When did we declare war on Pakistan?

[Ray Zee]

good post and so right as long as we are very dilligent in making sure our targets are properly identified. and i think in this case they did, though maybe not getting the primary target.

as to the war though, if we pulled out of iraq there would be no more attacks from the iraqi people as their attacks are only about us being there. so there really is no war in iraq as you cannot call something a war when if you leave its over.

[ QUOTE ]

as to the war though, if we pulled out of iraq there would be no more attacks from the iraqi people as their attacks are only about us being there. so there really is no war in iraq as you cannot call something a war when if you leave its over.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think there would be civil war in Iraq if we were to pull out (prematurely, pardon the pun) at this time.

Interestingly too, there have been recent reports of Sunni Iraqi forces engaging in firefights against groups of foreign al-Qaeda terrorists.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
One of pillars of our policy on the War on Terror is to deny terrorists those havens. So Pakistan 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fine, just as long as you understand that you are re-writing the rules of the game this way.

One of the basic tenets of world diplomacy (aka getting along) is that the various sides join in agreements (ie rules of engagement) without conceding principles but on the basis of common ground and reciprocity. As soon as you declare that you will pursue an "enemy" across frontiers without any legitimate authority to do so (other than national security), you legitimize the reciprocal equivalent actions of an adversary, who will also define "enemy" and "pursuit" on his own merry terms.

The recent bombing strike against the Pakistani objectives may well have been correct from a military point of view (and legitimate from a security point of view). I'm arguing the larger picture. The United States is currently running roughshod over everything and everyone. This is not without its risks.

Are the risks out-weighing the benefits? Are you sure of that?

[BluffTHIS!]

We're not playing our enemies' game, nor that of the cowards and appeasers in the world who refuse to act effectively now to pay a smaller price for what would cost even more later to take care of. So our enemies don't get to run across a border and thumb their noses at us. And smart countries realizing that, won't let them in. We will win because we are making them play our game with our rules.

[andyfox]

"there have been recent reports of Sunni Iraqi forces engaging in firefights against groups of foreign al-Qaeda terrorists."

No reason the Iraqi insurgents shouldn't feel just as opposed to other foreign groups being there as well as us. And there are obvious reasons why they could feel even more opposed to the presence of al-Qaeda foreigners.

[ QUOTE ]
"there have been recent reports of Sunni Iraqi forces engaging in firefights against groups of foreign al-Qaeda terrorists."

No reason the Iraqi insurgents shouldn't feel just as opposed to other foreign groups being there as well as us. And there are obvious reasons why they could feel even more opposed to the presence of al-Qaeda foreigners.

[/ QUOTE ]

Quite right!

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


No reason the Iraqi insurgents shouldn't feel just as opposed to other foreign groups being there as well as [the Americans]. And there are obvious reasons why they could feel even more opposed to the presence of al-Qaeda foreigners.

[/ QUOTE ]

Quite right!

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure you do not realize that all this runs smack against the argument about the Iraqi insurgency being mostly the work of "foreign jihadists".

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


No reason the Iraqi insurgents shouldn't feel just as opposed to other foreign groups being there as well as [the Americans]. And there are obvious reasons why they could feel even more opposed to the presence of al-Qaeda foreigners.

[/ QUOTE ]

Quite right!

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure you do not realize that all this runs smack against the argument about the Iraqi insurgency being mostly the work of "foreign jihadists".

[/ QUOTE ]


Nobody to my knowledge has argued that.

(excerpt)"Terror Big Also Trained 'Shoe Bomber,' Moussaoui

By Habibullah Khan and Brian Ross
ABC News

Jan. 18, 2006 — ABC News has learned that Pakistani officials now believe that al Qaeda's master bomb maker and chemical weapons expert was one of the men killed in last week's U.S. missile attack in eastern Pakistan.

Midhat Mursi, 52, also known as Abu Khabab al-Masri, was identified by Pakistani authorities as one of four known major al Qaeda leaders present at an apparent terror summit in the village of Damadola early last Friday morning.

The United States had posted a $5 million reward for Mursi's capture. He is described by authorities as the man who ran al Qaeda's infamous Derunta training camp in Afghanistan, where he used dogs and other animals as subjects for experiments with poison and chemicals. His explosives training manual is still regarded as the bible for al Qaeda terrorists around the world.

"He wants to cause mayhem, major death, and he puts his expertise on the line. So the fact that we took him out is significant," said former FBI agent Jack Cloonan, an ABC News consultant, who was the senior agent on the FBI's al Qaeda squad. "He's the man who trained the shoe bomber Richard Reid and Zacarias Moussaoui, as well as hundreds of others." "(end excerpt)

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigat...ory?id=1517986


Looks like these drone missile strikes are good for killing more than just civilians.

[New001]

Honest question for you: 4 terrorists are at a dinner with N civilians. Those civilians may or may not know who the terrorists actually are. You can assume that one or two of the terrorists is "high ranking" and/or "influential." What is the highest acceptable value of N for it to be okay to kill them all?