Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Kerretarded

REPLYING TO YOUR QUESTIONS:

(1) I’ve always gotten the drift that Paul IS a type of isolationist. I’m not sure which type...yes, there’s more than one.

Not only that, but he thinks Scooter Libby shouldn’t be considered for a pardon - not because he agrees with the jury verdict necessarily, or even the indictment per se, but because Libby was part of an administration that allegedly misled us into war with Saddam.

Simply a mind boggling statement!!

(2) Pakistan is a powder keg. Much more dangerous to try to control than Iraq, and you see how difficult Iraq has become. The Paks have nuclear weapons. Musharraf is always hanging onto power by a thread. The alternative to Musharraf would be an Islamic fundamentalist government (think Taliban).

Also, the tribal regions where Bin Laden went are the wildest, most impenetrable topography in the world. Beyond the imagination to conceive of unless you were there to see for yourself. But the locals do know the land. And they support Bin Laden with their lives and everything they have.


46 posted on 05/04/2007 6:58:49 AM PDT by txrangerette (Congressman Duncan Hunter for POTUS...check him out!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies ]


To: txrangerette
(2) Pakistan is a powder keg. Much more dangerous to try to control than Iraq, and you see how difficult Iraq has become. The Paks have nuclear weapons. Musharraf is always hanging onto power by a thread. The alternative to Musharraf would be an Islamic fundamentalist government (think Taliban).

Also, the tribal regions where Bin Laden went are the wildest, most impenetrable topography in the world. Beyond the imagination to conceive of unless you were there to see for yourself. But the locals do know the land. And they support Bin Laden with their lives and everything they have.


Understood. But, we would not be trying to control Pakistan. Musharraf seems to have at least some kind of hold on the stability of that country. And since Musharraf's troubles are coming from the same people that are loyal to Bin Laden, couldn't he benefit as well by allowing our troops to assist him? Or would more of the country turn on him if he allowed our short-term presence? I at least gotta think that we are doing covert missions inside Pakistan to look for him.

Also, if that country is indeed a powderkeg WITH nukes, AND they are harboring the Taliban and perhaps Bin Laden if he still exists, why didn't we go into Pakistan AND THEN Iraq? There has to be a bigger reason why we didn't go into Pakistan. China' possible intervention or something.
49 posted on 05/04/2007 8:02:28 AM PDT by Eagle of Liberty (The United States of America is the only country strong enough to go it alone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson