When did we declare war on Pakistan?

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
I note that Senator McCain, defending the attack, said the war on terror has no boundaries. A war being fought with no boundaries by an administration that feels its power has no boundaries. A recipe for disaster.

[/ QUOTE ]

I note that such meaningless partisan drivel, defending every opportunity to criticize an ideology you do not share, has no purpose. 18 innocent people died in a war????? WOW! I didn't realize innocent people died in wars! Whether we should be fighting the war on terror is one debate; but as long as we're fighting it innocent people are going to die, and there's not much escaping that. If you're opposed to the nature of launching a strike outside the physical battleground of war, such is the nature of fighting an enemy that honors no rules of engagement, wears no uniform, and holds itself to no boundaries (in a region of the world willing to grant them sanctuary).

If the liberally brainwashed were willing to discuss something like this fairly, I'd be willing to admit that clearly something went wrong. Whether that something was poor intelligence, poor execution, a disregard for civilian safety, or simply a poor mission is debatable. But partisan nonsense like this makes me feel no remorse in being equally blind in my support of it (and, thus, in the end does no good).


NOTE: I intend the sarcasm which begins this post to serve as effect, not to be insulting to you Andy. I consider you an intelligent poster and would not talk down to you.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't seee a legitimate comparison between those 2 events [, Pakistan bombing and Cambodia bombing].
<font color="white"> . </font>
The indiscriminate carpet bombing and agent Orange attacks on a neutral Cambodia, and both the inital denial and then the attempted cover-up of this illegal act by the Nixon administration is one thing. A one-time, surgical strike to attempt to cripple the leadership of Al Qaeda is something entirely different, methinks.

[/ QUOTE ]

We should remember that the public and Congessional outrage predated the subsequent revelations that the Cambodia bombing was more intense than initially claimed, began long before Congress was appraised and used various "interesting substances". The public, the media and Congress were upset because the United States was conducting military operations inside a neutral country ANDwithout the permission by nor the knowledge of the U.S. Congress.

When the news broke out, the Nixon administration, as well, tried to pass it off as a "limited campaign" that would soon be over, a campaign that was "only" targeting the Ho trail.

And last time I checked, Pakistan is a "neutral" country!

...Hey! I think I spotted Osama bin-Laden having coffee with his lieutenant outside a Champs Elysées bistro. Somebody call somebody!

[SheetWise]

We have used the word "war" many times, and used it to "modify" our laws. Crime (Kennedy) and Drugs (Nixon) come to mind. We all know it doesn't mean war. We can argue about how our laws are modified, and if any changes should be permanent. "Terror" falls in those camps. In the meantime -- Afghan and Iraq are real wars. They will end. We shouldn't confuse the rhetorical war with the battlefield -- or let our lack of support for one spill into the other.

[New001]

[ QUOTE ]
We have used the word "war" many times, and used it to "modify" our laws. Crime (Kennedy) and Drugs (Nixon) come to mind. We all know it doesn't mean war. We can argue about how our laws are modified, and if any changes should be permanent. "Terror" falls in those camps. In the meantime -- Afghan and Iraq are real wars. They will end. We shouldn't confuse the rhetorical war with the battlefield -- or let our lack of support for one spill into the other.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree with you there. What I don't agree with is politicians - on either side - using the War on Terror to justify certain decisions. I think overusing war (crime, drugs like you said, or numerous other examples) is just silly.

[SheetWise]

[ QUOTE ]
I think overusing war (crime, drugs like you said, or numerous other examples) is just silly.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree, it is.
I think it's initially used for shock value -- but in the end it just numbs the public consciousness to the point that they don't recognize the meaning of war. They take a good/bad position on war without understanding that some war situations are really either/or.

[LadyWrestler]

And, of course, this is all the United States of America's fault...correct?

This war will be over when the threat has been reduced to an acceptable level, the same as every other war. Treaty's can be signed and then broken. In World War 2 we continued to engage attacking Japanese soldiers long after the treaty was signed. The same could be said for many other wars.

If you need a definition for terrorism, here: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/terrorism

[andyfox]

What I believe is irrelevant.

[LadyWrestler]

In the grand scheme of things, me, too.

(excerpt)

"Source: 4 terrorists killed in U.S. missile strike
Foreigners had been invited to dinner, Pakistani official says

Tuesday, January 17, 2006; Posted: 11:50 a.m. EST (16:50 GMT)

PESHAWAR, Pakistan (AP) -- At least four foreign terrorists died in the purported U.S. airstrike aimed at al Qaeda's No. 2 leader in a Pakistani border village, the provincial government said Tuesday."(end excerpt)


http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapc....ap/index.html



Well here's hoping they get a few more soon. I've heard it's terrorist-hunting season in the Pakistan mountain regions.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
And last time I checked, Pakistan is a "neutral" country!

...Hey! I think I spotted Osama bin-Laden having coffee with his lieutenant outside a Champs Elysées bistro. Somebody call somebody!

[/ QUOTE ]

When terrorists are not sponsered/supported directly by a state and provided haven, they depend upon the inability or unwillingness of 3rd party states like Pakistan to provide that haven, even if not intentionally. One of pillars of our policy on the War on Terror is to deny terrorists those havens. So Paksistan and other countries can either put their own house in order, allow us to do so openly if they cannot, allow us to do so with a wink and a nod as is the case in Pakistan regardless of official government outrage on this matter, or . . . we will just do it anyway. We wouldn't allow some narcoterrorist to keep taking pot shots across the border from Mexico at us, and we shouldn't allow same from 3 or 10 countries over either.