you just don´t have any right to enter in pakistan ór anywhere else. can´t you get it.

aristo,
I wasn't suggesting that it should be done only stating fact.

Barak Obama 8/1/07 at Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars:

I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.

Does this mean that he is going to take the troops out of Iraq and put them in Pakistan to continue Bush's war on terror? Is he going to ignore international law the same way Bush has ignored the Constitution? I hope not.

Perhaps a good start and fair start to resolving such terrorist issues is how to utilise ground staff {military/civilian}, my idea of a way forward and the building of momentum would be to start 'cricket' schools for the common civilians.

Cricket is the countries premier game as is it with India, Sri lanka, England, the West indies, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, Zimbabwe, Scotland and other Countries. It is a proper gentlemans game requiring a lot of athletic ability and flair. Posting sportman on trouble stricken territories to practice their sport would be a lot cheaper than invading.

''Imran Khan'' is a Pakistani politician of significant respect among britain and these countries mentioned. He is actually an icon of the game {cricket} and was a hero for many cricket fans during his sports career. He would be an excellent choice for a stealth strategy politician contact for the region of Pakistan.

Those countries mentioned combined represent close to one third of the worlds population {about 2 billion} and for those countries the game of cricket is like a religion. It would be excellent for the Americans to get involved and bring more money to the sport as well as attempting to bring honorability to a troubled and unhappy region.


Hey, the start of a 1984 theology {Orson wells} ?.

Does this mean that he is going to take the troops out of Iraq and put them in Pakistan to continue Bush's war on terror? Is he going to ignore international law the same way Bush has ignored the Constitution? I hope not.

Allow the president to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such a purpose - and you allow him to make war at pleasure.

Abraham Lincoln

Warfront with Jihadistan: Afghan surge

On Tuesday, President Obama, in a move sure to displease his weak-kneed minions, said quietly that he would order a mini-surge of 17,000 additional U.S. troops to Afghanistan by this summer. For several months, U.S. generals have been seeking an increase of about 30,000 troops to stabilize sections of the country and counter a resurgent Taliban. They have been using adjoining Pakistan as a safe haven from which to plan and launch cross-border strikes. In January, President George W. Bush sent 6,000 additional troops to Afghanistan. Those, combined with Obama's current additions, will bring the total to about 23,000, well short of the number desired, although Obama has signaled he is willing to send more troops in the future.

Unfortunately, this increase comes on the heels of news of Thursday's vote by Kyrgyzstan's parliament to close the last U.S. air base in Central Asia, a major blow to supplying troops in Afghanistan. The vote has Russia's fingerprints all over it. Moscow just directed $2 billion in aid and credit to Kyrgyzstan, as it hopes to reassert its influence over former Soviet satellites such as this.

On the other hand, Obama's Bush-like tactics to keep the jihadis squarely in our crosshairs are welcome indeed, as are the continuing air strikes in Pakistan. But the lilly-livered Left is suffering a case of the vapors. Newsweek is already calling Afghanistan "Obama's Vietnam" (will the Left ever get over Vietnam?), lefty columnists are wondering why we're in Afghanistan in the first place, and some folks calling themselves Win Without War fret that "we need to avoid the slippery slope of military escalation." While we try to figure out exactly how we're supposed to win in a war without war, it's heartening to see that Obama, at least to date, is taking the jihadi threat seriously.

Warfront with Jihadistan: Afghan surge

On Tuesday, President Obama, in a move sure to displease his weak-kneed minions, said quietly that he would order a mini-surge of 17,000 additional U.S. troops to Afghanistan by this summer. For several months, U.S. generals have been seeking an increase of about 30,000 troops to stabilize sections of the country and counter a resurgent Taliban. They have been using adjoining Pakistan as a safe haven from which to plan and launch cross-border strikes. In January, President George W. Bush sent 6,000 additional troops to Afghanistan. Those, combined with Obama's current additions, will bring the total to about 23,000, well short of the number desired, although Obama has signaled he is willing to send more troops in the future.

Unfortunately, this increase comes on the heels of news of Thursday's vote by Kyrgyzstan's parliament to close the last U.S. air base in Central Asia, a major blow to supplying troops in Afghanistan. The vote has Russia's fingerprints all over it. Moscow just directed $2 billion in aid and credit to Kyrgyzstan, as it hopes to reassert its influence over former Soviet satellites such as this.

On the other hand, Obama's Bush-like tactics to keep the jihadis squarely in our crosshairs are welcome indeed, as are the continuing air strikes in Pakistan. But the lilly-livered Left is suffering a case of the vapors. Newsweek is already calling Afghanistan "Obama's Vietnam" (will the Left ever get over Vietnam?), lefty columnists are wondering why we're in Afghanistan in the first place, and some folks calling themselves Win Without War fret that "we need to avoid the slippery slope of military escalation." While we try to figure out exactly how we're supposed to win in a war without war, it's heartening to see that Obama, at least to date, is taking the jihadi threat seriously.

Next the lefties will want the US to have no more military, Totally insane leading to ruin.

The only Good Taliban or Al-queda member is a dead one.

---

The T1 Trust, PRR T1 Class 4-4-4-4 #5550, 1 of America's First HST's

Why are we in Afghanistan?

"When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
An' go to your Gawd like a soldier."

from the poem The Young British Soldier by Rudyard Kipling, written when the British tried in the 19th century. The Russians didn't have much luck either.

I guess it's just more blood shed and lives lost for nothing.

---

Perhaps Pakistan is more stable than North Korea?

We aren't about to invade Pakistan. We attack sites in Pakistan where "militants" are hiding. Pakistan cries out that we are illegally attacking sites in their country. Yet they do nothing to stop the bombings.

This would lead one to believe that Pakistan is more than willing to allow the US to deal with the militants in the border lands and cry foul without actually being to upset or contacting the UN about the infractions.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

Why are we in Afghanistan?

We are in Afganistan because of an act of war perpetrated from Afgan teritory. The Afgan government (Taliban at the time) refused to help the rest of the world bring the terrorists to justice as they were Afgan guests.

---

BOINC WIKI