sold in this country, and that the variety of "drug busts" over the past 13 years were carried out by some secret cabal of neo-cons
D) Anything that is bad for the DEA is good for you, up to and including events that lead to your own death
E) In your worldview, submitting to Columbian drug lords is preferrable to fighting a war
F) You think that pushers and drug lords are extremely sophisticated people who are simply waiting for America to adopt leftist political ideologies, following which they will declare a truce
G) Other???
...in which case I would choose G) Other since I don't think long mandatory sentencing for possession and pouring billions of dollars to build and maintain more prisons is the right solution.
...or just make Ad Hominem attacks against me for daring to suggest our government is doing something wrong. Whatever works for you.
The same reason why Dan's happy when two Fox News reporters are kidnapped Palestine.
Dan doesn't have an answer to the on-going terrorism problem. All he knows is that constant lies and "repug" bashing are the only ways that he can get his beloved democrats back into power. Once that happens, the dems can get busy with their true agenda. Impeaching Bush. National security be damned.
I've always considered myself a moderate, but nowadays, it's people like dan and boutons that have me convinced that republican or independent is the only way to go. The left is far wackier than the right at this point.
Last edited by IceColdBrewski; 09-05-2006 at 10:15 PM.
If what you're arguing is that the breakdown in Pakistan could be related to the drain on our and our allies' resources by the strategic mistake of invading Iraq, then I agree.
If your notion is that the whole idea of fighting Islamic extremist groups in the first place is wrong... well, what exactly is the alternative? I mean, have you ever read any of Osama's treatises? You have to treat the acute systems before you can go after the underlying infection. At least with the original Afghan campaign, Al-Qaeda's nice cozy base of operations was disrupted, and had we not screwed up and gone into Iraq, I think the regime in Pakistan would be stronger and the campaign there would be going better.
I consider myself more of a centrist. But like you, when I'm presented with either W. and Co. or the that Dan and croutons call their party, and further, when the views they present here seem to be the mainstream thought of the Demo. party these days, that makes it pretty easy to root for the Republicans.I've always considered myself a moderate, but nowadays, it's people like dan and boutons that have me convinced that republican or independent is the only way to go. The left is far wackier than the right at this point.
There's some things that I disagree with that Bush's administration is doing, but given the pacifistic nature of the left I'll take the bumps in the road with the current leadership of the Republican party thank you.
A wing-nut calling me out for being partisan!
Yeah, you're a centrist/moderate like Yonivore is a Libertarian.
Let me tell you a little something about lies...
Who lied when the administration and M$M claimed Iraq had active stockpiles of WMD's?
Who lied when the administration and M$M claimed Iraq had active ties to terra?
Who lied when the administration and M$M claimed Saddam was an immenent threat?
Who lied when the administration and M$M claimed that the insurgency was just a handful of dead-enders?
Who lied when the administration claimed the insurgency was in it's last throes?
Who lied when the administration claimed they knew nothing about torture doing on at Abu Gharib and other locations?
When you can begin to honestly answer those questions, you will have begun to earn the credibility it takes to call me a partisan.
What pacifist nature? WW1? nope, Demo. WW2? nope, Demo. Vietnam? nope, Demo. Seems to me that the true pacifist are Republicans because they can't seem to run a war without resorting to cut-and-run.
Area controlled by Al-Queda
Pakistan abandons N. Waziristan checkpoint:
DAWNMIRAMSHAH, Sept 6: The political authorities and tribal militants exchanged weapons and vehicles in the North Waziristan Agency on Wednesday as a part of implementation of Tuesday’s peace agreement, sources said.
They said that the administration returned 24 AK-47 rifles and eight pick-ups to the militants in Miramshah. The rifles and vehicles had been seized in army operations in the region. An official said that six more vehicles would be returned to the militants. The militants handed over three G-3 rifles, some wireless sets, berets and badges to the authorities. According to the agreement, both the parties will return each other’s arms and communication equipments snatched in the operations.
Officials said that the authorities had abolished 11 new checkpoints and the army had evacuated outposts in the area. Now tribal Khasadar force and paramilitary troops were jointly manning old checkpoints in the agency, they added. In a related development, the agency’s political administration removed the names of two militant commanders, Maulvi Sadiq Noor and Maulvi Abdul Khaliq, from the list of wanted men, officials told Dawn in Peshawar.
If there are any doubts left that the militants have won.
Maybe you need to go back and check your U.S. history.What pacifist nature? WW1? nope, Demo. WW2? nope, Demo. Vietnam? nope, Demo. Seems to me that the true pacifist are Republicans because they can't seem to run a war without resorting to cut-and-run.
It was a democratically controlled Congress that cut off funding for the South Vietnamese and American armed forces battling in Vietnam.
Yeah, Ford, a (R), presided over the withdrawal, but it was a democraptic Congress that cut off the funds for the war.
Next.
Conclusion: This Administration has told us a few lies.
Checking my history...
Wkipedia, Vietnam WarOn January 15, 1973, citing progress in peace negotiations, President Nixon announced the suspension of offensive action against North Vietnam, to be followed by a unilateral withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Vietnam. The Paris Peace Accords were signed on January 27, 1973, officially ending direct U.S. involvement in the Vietnam conflict. The signing of the Accords won the 1973 Nobel Peace Prize for U.S. National Security Adviser and lead negotiator Henry Kissinger and North Vietnamese Politburo member and lead negotiator Le Duc Tho.
Five days before the peace accords were signed, Lyndon Johnson, whose presidency had been marred by the war, died. The mood during his state funeral was one of intense recrimination because the war's wounds were still raw. However, there was relief not only that U.S. involvement in Vietnam had ended, but also that a chapter in one of the most tragic and divisive eras in the United States had at last come to an end.
The first U.S. prisoners of war were released by North Vietnam on February 11, 1973, and all U.S. soldiers were ordered to leave by March 29. Soldiers returning from the Vietnam War were generally not treated as heroes, and were sometimes even condemned for their participation in the war. The peace agreement, in the meantime, did not last.
As an inducement for Nguyen Van Thieu's South Vietnamese government to sign the Peace Accords, President Nixon had promised that the United States would provide financial and limited military support (in the form of air strikes) so that the south could continue to defend itself. But Nixon was fighting for his political life in the growing Watergate Scandal, facing an increasingly hostile Congress that held the power of the purse, and was able to exert little influence on a hostile public long sick of the Vietnam War. Thus, Nixon broke his promises to South Vietnam. Economic aid to South Vietnam continued (after being cut nearly in half), but most of it was siphoned off by corrupt officials in the South Vietnamese government, and little actually went to the war effort. At the same time, aid to North Vietnam from the U.S.S.R. increased. With the United States no longer heavily involved in Vietnam, both the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. no longer saw the war as significant to their relations. The balance of power shifted decisively in North Vietnam's favor, and the north subsequently launched a major military offensive against the south.
So it was Nixon who broke his promise - check.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
