US Threatened To Bomb Pakistan

[Brent]

FWIW... Richard Armitage, who "allegedly" said this has denied it completely in an interview with NBC.

[southerngale]

Another reason is the fact that they just hate the West and want nothing to do with it. So maybe we should just leave them alone and stop trying to make Westerners of them (they obviously don't want democracy and plasma-tv, so why bother forcing them to accept these things?)

You mean like we were leaving them alone before they flew airplanes into our buildings and killed thousands of innocent Americans?

Yeah, that works.

These people will look for any and every excuse they can find for terrorism not because of poverty, but because of hate.

Then let's stop giving them more reasons to hate us and to kill our civilians. Fighting them will only make things worse.

I can tell you one thing...we will never just roll over and let them attack us, without retaliation. And I thank God that I live in a country that does stand up for herself!

[Yarrah]

A question: Can we defeat the terrorist by fighting them?

PS: As I've said before, I'm not saying that we should just lean back and let the terrorists attack us. I'm just saying that the way we're trying to combat them at the moment isn't working at all and that we should look for other ways to end this conflict.

[x-y-no]

On the original topic of the thread:

If Armitage did put it to Musharraf in those terms at that time, I have no problem with that. He denies it and President Bush today said it's the first he's heard of it, so I suspect that the actual words may have been somewhat more diplomatic but the content essentially what Musharraf says. After all, our version is that we told the Pakistanis they would have to make a choice right then and there who they stand with.

Now if Pakistan, a nuclear power, had chosen to stand with our enemies - what choice would there have been but to "bomb them into the stone age?" We could hardly have made the same kind of limited assault on Pakistan that we did on Afghanistan. It would neccesarily have been a very different and far bloodier war.

[Lindaloo]

Yes we can defeat them. Other countries have got to step up to the plate too.

[mf_dolphin]

A question: Can we defeat the terrorist by fighting them?

PS: As I've said before, I'm not saying that we should just lean back and let the terrorists attack us. I'm just saying that the way we're trying to combat them at the moment isn't working at all and that we should look for other ways to end this conflict.

Sure you can defeat them and exactly how we're going about it. It's a long hard road but it's one we must travel. Since you're so critical of the way it's being done why not suggest the better way? Keep in mind that the terrorists obey no law including the Islamic faith that they say they're defending.

[GalvestonDuck]

Okay, point taken,they are pretty selective about their targets. But saying "Bomb you back to the stone age" isn't a good way to portray a feeling of selectiveness :S

As I said in a previous post, that was an ALLEGED statement. We now know he has denied saying it.

What reason did we give them for September 11th?! What reason did we give them for last July in England? Madrid? Bali? We should just roll over and let them do this?

The reasons for Madrid, London and Bali are clear: the War in Iraq

The war in Iraq has nothing to do with 9/11. Again, Sunny's question -- What reason did we give them for September 11th? Or the '93 attack on WTC, Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, the Munich Olympics attack in '72, or so many dozens of others that happened long before 2001?

A question: Can we defeat the terrorist by fighting them?

Part of the problem is that they continue to fight and act aggressively regardless of what we do. For the longest time, the image I had of a terrorist was from the 80's -- the Lebanese hijacker, purportedly a member of Hezbollah, waving his assault rifle from the window of a cockpit while the plane was on the tarmac. His demands: to have Lebanese prisoners released from an Israeli prison. Groups like "Hezbollah", "Hamas," and the "Islamic Jihad" have been around for a long time and have been launching attacks in dozens of other countries for years. Those terms were well-known by me before 2001, as well as anyone else who followed the news, even half-heartedly. So don't tell me it's America's fault these guys are doing what they do. They're against everyone and no amount of talking will work. They're all about violence and killing. If they're not committing acts of terrorism by hijacking planes or blowing themselves up with car bombs or explosives strapped to their bodies, they're assassinating leaders of countries or faiths. Is it any surprise the term "assassin" comes from the name of the radical Islamic group "Hashashin?"

Heck, just draw a cartoon of Mohammed or quote what someone from the 14th century has to say about him and see what happens. Oh, but they can burn our religious and world leaders in effigy as well as our flags (note I'm using plural because they're not just against the US), behead people, hijack planes, take hostages, all the while screaming "Allahu Akbar!" and we're just supposed to sit back, tap our fingers on our desks, and try to think of ways to talk some sense and diplomacy into them?

[Yarrah]

Since you're so critical of the way it's being done why not suggest the better way?

The war in Iraq has nothing to do with 9/11. Again, Sunny's question -- What reason did we give them for September 11th? Or the '93 attack on WTC, Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, the Munich Olympics attack in '72, or so many dozens of others that happened long before 2001?

Allright, I'll try to explain the two things above. I'm sure that I won't convince you and that some will think that this is just sitting back, but hey, it's always nice to know how other people think.

It all has to do with a certain type of global thinking know as the modernization school. This school suggests that a number of stages exist in the national development of countries leading to a final stage that represents the culmination of the development process (i.e. a democracy and a free market like the Western world has). An underdeveloped country, for example, can become a rich and 'happy' Western country after a while, but it will have to go through a few stages. This school thinks that the fastest way to reach the highest stage is to mimic the development of countries such as the US and the European countries. It also thinks that if we help underdeveloped countries in their modernization process, those countries will reach the final stage even faster. So if we'd just help underdeveloped countries to mimic the path we made to reach what we now have, those countries will become just as rich and happy as our countries.

This is a noble way of thinking but it just isn't realistic. The main problem is that it's a very ethnocentric way of thinking. Not all countries will develop in the same we as we did, because there are so many other variables, such as culture and the fast changing world. Other countries may not even want to take the stages we think are necessary to reach the final stage and some might not even want to become like us.

It's the countries that don't want to become like us that are causing all the problems right now. Iran and Afghanistan for example. They don't want democracy and other western values. They want to live in a country with Islamic values and where the Islam plays a large role in the government. And then we come to them, forcing them to live by our western values and to accept democracy, something they aren't used and they don't even want. And we don't ask them nicely to change. No, we invade their countries, we install a new government and suddenly change their every-day life. Suddenly it's forbidden to grow opium in Afghanistan, while they have done that for thousands of years and it is one of the few ways for the average Afghani to make some money. You would feel pretty crappy too if a Muslim country invaded the US, changed it's government to one which follows the Sharia and demanded that they followed Islamic rules. That's the way most of the people feel in Afghanistan or Iraq.

And it's not just something from the last few years, because this modernization school was invented in the '50's. This constant meddling with their cultures has caused their hate towards us (I'm not saying I agree with how they handle their hate). 9/11, the '93 attack and all the other acts of terrorism listed above have been executed because they feel attacked by our modernization thinking and because we want to change they way they are.

So my solution to this conflict is to stop forcing them (especially by using violence) to become like us or as we want them to be. If a country doesn't want to be like us, it's impossible to succeed in our mission. Just look at what happened in Vietnam. We wanted them to become a free, western state, but the Vietnamese didn't want that at all. In the end, we just couldn't force them to become they way we wanted them to be. But look at Vietnam now. The country is rapidly changing into a western country and we didn't even demanded that they had to change. This is because the people of Vietnam wanted it to happen. Maybe this will happen in the Middle East to within a few decades, but only if we leave them be. Of course, in the beginning there will always be some groups that still want to attack western countries for what they have done to their Muslim brothers, but if we just stay vigilant for a while, things will be all right in the end.

(Edited by GD to change expletive to "crappy." )

[MiamiensisWx]

I think I can translate Yarrah's point. He's not stating we shouldn't respond if we are attacked or if a country's economic issues and upheaval pose a threat to surrounding nations and potentially the U.S. and others (such as Iran, one of the most notable examples that fits this description), but that if we make some strategic and philosophical mistakes, we can further embolden extremists, and the extremists can gain support from others who don't like the actions of the United States but won't protest without resorting to cruel extremes.

Don't get me wrong: I hate - truly hate - the actions of terrorists as much as anyone. Just trying to translate what Yarrah may be trying to state.

[sunny]

It's the countries that don't want to become like us that are causing all the problems right now. Iran and Afghanistan for example. They don't want democracy and other western values. They want to live in a country with Islamic values and where the Islam plays a large role in the government. And then we come to them, forcing them to live by our western values and to accept democracy, something they aren't used and they don't even want. And we don't ask them nicely to change. No, we invade their countries, we install a new government and suddenly change their every-day life. Suddenly it's forbidden to grow opium in Afghanistan, while they have done that for thousands of years and it is one of the few ways for the average Afghani to make some money. You would feel pretty crappy too if a Muslim country invaded the US, changed it's government to one which follows the Sharia and demanded that they followed Islamic rules.

We would not have invaded Afghanistan if the Taliban had upped Osama. But they wouldn't. Furthermore, The Northern Alliance had been fighting the Taliban for how many years? Because The Northern Alliance wanted progress. I'm not saying democracy, I don't know that. But they did want progress. But please don't make it sound like we go round invading countries on a whim. It is simply not true. As for the opium issue, yes they grow it. Then where do they want to ship it to make money? hmmmmmm.

To the best of my knowledge, haven't the governments installed been voted on by the people of Afghan and Iraq? Or did I miss something?

You would feel pretty crappy too if a Muslim country invaded the US, changed it's government to one which follows the Sharia and demanded that they followed Islamic rules. That's the way most of the people feel in Afghanistan or Iraq.

And you know this how? Have the Afghan and Iraqi people told you this perosonally? What if I were to tell you that the people of Iraq thank the soldiers of the coalition forces for what they have sacrificed in order to try to help them? But there are some who simply do not want to believe that. And trust me when I tell you those sacrifices have been GREAT. I know that from personal experience.

But once again, we did not go looking for this. It was brought to us. And they brought it to us because we wouldn't be like THEM.

And for the record - I HATE WAR. I wish there was something, ANYTHING we could do to avoid it. I hate what it does to people. And I really hate what it has done to my nephew. But he gave his best, he gave it everything he had. And now he is paying the price for that. And I will fight tooth and nail before I let him, or his fallen brothers, be treated the way the Vietnam Vets were. And I am not saying that you are doing that Yarrah.

[Yarrah]

I think I can translate Yarrah's point. He's not stating we shouldn't respond if we are attacked or if a country's economic issues and upheaval pose a threat to surrounding nations and potentially the U.S. and others (such as Iran, one of the most notable examples that fits this description), but that if we make some strategic and philosophical mistakes, we can further embolden extremists, and the extremists can gain support from others who don't like the actions of the United States but won't protest without resorting to cruel extremes.

Well translated. It always sounds so much better if a native speaker translates it for you.

But please don't make it sound like we go round invading countries on a whim. It is simply not true.

Of course the US doesn't just invade countries on a whim, it's a civilized country after all. I'm sorry if I made it sound like that.

But I'll just stop discussing this now. I don't want people to think I hate the US or something because of this. I've made my point, I've discussed it (and I liked discussing it), but I think it's enough.

*jumps in his bed*

[sunny]

You haven't sounded like you hate the US. I don't think you would be here if you did! And you have come to the right place for discussing things, we do love a good debate here

[GalvestonDuck]

So my solution to this conflict is to stop forcing them (especially by using violence) to become like us or as we want them to be.

I'm confused. What do countries -- third world, rich, or in-between -- have to do with it? We aren't fighting countries. We're fighting terrorists. And it's not about forcing them (the terrorists) to become like us. We AREN'T like them and therefore, being "non-believers" and "infidels" in their eyes, they want to kill us. They are the ones using violence and force. What was it recently? "All Americans should convert to Islam."

My solution -- I'm not converting anything unless it's measurements and I'm cooking.

[SouthFloridawx]

I always find this debate that's been going around for the past couple years, very interesting. On one had you have the people who don't think we should attack and get to the root of the problem. These are the people that think that violence is not the answer.

The other hand is the people who think that the US needs to fight this war on terror and do so by whatever cost is necessary.

I do not like to have this debate here but, there are a lot of valid points brought up by both sides. I think one side refuses to see the points of the other side. This is causing a backlash on anger and frustraition from both.

Certainly this is the product of the world we are living in today. You either have to choose to want to bomb people or just plain old leave them alone totally.

It's extreme one way or the other and never a solution is found in between.

I am one of those who feel there should be a solution somewhere in the middle. That does not make me wishy washy but, allows me to be able to be open to both sides to figure out what the right thing would be to do. We certainly can't always be one or the other. There are many in between that we could also choose but, don't do so.

This countries actions, although provacated by terrorists a few years in DC/PA and in NY, have remained unsolved and I do not see the type of progress that they were describing back in the day. We don't even hear about what the plan is anymore. Do we have one?

I agree with meso on a lot of points as far as going into other countries trying to get a few but, harm many is not the right way to go.

On the other hand do we just let the terrorists run the show and bomb whomever they wish.

Well if you can come up with a solution that lies in between then you are a better person than me, cause I don't see one. We'll probably just be stuck in limbo until something else big happens. Overal I do not see us going down the right paths as far as this war is concerned. Let's see a plan and not just oh we're going to get the terrorist.

[Meso]

Fine... I`ll remove the post if it offends people. I'm just going to try not come to off-topic.Think it's better that way

[sunny]

You know Meso, you are treading on dangerous ground now. Not only have I had a loved on fighting in the Middle East, but so have several other members of this board. You might want to thing about that before you go posting about OUR military. You have NO CLUE.

[x-y-no]

I always find this debate that's been going around for the past couple years, very interesting. On one had you have the people who don't think we should attack and get to the root of the problem. These are the people that think that violence is not the answer.

The other hand is the people who think that the US needs to fight this war on terror and do so by whatever cost is necessary.

This proposed dichotomy leaves out the large body of people (including me) who feel that we must strongly fight our enemies but in a focused and intelligent fashion and the way things have been and are being done involves strategic blunders of incredible scale coupled with an obstinate clinging to those bad strategies - and that both these things are very destructive to our long term security.

Yet for whatever reason - maybe because this doesn't fit the media narrative of what the debate is supposed to be - it's very difficult to discuss the issue on these terms. One is constantly challenged to defend some charicature of an argument one has never made and never would make.

[Lindaloo]

Fine... I`ll remove the post if it offends people. I'm just going to try not come to off-topic.Think it's better that way

Good thing, because that keeps me out of trouble. Don't wanna know what you said about our military either.

[x-y-no]

Here's a good article in the Weekly Standard about the recent deal Pakistan made with the Taliban/al Qaeda giving then autonomy in Waziristan and releasing 2500 prisoners.

Daveed Gartenstein-Ross and Bill Roggio are two of the better informed counterterrorism analysts out there. I make it a point to read their comments regularly.

The implications of this deal are far worse than anyone in an official position is letting on.

[Derek Ortt]

So if fighting terrorism doesn't work (and it looks to be that way, because the world hasn't become safer at all since the War on Terrorism started), what should we do then? Find out why those people become extremists. Poverty is one reason, but it's hard to fight that in countries with almost no natural resources such as Afghanistan. Another reason is the fact that they just hate the West and want nothing to do with it. So maybe we should just leave them alone and stop trying to make Westerners of them (they obviously don't want democracy and plasma-tv, so why bother forcing them to accept these things?).



Why don't we just accept their demand of unconditional surrender so some here can have their peace at any cost.

Absurred to say we should not be over there, simply absurred