Skip to content
15 Comments leave one →
  1. neel123 permalink
    10 December, 2009 21:15

    You are ( The Americans are ) fighting because of three reasons :

    1. The Pakistani Army, with the nukes they managed to have with American complicity, is now considered a danger to the rest of the world. There is no doubt that these nukes will be shared with the muslims all over the world, in case of a global crisis.

    2. The Pakistani Army controls and uses the Al Qaeda-Taliban combine, who have the capacity to stage many more 9/11s across the world.

    3. The most important of all, the Pakistani Army, which calls the shots in Pakistan, has gone out of control of the Americans. They are now out to blackmail the whole world with the nukes as the bargaining chips.

    This a real long-term danger for the whole world, that needs to be addressed now, before it is too late.

    And the only way that is going to happen, is by bringing the Pakistani Army on it s knees.

    • 10 December, 2009 21:15

      Then why aren’t we fighting in Pakistan? Or applying pressure on them instead of giving them the money they want? I know they are blackmailing us, but can’t we do something about it?

  2. michelina permalink
    10 December, 2009 21:15

    I’m no intellectual, but my two cents.

    I have the same struggle with this War.

    These people live like slaves to a government that we choose
    to help rebuild against the Taliban, but the corruption in
    the standing gov is soo bad, I can’t tell who the real enemies
    are here. ALL I SEE HERE IS LOSE LOSE—-who is benefitting
    from our presence, if our allies are as bad as our enemies.

    Osama Bin Ladin, should be our ONLY TARGET, and preserving
    our country from attacks from our enemies, which we can’t seem
    to identify anymore.

    • 10 December, 2009 21:15

      I agree that our first priority should be bin Laden, but if we also have strategic issues in Pakistan and Afghanistan I want to understand what they are and why we must fight.

      michelina, you are thoughtful enough to make comments on anything I post on my blog.

      • 11 December, 2009 21:15

        Senate Report: Rumsfeld decision let Bin Laden escape in 2001:
        http://rawstory.com/2009/11/rumsfeld-decision-bin-laden-escape-senate-report/

        • 11 December, 2009 21:15

          I saw this yesterday, but it still raises the question of why we are not pursuing bin Laden today in Pakistan.

          • 12 December, 2009 21:15

            While I’m in no way a conspiracy theorist, I for one believe that bin Laden is probably already dead and has been for some time. And regarding who is keeping that from reaching light: I have no idea.

          • 12 December, 2009 21:15

            addendum: from the other side of my head, however, I will say that, if bin Laden is indeed alive, just like Rumsfeld didn’t want to catch him then they don’t want to catch him now. As you know today much of this country’s predicated upon and driven by Fear, and the more abstract it is the better. If he’s caught then he loses much of his value, cache, and “marketability” for the so-called war on terror. Because of his past ties with the US, they also don’t want to give him a forum to speak, and at least at this point in time I don’t think there’s any way that he could be lynched like Hussein was.

          • 12 December, 2009 21:15

            I believe that bin Laden is still alive; and if we do want to catch him, we want him to be dead immediately. Fear is a strong political motivator. I found something I am trying to digest about Afghanistan, but the past couple of days have been really hectic. I’ll try to respond tomorrow.

  3. neel123 permalink
    10 December, 2009 21:15

    It is common sense…….

    Pakistan has been an useful tool of the Americans who would do their dirty jobs in exchange of money. There always was a very special relationship between the US and Pakistan.

    The Americans have wasted tens of billions on Pakistan, hoping to achieve, what they wanted to achieve.

    That did not work, so now a lot of intense diplomacy is going on to put Pakistan under tremendous pressure.

    That has worked only partly, forcing the Pakistani Army to go to war against a section of the terrorists. But the real test would be to make them go after the Al Qaeda-Afghan Taliban, which they are reluctent to do.

    If you have followed the issue closely, the Drone attacks on Pakistan is going on for a long time and there are now speculations about the American ground forces crossing the borders into Pakistan in the days ahead.

    Obama has made it clear that in case of the Pakistani Army not doing it, the NATO forces will do the job on their behalf.

    • 10 December, 2009 21:15

      Yes we have used Pakistan and I know they do not trust us, but are willing to say whatever is necessary to get hold of our money. Afghanistan doesn’t think that much if us either.

      If Obama knows what needs to be done about Al Qaeda, then he should do it and not let the terrorists continue to improve their network.

  4. 11 December, 2009 21:15

    Why are we there? This pretty much sums it up for me:
    http://www.eia.doe.gov/cabs/caspconf.html
    “Development of Caspian Sea oil and natural gas, along with the necessary export pipelines, has been slowed by regional conflicts, political instability, and a lack of regional cooperation. Many of the proposed export routes pass through areas where conflicts remain unresolved. Although new oil and natural gas export pipelines offer the hope of longer-term prosperity, the region’s numerous flashpoints and ongoing instability have caused energy companies and potential investors to think twice before investing in the construction of proposed pipelines. Most of these conflicts are in the Trans-Caucasus part of the Caspian region, where conflicts in Nagorno-Karabakh, Georgia, and the Chechen republic of southern Russia have hindered the development of export routes westward from the Caspian Sea. On the east side of the Caspian, the unstable situation in Afghanistan, following over 23 years of war, has stifled the development of export routes to the southeast, and the continued threat of Islamic fundamentalism in Central Asia, especially in Uzbekistan, may prohibit any new export pipelines involving that country. The threat of war between Pakistan and India serves as a further deterrent to Caspian export pipelines running southeast, either via Iran or Afghanistan. In addition, the continuing unresolved legal status of the Caspian Sea has threatened to ignite conflict among…the littoral states (Russia, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Iran)…Several trans-Caspian oil and natural gas export pipelines have been proposed, but none will be implemented until an agreement clarifying the Sea’s status can be reached among the five littoral states.”

    • 11 December, 2009 21:15

      Thanks for printing this. I’d suspected oil was involved but had not found proof yet. Oddly enough this comes as another contract is offered to Britain and Malaysia in Iraq.
      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8407274.stm

      Nuclear energy in Pakistan and India is another area I am looking at.

  5. 12 December, 2009 21:15

    To best find out about nuclear energy in those two countries one need only think of one country, being China:
    http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/nuc_reactors/china/china.html

    • 12 December, 2009 21:15

      Again, thanks for the link. I’ll try to read this later tonight or early tomorrow. I have been offline all day – not ignoring your comments.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: