You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #40: respectfully, sir, you are incorrect [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
Scriptor Ignotus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-07-07 04:08 PM
Response to Reply #38
40. respectfully, sir, you are incorrect
Pakistan IS a battlefield, whether we want it to be or not. We've also been operating in coordination with Pakistan since 2002 INSIDE THEIR "SOVEREIGN" BORDERS. So half of your argument is rendered meaningless right there. We've already been there. We're already there. In your terms, WE'VE ALREADY INVADED. Maybe it's not being broadcast on the nightly news, but it's true.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/9514/#5
Have U.S. personnel operated in Pakistan?

Yes. U.S. soldiers have joined Pakistani troops on raids in the tribal border regions, and the FBI is contributing information and agents to the pursuit of al-Qaeda holdouts. U.S. officials say they need Americans on the ground because the Pakistani military is not doing enough on its own, and Pakistan-watchers say the government remains reluctant to pursue terrorists at home because it fears an internal political backlash. Moreover, Pakistan has not wanted to launch large-scale military operations against al-Qaeda while many of its troops have been amassed along the Indian border due to tensions over Kashmir, a festering conflict that has flared up several times since India and Pakistan gained independence.

also see page 21 at this link.
http://www.fas.org/man/crs/RL31624.pdf

Obviously, this is a sensitive issue. No one denies that. But the foundation of your argument is factually incorrect. If you don't like how he said that, that's another thing. But that's semantics and we're talking substance.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC