Heard this morning about us moving into Pakistan?

[Boats]

I think this move would be foolish and non-productive. We are spreading ourselves too thin and the manpower doesn't exist to properly rotate individuals as needed.

This scenario needs more thinking and they better get UN help if not use their troops for this insurgence. Protecting another's President should be a UN concern not just a US concern.

This stuff is really getting our hand.

[HARDCORE]

BOATS -

This stuff is really getting our hand.

I agree with you 1000%! It may have a bearing in about 10 months?

:cd: :cd:

VERITAS

[Seascamp]

Ya this could have an effect on the next election and is dammed if ya do and dammed if ya don?t situation. If the radical Islamic fundamentalists/terrorists topple the current Pakistani Government; which they fully intend to do, then what we got is two nuke armed total and absolute belligerents nose to nose and toes to toes along the eastern Pakistani border and I really wonder who will be able to hold India back then. Maybe no one and then we got a whole new world situation. If not that, then exactly who will be controlling Pakistan?s nuke arsenal. Perhaps Osama, eh, and then guess what the next move looks like.
So, the question/strategy for the current and/or next Pres. is what to do, what to do. In a worst case scenario would a seated US Pres. allow a situation where Al Qaeda had access or control or influence over known Pakistani nukes?

In my opinion a change of President or DC political orientation or even some foreign policy aspects isn?t going to change the volatile Pakistani situation one iota. It?s only a matter of what Pres gets the problem on the plate, not if, and it isn?t going away. So we can forget gumming political gristle and finger pointing as anything relevant as the issue goes back centuries and there is no solution other than one side or the other or both just going poof.

Scamp

[reconeil]

I wish The Boys Good Luck and Good Hunting.

And, even though there are never any guarantees in warfare, I must believe that taking-it-to-the-enemy wherever they might be, is the right way to go.

The enemy must never be given sanctuary, so they can rest, regroup and then come out of the woodwork, when IT SUITS THEM.

Besides, in both Korea and Vietnam sanctuaries and/or America can't go here or America can't go there,...ONLY AIDED THE ENEMY.
In fact, if it weren't for sancturies, We would have actually won in Korea instead of dragging things out for about 50 years. Also, if it weren't for on and off sanctuaries, America would have probably won in Vietnam, just as in no sanctuary or quarter given WWII.

Hey,...being clandestine and out of uniform already gives them the edge. So then, why give the murderous scum another edge called: "Sanctuary"?

Sorry Friends. But that's how I see things.

Neil