Graybeard Outdoors banner

1 - 20 of 24 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
601 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
U.S. criticizes Pakistan on Taliban leaders Sat Jun 18, 7:24 AM ET



KABUL (Reuters) - The outgoing U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan has suggested that Taliban leader Mullah Mohammad Omar has been hiding in Pakistan and sharply criticized Islamabad's failure to act against Taliban leaders.



Zalmay Khalilzad told Afghanistan's Aina Television that a Pakistani TV channel had interviewed a senior Taliban commander, Mullah Akhtar Usmani, at a time when Pakistani officials claimed they did not know the whereabouts of Taliban leaders.

"If a TV station can get in touch with them, how can the intelligence service of a country, which has nuclear bombs and a lot of security and military forces, not find them," Khalilzad said in the interview with Aina broadcast on Friday evening. "Mullah Omar and other Taliban leaders should have been in Pakistan," Khalilzad said. "Mr Usmani, who is one of the Taliban leaders, spoke to Pakistani Geo TV, at a time when Pakistani officials claimed that they did not know where they were."

An English transcript of the interview with Aina, which the Afghan-American Khalilzad gave in the Dari language, was made available by the British Broadcasting Corp.

Khalilzad also questioned Pakistan's inability to find Taliban spokesman Abdul Latif Hakimi, who had given interviews from the Pakistani city of Quetta, and repeated a call for Pakistan to do more to track down Taliban figures.

"It is very important for Pakistan to make every effort seriously. Afghanistan's success is for the benefit of Pakistan, too," he said.

Khalilzad praised the efforts of Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf's government in helping to arrest leaders of Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network, but added: "We ask them to launch wide-ranging campaigns to detain the Taliban extremists."

On Thursday, Khalilzad, who has since been confirmed as the new U.S. envoy to Iraq, told a news briefing he did not believe fugitive al Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden or Mullah Omar were in Afghanistan, but did not make clear where he thought they were.

Khalilzad was responding to comments by Usmani in his interview with Geo broadcast on Wednesday in which he said bin Laden, architect of the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States in 2001, was in good health and Omar in direct command of Taliban forces in Afghanistan.

U.S. officials have said in the past that bin Laden was thought to be hiding in the rugged border region between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Khalilzad has repeatedly upset Pakistan by accusing it of sheltering Taliban militants. On Thursday he said capturing bin Laden required the cooperation between a variety of countries.

Recent weeks have seen a surge in Taliban-linked violence in the Afghan south and east bordering Pakistan, raising fears for the security of parliamentary elections due on Sept. 18.

Pakistan was the main supporter of the Taliban during the group's period in power but became a key ally of the United States in its global war on terror in 2001.

Nevertheless, U.S. and Afghan officials have long complained that the guerrillas have been able to launch attacks in Afghanistan then slip across the border into Pakistan


Is there really any question? Seems Pakistan is only playing ally for self preservation. If they pretend to help us out we let them be, nukes & all.
If they openly defy us they risk Iraqs fate, so they do what any one with half a brain expects, they flatter us with BS while letting their brethren conduct terrorist activities.
Are we that blind or is this politics as usual? :?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,772 Posts
Yep....they just got to tread water, untill we get tired, poorer, and internally tied up: then we just go home eventually, unless there's another seroius 'attack' in the homeland. I doubt America and the West is ready for a hundred year war. Besides, at the rate we're watering down our culture and resolve it won't be long----then the powers will have to come up with some new reasons for our military to go off to war...which I have a few ideas about.


................................TM7
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,685 Posts
Pakistan didn't volunteer to be "on our side". They were forced by threat of military retaliation.

They are in this against their will and are doing what is necessary on a token basis until the U.S. packs up it's bull*hit and goes home.

And you expect them to be good allies?

As for "defying" the will of the U.S. government, what business has the U.S. government got telling them what they can and can't do anyway?

They are NOT friends, and they are NOT allies. They are a skinny runt being forced to run unpleasant errands and say "Good one, Boss" lest they get beat up by the neighborhood bully.

.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
601 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
So its politics as usual I guess. Wonder how this'll sit with their neighbors once this is all done & we withdraw from the area?

I dont expect them to be good anything. I dont expect them to like us being there. What I expect is for people to honour their words. (call me crazy) If they dont want to help they oughtta say so. If they tolerate our presence out of fear of retribution, they oughtta say so. Might even go a long way to getting us out of there if they started going public with their true feelings.

I feel more strongly that we need action in that theater than the Iraqi one as Bin Laden actually attacked us & if Pakistan is helping him out then they deserve our attention much more than Saddam ever did.

They say they want to fight terrorists then they oughtta do it, if they dont & would rather sponsor them then they oughtta throw us out & do it.

Theyre a soverien state & can do as they please but should be held accountable if they wish to aid those who attack us. But they won't be, they've got nukes & we need a buddy next door to Afganistan.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
44,135 Posts
Why is it always the Libs that want to "throw in the towel" ?

Is it simply part of the makeup of a person inclined toward liberalism ?

Libs; did you quit the baseball game in the 6th inning when Jimmy on the other side hit a "homer"?

Do you leave a trap shoot when the competitors look tough ?

Do you quail in your shoes when the wife gives that "stern stare" ?

....just curious..if such "give-up-itis " is pandemic among Libs...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
700 Posts
Wouldn’t it be neat to be able to alter reality, by just ignoring the facts that one dislikes?

Well delusion isn’t just for Presidents or government officials anymore!

That’s right, now everyone can bury their heads in the sand just like world leaders do.

With our, “REALITY IS WHAT YOU MAKE IT” kit, you’ll learn to confound critics, by making bold unsupported statements, like these:

Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

Iraq had nukes.

Sadam planned involved in 9/11.

We know where Ossam is.

The insurgency is running out of steam.

Oil revenues are paying for the rebuilding of Iraq

We’ll also include “SECRETS TO AVOIDING EMBARISSING DISCUSSIONS”
You’ll be able to dismiss and ridicule people who disagree with your positions on the issues, with phrases like these:

That’s a defeatist attitude

Freedom isn’t for quitters

They will not have died in vain

Statements like that embolden the enemy

And many more.

DON”T BE A SLAVE TO REALITY ANYMORE, CREATE YOUR OWN, ORDER TODAY

Send cash, check, or money order, sorry no C.O.D. to:

Reality is What You Make It
1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Washington D.C.

Life is no joke but funny things happen

jon
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,772 Posts
ironglow said:
Why is it always the Libs that want to "throw in the towel" ?

Is it simply part of the makeup of a person inclined toward liberalism ?

Libs; did you quit the baseball game in the 6th inning when Jimmy on the other side hit a "homer"?

Do you leave a trap shoot when the competitors look tough ?

Do you quail in your shoes when the wife gives that "stern stare" ?

....just curious..if such "give-up-itis " is pandemic among Libs...

Your're commenting about liberals this and that, you got to transcend that sometimes. The real consideration is for real patriots to consider if 'neocons' contrived a war for alterior motives based on their own elitist world view, which holds the U.S. in a far different view than us on 'guns and rights' forums. If this is the case then we have a very big problem on our hands. Those considered to be 'conservatives' , esp on gun and rights forums, would do well to keep their minds open to possible governmental dishonesty and mistruth pandering from both the Demos and the Repubs repesenting the ends of the same entity ponging the citizen back and forth. I know I would be upset IF our government concocted some cock and bull story about the real threat of terrorism if weren't exactly true. Because the war on terrorism will be like the war on drugs---i.e. there isn't going to be an end! Get it..your rights will be in jeopardy from now on....and so will your grandchildren's.


...................................TM7
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
601 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
Why is it always the Libs that want to "throw in the towel" ?

Maybe because thats how some define liberal. :lol:

I fail to see whats liberal about NOT supporting an expensive, never ending program that is very unlikely to have a positive outcome & is unnecessarily draining our resources not to mention getting our guys killed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
44,135 Posts
The whole story is...we are involved in a "war on terror...thrust upon us on 9/11/01....

Are you libs trying to infer that there are no terrorists in Iraq ???

Yeah sure...and Slick Willy didn't have sex with that woman.....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
42,142 Posts
We didn't start this war, and it IS a war. A bunch of Godless, subhuman scum did. Gore and the dumcraps would still be appologizing for building the twin towers in the way of their stolen aircraft. If we don't fight those Godless scum over there, we most assuredly will be forced to fight them over here. Given the choice, I choose over there, and I'm tired of hearing about prisoner abuse. Given a choice of standing naked on a box with a pair of pink panties on my head, OR, being held down while a subhuman saws with a knife til he removes my head, hmmmmmmmm, what to do?? POWDERMAN. :x :x :x :x
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
601 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
ironglow said:
The whole story is...we are involved in a "war on terror...thrust upon us on 9/11/01....

Are you libs trying to infer that there are no terrorists in Iraq ???

Yeah sure...and Slick Willy didn't have sex with that woman.....

Are you trying to infer that they aren't there because of us?
Besides the fact that we went there for Saddam, not terrorists. Terrorism was used as a political justification, one we could of done without IMO.

It should also be noted that they don't consider themselves terrorists but Patriots so to speak. Fighting people who believe with their hearts in what they are doing is rather difficult.

This is about much more than terrorism & I think you know that.

I'm certainly not defending them or the things they do, I will say that the lack of further attacks here has little or nothing to do with Iraq & everything to do with the fact that we aren't their neighbors.
Its not an easy thing to pull off what they did on 911 & heightened security HERE not in Iraq is what will prevent future attacks.

You can say what you want but forcing foreign beliefs down the throat of weaker countries never brought about peace before & I doubt it will now.

We are attempting to put western values in one tiny chunk of the mideast, its not going to work. Pakistan isn't our friend, Iran isn't, Syria isn't, Saudi Arabia isn't (Remember where the actual terrorists of 911 came from?) Nope, what we are attempting is like a forien country coming in & trying to make NY a dictatorship & expecting the neighboring states to come around, aint gonna happen.

Your labeling everyone who disagrees with you a liberal does you a disservice, I'm disappointed.
I'm not a liberal by any means I dont give handouts or pay lip service to those who dont deserve it. Iraq doesnt.
We did them a big favor throwing Saddam out, if they cant pick up the pieces then they dont deserve them.

Seems to me a much more liberal aproach to rebuild what we destroyed & spend billions & billions on people who cant seem to be productive on their own. If this continues our grandchildren will be footing the bill. Not something I'll be proud of & the real kicker is the terrorists will still be there as they always have been. I'm trying to remember a terrorist act in Iraq pryor to our arival & the funny thing is I cant. Can you?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
700 Posts
There certainly are terrorists there now. At least with the Iraqi insurgents our leaders have finally found a threat in Iraq that other people, outside the administration can see.

Whether there were any before we invaded I do not know, perhaps they were hiding with the nukes and other weapons of mass destruction, of which our leaders had “irrefutable proof”.

Whether we should have or should not have invaded is irrelevant, we are there. What is relevant is whether we are capable or willing to commit the resources and prosecute this war with the degree of brutality to end it, or is our leadership going to continue denying reality, while our troops are killed and maimed piece meal un-endingly.

Considering the differing opinions between administration officials and military leaders, regarding the insurgency, it would appear that the only corner the administration is turning in Iraq is the one from misconception to self-delusion. The current prosecution of the war in Iraq serves only to demonstrate to weakness to our enemies and potential enemies.

Worlds only “super power” and we cannot secure a road from the airport to down town let alone pacify a country about the size of California with a lower population. Good thing the Civil War is over if the current leadership had been in charge we would still have troops dying.

Having participated in a war where we collectively lost the will to wage it effectively, and the social consequences that followed, I would prefer that we bring Iraq to a successful conclusion. Unfortunately this administration and its’ possible successors give me little hope that this is likely.

Life is no joke but funny things happen

jon
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
601 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
Powderman,

With all due respect, I think the idea of them bringing the war here is somewhast far fetched. Unless you consider isolated acts of terror (which havent happened) a war.
Again I bring up the fact that the guys in question were Saudis, not Iraqis. But we've no issue with the Saudis. Why not?
I wont call them subhuman but rest assured I think we're above their methods & should conduct ourself as such. We are a soverign nation who percieved a threat & nuetralized it in Iraq. Saddam Hussein predates our war on terror by a large margin. Our President, who I voted for, twice, chose to associate our actions with terrorism & wmd's for political reasons for justification when none was needed & now is backpeddaling because of it. There were no real terrorist activities in Iraq under Saddam.

What we should have done was state simply that we were doing what we said we'd do if the weapons inspectors werent given cooperation.

The war in Iraq is over, now we're nation building, at a great cost in American lives.

If the idea is to keep the fight off our soil then we've been dern sucessful & I'd think using our military HERE to protect US & OUR borders would be more effective than continuing to interefere where we arent wanted.

I, as you know, value your opinion alot, I might not agree with it but I respect it.

That said, what would be a positive outcome in Iraq in your opinion & do you honestly believe it can happen?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,068 Posts
I guess we were wrong to have gotten invoved in helping Europe get out from under Hitler and we should have apologized to the Japanese for being in the way of their ambitions.

But ****, it's not too late to correct the Iraq mistake. Saddam is still alive and well. We could turn him loose and tuck our tail between our legs and trust old Saddam to do the right thing.

When, not if the radical terrorists hit us again on this side of the world, we should hire Janet Reno back as a special prosecutor and sic her on them buggers; that'll show em.

The fact that this war on terrorism isn't all wrapped in a neat and tiddy little legal ball is very troubling to the doubters and appeasers. No matter how the war is prosecuted, there will be those who do not agree with whose toes get stepped on. The terrorists were counting on us not taking action against countries that were providing sanctuary and support for their activities, but they misunderestimated our President.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
601 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
No, we should shoot Saddam Hussein & then come home.

I dont see this as being remotely similar to to WW2. If it becomes similar I hope we remember who took first action. Hitler invaded alot of countries before we came to help & Japan bombed us.

Ask yourself where all those guys are now that we saved from Germany & helped rebuild. These are countries that we call friends & share a common history & culture with & they left us out to dry, I cant believe a free Iraq would be anymore helpfull. No, we WILL be fighting the country we're rebuilding again one day. They'll be shooting M16's this time instead of AK's & have all kinds of cool goodies WE are buying for them. Likely they'll have fighter aircraft like we're selling to India & Pakistan so they can deliver the nukes we KNOW they have.

I agree the war on terror is a necessary one & definately think we oughta try & stop an attack before it happens. Just dont see how we're moving in that direction by our actions in Iraq. Are you saying all the guys blowing themselves up in bagdad are gonna jump on planes & come here if we kill Hussien & come home? I doubt it. If they could I'm sure they would have hit us again already & nothing we do in Iraq will change that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
44,135 Posts
I guess what you guys want is to go on the defensive...we can come home, just play rope-a-dope and let the terrorists keep on taking their best shots...without fighting back.
Sure; most of the terrorists are in Iraq because the coalition forces are there.
Works great doesn't it...draw them all into one small area and destroy them...rather than to let them run willy-nilly about the world raising death and disorder..
Don't be so silly as to believe for one moment that the terrorists wouldn't attack us if they weren't "otherwise occupied".
They proved that on 9/11, years after they had bombed the World Trade Center the first time..followed by the Khobar towers, followed by the USS Cole etc,etc...and some researchers believe The Murrah building in Oklahoma Citywas also their handiwork...

Sorry; GW isn't a rope-a-dope kind of leader...and I am glad he isn't...we've had enough of them...

Terrorists ..patriots...??? What a laugh!!!Patriots of what country...obviously not Iraq...Iraq is getting disgusted with them..

Besides, most of the terrorists are coming in from other countries as you inferred when you said they were there because we were there..
On the ground intelligence backs it up...many are from Syria, Saudi Arabia, iran, Jordan etc..so where's the patriotism...
Besides; no self-respecting patriot intentionally murders women and children in the streets...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
516 Posts
I am always amazed that so many think we are the only ones affected by this war on terror. The terrorists are hitting very hard in the Philippines and other Asian countries. They are in Europe and Africa too, not just the Middle East.

Why are there those that think they will go away if we just bring our troops home when the terrorists are spreading around the globe like a cancer? I would much rather fight them over there in their sandbox than in our own back yards. They want all infidels either converted or dead. There is no third choice that says that if we leave them alone that they will leave us alone too.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
700 Posts
Some of the numbers at the one-year mark since the U.S. handover of sovereignty in Iraq

OIL:

Actual crude oil production in June 2004: 2.295 million barrels a day.
Actual crude oil production in June 2005: 2.20 million barrels a day.
(Stated goal: 2.5 million barrels a day).
Actual crude oil export in June 2004: 1.148 million barrels a day.
Actual crude oil export in June 2005: 1.362 million barrels a day.
Oil revenue from exports in June 2004: $1.28 billion.
Oil revenue from exports in June 2005: $0.61 billion.

ELECTRICITY:

Average amount of electricity generated in June 2004: 4,293 megawatts.
Average amount of electricity generated in June 2005: 4,035 megawatts.
(Stated goal: 6,000 megawatts by July 1, 2004).

ECONOMY:

Unemployment rate in June 2004: 30-40 percent.
Unemployment rate in June 2005: 27-40 percent.
Inflation rate in July 2004: 0.6 percent.
Inflation rate in February 2005: 11.4 percent
.
AID:

U.S. aid for relief and reconstruction in June 2004: $0.3 billion.
U.S. aid for relief and reconstruction in June 2005: $8.2 billion
.
Source:
The Brookings Institution
.
Some more of the numbers at the one-year mark since the U.S. handover of sovereignty in Iraq. Most were compiled by The Associated Press, others by The Brookings Institution.

• 890 — American military personnel killed (June 28, 2004-June 27, 2005).
• 1,740 — Total U.S. Military deaths since March 20, 2003, when the war began.
• 74 — Non-U.S. coalition troop fatalities (June 28, 2004-June 27, 2005).
• 187 — Total non-U.S. coalition troop fatalities since March 20, 2003.
• 12,000 — Iraqi civilians killed (March 20, 2003-June 2, 2005), according to Iraqi Interior Minister.
• 16,000 — Estimated number of insurgents as of May 2005.
• 484 — Car bombings (June 28, 2004-June 27, 2005).
• 2,221 — Deaths from those car bombings in the past year.
• 5,574 — People wounded in car bombings in the past year.
• 52 — Assassinations of Iraqi government, legal or religious officials (April 27, 2005-June 27, 2005).
• 200 — Non-Iraqis taken hostage (March 20, 2003-June 27, 2005).
• 14 — Americans taken hostage (March 20, 2003-June 27, 2005).
• 4 — Known American deaths among those taken hostage, as of June 27, 2005.
• 20 — Fatal helicopter crashes (March 20, 2003-June 27, 2005).
• 128 — Deaths from those helicopter crashes.
• 45 — Average daily attacks by insurgents in June 2004.
• 70 — Average daily attacks by insurgents as of May 2005.
• 135,000 — Number of U.S. troops in Iraq as of June 2005.
• 23,250 — Number of non-U.S. coalition forces in Iraq as of June 2005.
• 145,317 — Number of Iraqi security forces in June 2004.
• 168,581 — Number of Iraqi security forces as of June 23, 2005.
• 30-40 — Percent unemployment in June 2004.
• 27-40 — Percent unemployment in May 2005.
• $5 billion — U.S. money still remaining from the $18.4 billion reconstruction package approved in 2003, according to the House Appropriations foreign operations subcommittee.
• 1,200,000 — Telephone subscribers, including cell phones and landlines in June 2004.
• 3,172,771 — Telephone subscribers as of May 2005.
• 59,000 — Internet subscribers in June 2004.
• 147,076 — Internet subscribers as of May 2005.
• 10 — Average hours of electricity per day nationwide in June 2004.
• 9.4 — Average hours of electricity per day nationwide as of June 23, 2005.
• 175 — Trained judges in June 2004.
• 351 — Trained judges as of May 2005.
• 13 — Commercial television stations in June 2004.
• 23 — Commercial television stations as of May 2005.
• 150 — Independent newspapers and magazines in June 2004.
• 170 — Independent newspapers and magazines as of May 2005.

If memory serves me Ali won with his “rope-a-dope”, do not know if these stats indicate winning, but after Rummsy’s appearance on the week-end news shows, it doesn’t sound like we are going for a win anymore, can you say

Iraqi-a-zation.

Life is no joke but funny things happen

jon
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,068 Posts
Of course our reasons for being in Iraq are not the same as WW II, just as the reasons we went to Korea, Vietnam, Bosnia, Lebanon, Somalia, Kuwait, Afghanistan etc., etc., had nothing to do with an attack by any of those countries upon us. These military actions seemed like the right thing to do at the time.

I think there were more than enough reasons not to give Saddam a pass this time around, especially after giving him months to comply with U.N. resolutions and the terms of the ceasefire we had with him after the first go-around. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that President Bush would have been accused of being a sellout, a coward, in cahoots, mopery on the kings highway and anything else the liberals in Congress and the media could conjure up if he hadn't attacked Iraq.

If you will recall, many of the strongest critics of this war were exactly the same people who were the most outspoken and demanding advocates for action against Saddam while their boy Clinton was still in office. I remember Kennedy, Kerry, Pillosi, Daschel, Fienstien and many others beating the drums of war and insisting that Hussein must be removed.

With perfect hindsight, sure, things might have been handled differently, but that is always the case. Not to justify the number of casualties we have suffered, or in any way to diminish the terrible loss of our great warriors, I remember predictions that a minimum of 10,000 body bags would be filled in the initial battle. And no, it is no consolation that we are nowhere near that toll--just trying to keep things in perspective.

I said, many months ago that I would have preferred to have let the Air Force or the Navy handle the proceedings, but at some point it would have become inevitable that a ground force would have had to go in and mop up. This war on terror is not going to end with Iraq and I don’t think we will be able to sustain ground operations in every theater that might open. What I think we have to do is to make it clear to any country that might be inclined to harbor or tolerate these fanatics that the price for their complicity would be very harsh. To some extent, that message should already be apparent. If we walk away from Iraq prematurely, the message will be a lot less clear.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,772 Posts
..
...
....."Terrorism is the war of the poor. War is the terrorism of the rich."

-- Leon Uris,Trinity--A Novel of Ireland, 1976


.............TM7
 
1 - 20 of 24 Posts
Top