- Joined
- Nov 24, 2009
- Messages
- 2,443
- Reaction score
- 733
- Location
- San Francisco
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Are we at war with Pakistan?
We're at war with the Pakistani colonels if not the generals; so, yes, yes we are.
how are we at war with their colonels?
We need them, so no.
Point is, we need them more than they need us; indeed they hold nothing but contempt for our nation.
Really, what do you think would happen if Pakistan lost the billions given to it America?
War with India? Oh, yeah, that's what's already happened. Maybe some more of that.
We damn well ought to be. According to the Bush doctrine, we will "not distinguish between terrorists and those who harbour them".
Why would Pakistan go to war with India again?
No, we are not at war with Pakistan. We may be unsatisfied with them, but not at war. How can you be at war with a nation you are funding?
Have they needed reasons in the past? I don't think so.
War can mean invading their territory, selectively killing their residents and then redrawing like we did Sunday night.
No, we are not at war with Pakistan. We may be unsatisfied with them, but not at war. How can you be at war with a nation you are funding?
The victims were for the most part not Pakistani citizens, and no Pakistani troops were involved. If we go into Mexico and a couple Special Forces guys kill some drug cartel members, that doesn't mean we're at war with the Mexican State.
I rather think you should ask the Mexicans whether they consider that an act of war. The answer is yes, yes they do.
The Mexicans aren't asking us to invade their country and start killing people no matter how bad they may be. Nor are the Pakistanis. You have to come to terms with the new reality that a country such as Pakistan can have a political leadership which is effectively a hollow shell, even a military leadership with very tentative control over its own intelligence and military services. In effect Pakistan is a enemy country with a false but friendly face.