Remember, Pakistan wasn't a willing ally. They were forced. You failed to mention Saudi Arabia which supplied many of the hijackers. The U.S. should put its full weight on the both S.A. and Pakistan. Since they aren't, they're being soft on theocratic fascism, just like part of the left.
I believe the international coalition will be going into Pakistan soon, correct me if I'm wrong. Military dictator Musharraf says he will hand over the "power to govern" to an elected prime minister in October. What this does for the war on al-Qaeda, we shall see. I definitely think we should have aligned more with India and Iran even.
>In other words, removing the Taliban is one thing ad going after the al-Qaeda network >is another.
9/11 has almost nothing to do with the former, and the war that removed >the Taliban hasn't achieved
the latter. So, my manly men, are you up for a real war? >Since Osama has now taken refuge in
Pakistan and since Pakistan was, all along, his >real patron, do you extend the war or not?
How do you know Osama is in Pakistan? And why are you convinced they aren't looking for him?
Sure I'm up for a real war. Better that, than have al-Qaeda pull another 911 on the United States. 9/11 had a lot to do with the Taliban, because the members of al Qaeda were their "guests" according to the Taliban and they wouldn't turn them over. Poor memory on your part, unless this is just a dishonest selective recounting of facts.
>Or, like Bush, are you two just cynically posturing?
>
>Michael McIntyre
I wouldn't call it cynically posturing. I would call it seriously thinking through the consequences of our actions and words. Fine, if the peaceniks are okay with stopping Osama too than we merely differ on tactics. Just as the peaceniks during WWII probably differed with elements of the left on tactics of stopping fascism and Hitler.
In general, the first words out of your mouths after 911 wasn't that U.S. should immediately do some sort of police action to prevent another 911. It was that the U.S. is not innocent and some even said America deserved it a la Falwell and Robertson. There was no call for a police action, just a call to discuss the "roots" of the problem. Very bad style.
And once the Taliban was removed and al Qaeda sent running - contrary to predictions of disaster and further terrorist attack I might emphasize - and once you received a rhetorical thrashing, there was belatedly a call for some sort of police action, short on specifics which might contradict previous arguments against force.
So I see it as either you never wanted the war to begin and in effect let al Qaeda roam free *or* you supported a hardcore police action - would there be any other kind? - that minimized casaulties on both sides. Manly enough for you?
Peter