[coderitr]

There is strong evidence that Osama Bin Laden is in the Pashtun region of northern Pakistan. He was last reported in the mountains of eastern Afghanistan from which a migration to Pakistan is an easy one. The Pashtun region is known to be a stronghold of radical muslims who would welcome Bin Laden and support the atrocities that he has inflicted on countless innocent civilians. The Musharraf government will not allow US troops on Pakistani soil to search for this criminal. This refusal is tanamount to support for the actions of Bin Laden and his terrorist network. Should the US force the issue? Heavy casualties among American soldiers is likely but could be reduced with a sustained bombing campaign supported by reliable intelligence from aerial and satellite reconnaissance. Pakistan is known to have a nuclear weapons program. The extent of that development is not common knowledge but they have tested nuclear weapons and the possiblity that those weapons are in the hands of the radicals in the Pashtun region cannot be ignored.

India is a free, friendly nation who I am sure would cooperate fully with the US to allow us to stage an assault from their western military installations. If for no other reason, it may end the dispute over the Kashmere region which both India and Pakistan claim as theirs.

The Bush administration was so gung-ho about bringing Bin Laden to justice after the 9/11 attacks and this was the driving force behind the invasion of Afghanistan. That determination seems to have waned in recent months as the conflict in Iraq has occupied the attention of the world. Bin Laden is no less dangerous now than he was then.

[AlbertB]

Come on Coderitr, get back into the real world. So America can simply invade any sovereign nation now in the name of catching anyone whom she has a dislike for?

Of course the Pakistani government will not let American troops on their soil, when did America ever let our troops onto your land to hunt for IRA terrorists?

As to India allowing you to use their country as a launchpad all I can say is, thank God the Indians are more intelligent than some of the fanatics in the USA! Sort out the problems of the Kashmiri region? You would simply add to the growing list one more area thrown into worse turmoil and handed over to the extremists by US intervention. This of course should begin with the assumption that India is in the right over the dispute! But then they must be if they allow America to have what she wants I suppose.

[oldie]

Think what you like but Pakistan is, like India, a proud nation. politics aside that is. Wish you guys would delve into world history a little more, maybe realise there is a world out there other than the USA.

Ok Pakistan has it's rogues just like any other nation, including the USA. And OK Musharraf is a dictator, but in my opinion one who is able to see reason. Check Pakistans recent history and you will see the corruption prior to Musharraf taking over

Back to the threads title - no - because the American people wouldn't allow it. Already the tide turns, as it always does.

Oldie

[coderitr]

Originally posted by AlbertB:
Of course the Pakistani government will not let American troops on their soil, when did America ever let our troops onto your land to hunt for IRA terrorists?

Good point.

[buddhafabio]

Originally posted by AlbertB:
Come on Coderitr, get back into the real world. So America can simply invade any sovereign nation now in the name of catching anyone whom she has a dislike for?

Of course the Pakistani government will not let American troops on their soil, when did America ever let our troops onto your land to hunt for IRA terrorists?

As to India allowing you to use their country as a launchpad all I can say is, thank God the Indians are more intelligent than some of the fanatics in the USA! Sort out the problems of the Kashmiri region? You would simply add to the growing list one more area thrown into worse turmoil and handed over to the extremists by US intervention. This of course should begin with the assumption that India is in the right over the dispute! But then they must be if they allow America to have what she wants I suppose.

albert if you want to get these killers off of my country i would let you.

[LANMaster]

Yes, but with Musharraff's permission.

if you call an american squad crossing the Pak border to seek out bin Ladel and "invasion" then yes, we should go after him.

But I don't think we should go to war against Pakistan.

[buddhafabio]

if it were possible to take out their nukes. it would be easier to let india take care of them

[CyBerAliEn]

I certainly wouldn't say Pakistan is a great friend of ours (ours being the USA). But should the US invade Pakistan (IE, go to war with)? No I don't think we should. At least not right now or in the near future.

Should a team go in to hunt for Bin Laden, with permission from Musharraff? Yes, I think that would be a better option.

But if Pakistan doesn't want us in, they don't want us in. That incident in itself does not warrant the need to declare war against them.

Besides, as noted, Musharraff is a pretty stable leader for Pakistan. Take him out by going to war, and I'm sure we'll be encountering invading the country again within 100 years to remove a rogue dictator.

[Wino]

But if Pakistan doesn't want us in, they don't want us in. That incident in itself does not warrant the need to declare war against them.

Afghanistan/Taliban harbored OBL/UBL and were invaded (I fully supported this action). If Pakistan doesn't make a concerted effort to kill/capture OBL/UBL, then I believe we should go after him - same if he is hiding in Iran. Retribution for 911 should know no borders. In the matter of OBL/UBL, I agree with Bush - "You are either with us or against us". Hopefully, our Intel is better regarding his where abouts, cause if we're wrong again, it will be hell to pay. Just my humble opinion.

[CyBerAliEn]

I agree to some extent Wino. I think we ought to go after Osama.

But I don't think we should declare war against Pakistan JUST because they refuse to have our armed forces onto their territory. This is not to say that I am totally against war with Pakistan. I am saying, I don't believe this sole action would constitute a declaration of war. Now if Pakistan is found to currently be aiding Osama and such, then that can certainly sway my stance.

Now, if we know about ~99.99999% exactly where Osama is (such as a more specific area, not just a vague one like "those mountain ranges"), regardless of where he is, I am sure if it were possible, special forces of whatever degree would likely be deployed.

I'm also quite positive that if we know where he is, we aren't going to just sit back; we are going to go in and get him. There have been far too many chances in the past where we could have apprehended him, but for whatever reason at the time, didn't. To give up another opportunity to nab Osama is like inviting more events of the likes of Sept 11.

[AlbertB]

You are acting like fools and children, just as so many of you did before the Iraq invasion!

We are back to that same old old question regarding sovereign rights of nations. Noone has the right to go in to any other country at their own behest to do anything. Take financial measures? Yes. Start action via other political routes? By all means. But invade because you simply do not get from their government what you think you have the right to and you have just single handedly implemented the swift collapse of international law and order in one stroke!

The whole of the rest of the world then has the right to come to America and take whatever it thinks it has a right to by force. But then I'm sure you brainout butt kicking ARROOOGAGH good old boys will say you can take that can't you?

What you would do is to polarise the whole of the rest of the world against you, united in the fear that any of us may be next if we don't kiss your sad spoilt a**es centrally enough, and make us seek strength in numbers. This would eventually have to cause group action on a scale you simply could not handle. Imagine Europe, Russia and breakaways, liberal Moslem states, China, Far Eastern states and many others all aligned against the USA, and each of us looking for an opening and considering preemptive action, where does that leave the world? No one country is that big!

All for the sake of a tinpot dictator of a raghead country? No, all because once again the United States refuses to accept that there are world affairs and principles bigger than its little self and its own selfish policies.

Don't be idiots. Learn that there is a limit to what your military can achieve and start learning to use your brains instead of your muscles!




Or let someone else who HAS a brain lead you for once.

[oldie]

Or let someone else who HAS a brain lead you for once.

Albert Pleeeese I canna stop larfing mate

[oldie]

On a serious note here, some of the views being expressed in this thread can be likened to those of the late 1930s Hitler Youth Movement. Might is right !!!!

But again, I say, the American people would never allow their leaders to turn the rest of the free world against the USA !!!!

Oldie

[coderitr]

Originally posted by CyBerAliEn:
Now if Pakistan is found to currently be aiding Osama and such, then that can certainly sway my stance.

CyberAlien -- do you not consider the actions (or inactions) of the Pakistani government in this regard to be "aiding?" By refusing to let our troops in the country to apprehend him, they are, in fact, "aiding and abetting."

[Paquadez]

Pakistan is a state, still in turmoil from its own ethnic problems, argumants with India apart.

It must be remembered, historically, that what we now call Pakistan and Bangladesh, were all part of India, before self-rule and separation in 1948.

Ghandi tried desperately to keep the place as one state.

Pandit Neru and Mohamed Ali Jinner felt otherwise.

Thus Pakistan became the MUslim part of what had been India.

Then internal struggles created such pressure, an internal war created two separate states: Pakistan and Bangladesh.

Before General Musharraf seized power, in a military coup, the state of Pakistan was in absolute turmoil. As Oldies stated.

Musharraf did in fact support the US and is trying very hard to modernise and stabalise his country.

A unilateral invasion is the stuff of nightmares: someone must have been reading far too many books, or watching too many shoot-'em up Green Beret Hollywood movies!

So, Pakistan has nuclear weapons: but so does France, Germany, China, Israel, India, the list is growing............................

If the USA wants, genuinely, to seek out OBL and bring him to justice, then the process will have to be a combination of excellent intel and cooperation with other states.

After all, Musharraf would not willingly harbour an international criminal such as OBL, if he wishes to improve his country's economic position - which he does.

Paq