Thread: What’s your opinion on revenge killing?

Capulet, you keep saying that you support America but your words speak otherwise. Simply saying "I support America" then going on and on about every bad thing you can think of speaks volumes about how you really feel.

Originally Posted by Ditch

Capulet, you keep saying that you support America but your words speak otherwise. Simply saying "I support America" then going on and on about every bad thing you can think of speaks volumes about how you really feel.

I love my brother dearly, but I could itemize a list of things I think he's doing wrong instantly. I think the Constitution and Bill of Rights take the Magna Carta and transcend to the next level in government by the people for the people.

I do not think the last 60 years of US foreign policy keep in line with the ideals that spawned those documents. If I didn't care about the United States, I would remain silent and let it slowly kill itself. I care, so I intervene the only way I can: by being vocal.

To sit by and pretend nothing is wrong, or worse yet to be an enabler by cheering the actions of the last string of administrations would be the best way for me to hate the United States. I once again return to my analogy about alcoholism. I care, and this is part of my intervention.

Maybe it's not as clear because all the debate threads focus so much on what's wrong, and there are very few discussions on what's going right. I can assure you there is <3 in my heart for the US, I just think I'd be doing it a disservice by pretending everything is ok.

Originally Posted by The Backward OX

So you, and heaps of other posters in this thread, actually saw this guy commit acts of evil, huh? That's how you're able to condemn him? Remind me never to visit the country where you're dictator.

Sorry to dredge up such an old post in this thread, but during my five minutes in the penalty box I was following this thread with interest and found a few posts rather misinformed.

Ox, bin Laden's actions, his statements, and his exhortations are a matter of historical record. There is no question as to his complicity. I don't need to have seen his actions any more than I need to have seen the actions of Hitler, Stalin, or Pol Pot.

Originally Posted by Custard

-_- you actualy belive that the you did not support the taliban during the Russian war? Where do you think the equipment that they have came from? How about the soldiers, they were the same soldiers that you supported during the russian war, the Afghani mujahideen are the taliban. This is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. What are you going to do with 40 billion dollars? You are asking us to help you........

And Hazara? Are kidding with me? Abbotabad, Mansehra and surrounding areas are know as Hazara. Which is where I am living, please the army is already here, since 1948. -_-

In case you are forgetting like I said the pakistan army has to back the ones that are going to win or risk being surrounded by enemy regions. Trust even if the taliban vanish (not that they are showing any signs of that) as soon as the US vanishes they will be back. They simply have too much support in Afghanistan due to the invasion.

The Taliban were only one of many disjointed factions who banded together under the name of the mujahideen. Actually throughout the rebelion against the Soviet occupation, they were a small part of the mujahideen. They rose to prominence in the years after the Soviet pullout. They first became organized when the Pakistani military hired them to guard convoys moving through the lawless borderlands.

Originally Posted by Rustgold

So funny how you've conveniently omitted major parts.
Fact :
The US supported Al Queda in the 1980's knowing full well that they were the same terrorist movement that sprung up in Egypt in the 1960s.
The US supported (what westerners call) the Taliban between 1994 & 2001, knowing full well that they executed women who worked, showed their faces or even showed their ankles.
The (what westerners call) Taliban was the Afghanistani evolution of the groups America financed in the 1980s.

Fact is that America has a long history of supporting Al Queda & the Tailban, just as they have a long history or supporting terrorist groups throughout the world. America only cracked a hissy fit because Al Queda stopped being America's little puppet.



I think that America should pay the victims of American financed terrorism U.S. $40 trillion.

This is incorrect. Al Queda was not formed until Osama bin Laden organized it in 1989. The U. S. never supported the Taliban other than the support we gave to the resitance movement as a whole during the confict with the Soviets.

Originally Posted by Capulet

I think you hit the nail on the head there. I think a lot of armchair policy makers are mostly frustrated with the fact that the problems being faced now are a result of a policy making process that doesn't seem to have changed.

I honestly think the solutions that are being architected today are the basis of tomorrow's problems.

What is an armchair policy maker, as opposed to other kinds of policy makers?

Originally Posted by Blood

What is an armchair policy maker, as opposed to other kinds of policy makers?

You and I are armchair policy makers, unless you actually have the ability to set policy instead of second guess it. If so, then I am an arm chair policy maker.

It's like arm chair quarterbacks watching football on Sunday morning, second guessing the plays called. Maybe you're not from the US and the reference is lost.

Thank you for providing the source material that proves my statement. If you care to expound on what you were referring to as "BS" feel free; now that we've determined it wasn't what I wrote, we have lots of time left over to discuss your concern.

Okay, this is what you wrote...

A lot of aid goes to Pakistan simply because the US doesn't like the idea of a nuclear power going broke, or falling in to the hands of a non-friendly faction.

The U.S. [and many other nations, such as India] do not like the idea of the Pakistan being a nuclear power. I think we can agree on this. ‘Going broke’ would be a strategic means of dissolving that status. To suggest financing that situation as a plausible solution is counter intuitive, unfathomable. And for "falling in the hands of non-friendly faction," Pakistan could just GIVE it to the “non friendly faction” since they are historically allied with the Taliban. Does that make sense?

So what part of the article that I posted that describes how the U.S. has financed Pakistan since 1954, long before they had nuclear capabilities, proves your point? Is it the part that you did not quote that explains how the U.S. cut funding for Pakistan…

“ Then, in 1979, U.S. intelligence discovered that Pakistan was secretly building a uranium-enrichment facility in response to India’s nuclear-weapons program. That April, the military dictator of Pakistan, General Mohammed Zia-ul-Haq, hanged the civilian President he had expelled from office, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto; he then canceled elections. U.S. aid came to a halt”

It’s your turn. Now that we've determined that it was what you wrote, you expound on how the article I provide proves your statement.

Originally Posted by Blood

The U.S. [and many other nations, such as India] do not like the idea of the Pakistan being a nuclear power. I think we can agree on this. ‘Going broke’ would be a strategic means of dissolving that status. To suggest financing that situation as a plausible solution is counter intuitive, unfathomable. And for "falling in the hands of non-friendly faction," Pakistan could just GIVE it to the “non friendly faction” since they are historically allied with the Taliban. Does that make sense?

So what part of the article that I posted that describes how the U.S. has financed Pakistan since 1954, long before they had nuclear capabilities, proves your point? Is it the part that you did not quote that explains how the U.S. cut funding for Pakistan…

I am in complete agreement that, with the current political and general stability problems in Pakistan and Aghanistan, Pakistan being a nuclear power is very dangerous. There's two parts to my previous points, one dealing with US involvement with the greater theater (including Iran, Iraq, Saudi, etc.) and then I also made a comment on current-state in Pakistan.

The US made the right decision in 1979; in response to news of a developing nuclear program, and the undemocratic actions of Zia-ul-Haq, the US halted aid to Pakistan. There were different motivations for US aid to Pakistan back then, and I honestly don't know them well enough to comment on them. I read the entire article, so it looks like a blend of humanitarian/bond building/Soviet blocking for the most part historically.

Today's aid situation is a different beast. It centers quite heavily around blocking Islamic militant groups from seizing power, or causing other situations in Pakistan that would lead to the government and/or its nuclear resources falling under the sway of forces unfriendly to the US. I'm sure somewhere in there they wish Pakistan would stop harboring terrorists too, ha ha. The portion of the article I pasted in before supports this view of current US support.

I'm not sure if pulling support and trying to starve them out would work. First, we've seen how long countries like Iraq and Iran can go with pretty much 100% sanctions against them. Even if you want to look at an example with no oil income coming in, North Korea has lasted decades. There will always be someone willing to help them stay afloat, particularly if it provides influence over nuclear resources.

I'm not sure what the solution is, but I think the US will keep providing big $$$ to Pakistan until they figure one out.