Total Posts:17|Showing Posts:1-17
Jump to topic:

What do you think should be US policy towards

F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2011 3:30:32 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I don't know. I mean there is good evidence that Pakistan was hiding Bin Laden, a man who openly claimed to be responsible for the 9/11 attacks on the US. They had a responsibility to capture him or give him up or at least not allow him into Pakistan. Since they didn't, the US should be a little more wary of Pakistan and be careful about making any alliances.
gerrandesquire
Posts: 1,258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2011 3:51:41 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/24/2011 3:30:32 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
I don't know. I mean there is good evidence that Pakistan was hiding Bin Laden, a man who openly claimed to be responsible for the 9/11 attacks on the US. They had a responsibility to capture him or give him up or at least not allow him into Pakistan. Since they didn't, the US should be a little more wary of Pakistan and be careful about making any alliances.

They are. They have been giving out pretty strong signals lately, which has resulted in Pakistan defending itself pretty staunchly. They even printed a advertisement in A US newspaper claiming ' no other country had contributed to USs war against terror as much as Pakistan.'

But is the policy right? US should probably leak some strong proofs showing Pakistan involvement because that would probably lead to some substantiative action. Now they are just allegations.
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2011 4:03:22 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/24/2011 3:51:41 AM, gerrandesquire wrote:
At 9/24/2011 3:30:32 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
I don't know. I mean there is good evidence that Pakistan was hiding Bin Laden, a man who openly claimed to be responsible for the 9/11 attacks on the US. They had a responsibility to capture him or give him up or at least not allow him into Pakistan. Since they didn't, the US should be a little more wary of Pakistan and be careful about making any alliances.

They are. They have been giving out pretty strong signals lately, which has resulted in Pakistan defending itself pretty staunchly. They even printed a advertisement in A US newspaper claiming ' no other country had contributed to USs war against terror as much as Pakistan.'

But is the policy right? US should probably leak some strong proofs showing Pakistan involvement because that would probably lead to some substantiative action. Now they are just allegations.

Yeah, I agree, But I also think the US needs to be a little careful before leaking information. The US violated Pakistan's sovereignty by barging into the country and killing Bin Laden. While the whole episode was beneficial to the US, leaking confidential information that they gained while in Pakistan might violate their privacy even more and make the world more sympathetic towards Pakistan and against the US which is not desirable.
gerrandesquire
Posts: 1,258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2011 12:14:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/24/2011 4:03:22 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 9/24/2011 3:51:41 AM, gerrandesquire wrote:
At 9/24/2011 3:30:32 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
I don't know. I mean there is good evidence that Pakistan was hiding Bin Laden, a man who openly claimed to be responsible for the 9/11 attacks on the US. They had a responsibility to capture him or give him up or at least not allow him into Pakistan. Since they didn't, the US should be a little more wary of Pakistan and be careful about making any alliances.

They are. They have been giving out pretty strong signals lately, which has resulted in Pakistan defending itself pretty staunchly. They even printed a advertisement in A US newspaper claiming ' no other country had contributed to USs war against terror as much as Pakistan.'

But is the policy right? US should probably leak some strong proofs showing Pakistan involvement because that would probably lead to some substantiative action. Now they are just allegations.

Yeah, I agree, But I also think the US needs to be a little careful before leaking information. The US violated Pakistan's sovereignty by barging into the country and killing Bin Laden. While the whole episode was beneficial to the US, leaking confidential information that they gained while in Pakistan might violate their privacy even more and make the world more sympathetic towards Pakistan and against the US which is not desirable.

Leaking information showing that pakistan was actually plotting against neighboring countries, and is a haven for terrorists that plot against God knows how many countries would be, in essence, a really good move.

The general consensus in Pakistan is that US and India want to 'defame' Pakistan and hence are making 'baseless allegations'. They seriously think India itself carried out the 24/11 attacks on itself to strengthen its case.

A few strong allegations backed by proofs would go a long way.
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2011 12:30:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/24/2011 12:14:53 PM, gerrandesquire wrote:
At 9/24/2011 4:03:22 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 9/24/2011 3:51:41 AM, gerrandesquire wrote:
At 9/24/2011 3:30:32 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
I don't know. I mean there is good evidence that Pakistan was hiding Bin Laden, a man who openly claimed to be responsible for the 9/11 attacks on the US. They had a responsibility to capture him or give him up or at least not allow him into Pakistan. Since they didn't, the US should be a little more wary of Pakistan and be careful about making any alliances.

They are. They have been giving out pretty strong signals lately, which has resulted in Pakistan defending itself pretty staunchly. They even printed a advertisement in A US newspaper claiming ' no other country had contributed to USs war against terror as much as Pakistan.'

But is the policy right? US should probably leak some strong proofs showing Pakistan involvement because that would probably lead to some substantiative action. Now they are just allegations.

Yeah, I agree, But I also think the US needs to be a little careful before leaking information. The US violated Pakistan's sovereignty by barging into the country and killing Bin Laden. While the whole episode was beneficial to the US, leaking confidential information that they gained while in Pakistan might violate their privacy even more and make the world more sympathetic towards Pakistan and against the US which is not desirable.

Leaking information showing that pakistan was actually plotting against neighboring countries, and is a haven for terrorists that plot against God knows how many countries would be, in essence, a really good move.

The general consensus in Pakistan is that US and India want to 'defame' Pakistan and hence are making 'baseless allegations'. They seriously think India itself carried out the 24/11 attacks on itself to strengthen its case.

A few strong allegations backed by proofs would go a long way.

It would be so convenient if India aligns itself with the United States as both have enemies: Pakistan and maybe China, but of course they won't. India will pursue a policy of "non-alignment" and never really align.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2011 12:34:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Pakistan has been wishy-washy at best when it comes to its commitment towards resolving the terror issue, which the US therefore felt necessitated it sending a covert team of assassins without the knowledge or consent of the Pakistani government.

The optimal situation is that there should not be any foreign policy, positive or negative, with Pakistan or any other country for that matter. We should remain completely neutral with these countries.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
gerrandesquire
Posts: 1,258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2011 12:47:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/24/2011 12:30:48 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:


It would be so convenient if India aligns itself with the United States as both have enemies: Pakistan and maybe China, but of course they won't. India will pursue a policy of "non-alignment" and never really align.

Both the countries are quite outspoken about their opinion on Pakistan. Aligning with the US would really not be in India's favour, as the worst blow of the move will be on India, it being neighbours with Pakistan and all. Even more so now, with China backing up Pakistan on every possible case, and tensions between China and India at an all time high.

Granted we'll have US on our side, but the epicentre of all the tensions will Have to be India.
gerrandesquire
Posts: 1,258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2011 12:54:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/24/2011 12:34:10 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Pakistan has been wishy-washy at best when it comes to its commitment towards resolving the terror issue, which the US therefore felt necessitated it sending a covert team of assassins without the knowledge or consent of the Pakistani government.

The optimal situation is that there should not be any foreign policy, positive or negative, with Pakistan or any other country for that matter. We should remain completely neutral with these countries.

How is that going to work out? Any country will have to make it's stand on various issues clear, and then the countries with similar stands will club up to counter those with opposing stands.
sadolite
Posts: 8,837
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2011 2:16:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I think US policy should revert back to Assassinations. Jimmy Carter banned it during his Residency. At the time I agreed with it. The world and the art of war does not even resemble those days any longer. Wars are now fought by proxy. Leaders of aggressive countries know they can not defeat other nations in conventional wars anymore. IE: One country against another each united by it's people.

What they do now is say," We don't support terrorism or this aggressive act," all the while allowing refuge to those who do their dirty work. So the rest of the world sits around and wrings their hands and say "Oh we can't just go in and destroy that country and it's leadership what about "All those innocent civilians" as though they have no clue as to what is going on in their own country.

No war can ever be won again. No one can even define the word "victory"when it comes to war. It used to be, " I/we surrender". and then gives up all power to the victor and the victor said this is how it's going to be and if anyone objected they were shot.

Since invading countries is no longer militarily practical or winnable. Assassination of the sources of tyranny should resume. Alot less death and a hell of lot more deterrent to those who engage in tyranny and oppression. Wondering when a bullet is going blow your head off 24/7 is a hard way to live. The UN should sanction them, this would give them alot more credibility when it comes to human rights and freedom and democracy. The aggressor should be given his say and if it is determined he or she is just an evil tyrant let them leave and go home and be put on notice. The first chacne there is to put a bullet in your brain, it will be done. All members of the UN will have official snipper and tacticle teams working together to take out the scurge of the earth.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
sadolite
Posts: 8,837
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2011 2:27:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/24/2011 2:16:48 PM, sadolite wrote:
I think US policy should revert back to Assassinations. Jimmy Carter banned it during his Residency. At the time I agreed with it. The world and the art of war does not even resemble those days any longer. Wars are now fought by proxy. Leaders of aggressive countries know they can not defeat other nations in conventional wars anymore. IE: One country against another each united by it's people.

What they do now is say," We don't support terrorism or this aggressive act," all the while allowing refuge to those who do their dirty work. So the rest of the world sits around and wrings their hands and say "Oh we can't just go in and destroy that country and it's leadership what about "All those innocent civilians" as though they have no clue as to what is going on in their own country.

No war can ever be won again. No one can even define the word "victory"when it comes to war. It used to be, " I/we surrender". and then gives up all power to the victor and the victor said this is how it's going to be and if anyone objected they were shot.

Since invading countries is no longer militarily practical or winnable. Assassination of the sources of tyranny should resume. Alot less death and a hell of lot more deterrent to those who engage in tyranny and oppression. Wondering when a bullet is going blow your head off 24/7 is a hard way to live. The UN should sanction them, this would give them alot more credibility when it comes to human rights and freedom and democracy. The aggressor should be given his say and if it is determined he or she is just an evil tyrant let them leave and go home and be put on notice. The first chance there is to put a bullet in your brain, it will be done. All members of the UN will have official sniper and tactical teams working together to take out the scourge of the earth.

And yes that includes the US. I can think of several tyrannical people in this country that make other peoples lives a living misery because of their access to power. I will not name names to avoid strife and they would have their day in a UN court if such a policy were to be adopted.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2011 2:47:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The optimal situation is that there should not be any foreign policy, positive or negative, with Pakistan or any other country for that matter. We should remain completely neutral with these countries.

How is that going to work out? Any country will have to make it's stand on various issues clear, and then the countries with similar stands will club up to counter those with opposing stands.:

No, that's what happens now. 90% of countries problems with one another hinges upon who is in what clique. There is far too much emphasis on political bullying and doing favors for other countries. All it does it create undue tension.

Does Switerzerland do that? No, the Swiss worries about Swiss issues, and as a result has not been in a war since circa 1815, a timeline of peace unrivaled by any other nation in the world.

Why can't we simply do what Thomas Jefferson suggested -- friendly trade with all, alliances with none?
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2011 2:51:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/24/2011 2:16:48 PM, sadolite wrote:
I think US policy should revert back to Assassinations.:

Revert back? We just assassinated a man not even 4 months ago!

I'm also sure the CIA has it's hands in the pot concerning nations like Libya and Syria, we just haven't heard the gory details yet.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
sadolite
Posts: 8,837
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2011 8:06:29 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/24/2011 2:51:55 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 9/24/2011 2:16:48 PM, sadolite wrote:
I think US policy should revert back to Assassinations.:

Revert back? We just assassinated a man not even 4 months ago!

I'm also sure the CIA has it's hands in the pot concerning nations like Libya and Syria, we just haven't heard the gory details yet.

Are you referring to Bin Laden? He was wanted dead or alive with a bounty on his head as a criminal. The fact that they choose to kill him instead of bring him in dead or alive was their prerogative. You are unable to distinguish between a common street thug murderer and rulers of countries and commanders of military that engage in wholesale genocide and tyranny of millions.

Qaddafi would be a perfect example. thousands and thousands have died trying to use conventional means to capture him. This all could have ended months ago and countless lives saved using assassination techniques. Instead everyone is telegraphing every move they are going to make to the nightly news.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
blackhawk1331
Posts: 4,932
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2011 5:39:45 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I would support invading Pakistan if not for the nuclear weapons. We need a much stronger stance against terrorism. If you look back towards The Prince by Machiavelli, it was said that rulers should be feared rather than loved. If the ruler was loved, then the people would walk all over them as soon as it became convenient. We are seeing that now. We, as Americans, are too civilized to fight as dirty as the enemy combatants. We are not willing to shoot upon a crowd even if it is blatantly obvious that the people in said crowd are ALL WILLINGLY working against us. The terrorists we are fighting are willing to hijack planes and fly them into a building full of innocents. THAT is why we are losing this war. We are more afraid of them than they are of us.
Because you said it was a waste, numb nuts. - Drafter

So fvck you. :) - TV

Use prima facie correctly or not at all. - Noumena
gerrandesquire
Posts: 1,258
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2011 3:38:01 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/26/2011 5:39:45 AM, blackhawk1331 wrote:
I would support invading Pakistan if not for the nuclear weapons. We need a much stronger stance against terrorism. If you look back towards The Prince by Machiavelli, it was said that rulers should be feared rather than loved. If the ruler was loved, then the people would walk all over them as soon as it became convenient. We are seeing that now. We, as Americans, are too civilized to fight as dirty as the enemy combatants. We are not willing to shoot upon a crowd even if it is blatantly obvious that the people in said crowd are ALL WILLINGLY working against us. The terrorists we are fighting are willing to hijack planes and fly them into a building full of innocents. THAT is why we are losing this war. We are more afraid of them than they are of us.

Oh. Didn't see it before and it was too provocative not to answer. Americans are not afraid to shoot on a crowd? The drone attacks on Pakistan kind of contradict that. America has one of the strongest policy against terrorism, IMO. But insensible, more focussed at showing the people its stand than achieving the results.

And yap, Hitler was so not loved by the Jews, feared so hard they would drop balls at sight, so he should be a ideal leader, no?