Juvenile name-calling aside, I find it funny that you can make this claim after the previous president - hardly a liberal wuss - essentially drove our foreign policy into the ditch. Recent history simply does not match up with this.
Spare me your liberal rhetoric.
Furthermore, what makes you think that American leaders understand Pakistan's problems better than Pakistani leaders do?
I think we know the damage nuclear weapons can do and I think we're acting to prevent Taliban ****bags --- WHO ARE ALLIED WITH AL QAEDA --- from seizing those weapons and proving them to Al Qaeda.
If you cannot make the connection, you are NOT QUALIFIED to discuss the topic.
Oh noes, you're typing in caps. That must mean your argument is more logically sound than mine.
My argument is more sound than yours because I am in touch with reality and I know how the world works. You clearly do not.
You need not worry about the Taliban forcibly seizing the weapons from the Pakistani military. The Pakistani military has kicked the Taliban's ass pretty much every time they've directly engaged in combat.
Yes, they are, BECAUSE WE TOLD THEM IF THEY DIDN'T ACT WE WOULD. We do not want Al Quack getting nukes. We WILL NOT allow Talibastards anywhere even close to nukes.
How would you like it if, for example, a foreign country bombed the **** out of Kansas to get rid of the Westboro Baptist Church, or bombed the **** out of Michigan to get rid of Tim McVeigh's buddies...without our elected government's permission?
This is liberal rhetoric and an irrelevant comparison. In any event, the Westboro Baptist Church is not a heavily armed terrorist group that is trying to seize control of territory is not theirs.
You are wrong -- your comparison is ABSOLUTELY IRRELEVANT.
You misunderstand what "seizing nuclear weapons" entails. Let's say that hypothetically, the Taliban mounted some huge offensive against a nuclear facility and somehow managed to overtake the Pakistani military. It's not as though they would suddenly be able to press a button and destroy a major city within the hour. A nuclear weapon is an extremely complicated machine. There are too many safeguards in place for that, and no one in the Taliban would have much experience with the nukes anyway. It would take them, at a minimum, a year to even figure out how it works and how to operate it. That would be plenty of time for us to act if necessary. Our military undoubtedly has contingency plans in place that could be carried out within a day or two, let alone an entire year.
You know NOTHING about how nuclear weapons work.
Once they seized the nuclear arsenal -- they could break down the warheads and give the warheads to Al Qaeda for use in construction of a dirty bomb.
They are NOT GOING TO LAUNCH THEM!
They will give (or sell) the components to Al Qaeda, Iran, Syria, or whomever else wants to buy them.
If you had even the first clue what you were talking about, you would realize that.
You are NOT QUALIFIED to discuss this subject.
Like I said, I am completely in favor of assisting the Pakistani government. But American boots on the ground is neither helpful to the Pakistanis nor desired by the Pakistanis.
You are not qualified to determine what is and is not useful in preventing Taliban ****bags from seizing power and nuclear weapons.
It is emotion-filled, logic-free rhetoric like this that makes it obvious that you should have absolutely no say in foreign policy. Fortunately, the people in charge of our foreign policy seem less driven by emotion than you.
There is plently of logic in what I am saying. It's just dismissed because the liberal mind cannot seem to accept that freaks who want nukes must be stopped BEFORE THEY GET NUKES or millions will die.
People who think like I do made certain that terrorist have not been able to pull of attack on American soil for over half a decade. People like you, who clearly have no idea what they are talking about, need to stop preaching nieve rhetoric.
Wexxman --- brown-nosing is lame --- even for you.