Pakistan: America’s friend and America’s enemy

Because we live in a time when the extraordinary has become ordinary, few people even batted at eye last week at remarks by America’s senior military official, Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

In testimony to a Senate committee, Mullen publicly accused Pakistan — an American ally and recipient of $2 billion a year in military aid — of helping to carry out both a deadly, high-profile attack on the U.S. embassy in Kabul and the truck bombing of a NATO base that wounded 77 soldiers.

The Pakistan-based Haqqani network, which carried out the attacks, “acts as a veritable arm of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence agency,” Mullen told the Senate Armed Services Committee.

“With ISI support, Haqqani operatives planned and conducted that truck bomb attack, as well as the assault on our embassy,” he continued. “We also have credible evidence that they were behind the June 28th attack against the Intercontinental Hotel in Kabul and a host of other smaller but effective operations.”

Questions about Pakistan’s reliability as an ally are hardly new; U.S. officials have long been critical of the level of cooperation it provided, particularly after Osama bin Laden was discovered living near a Pakistani army base. However, it’s one thing to question how much active support an ally is providing; it’s something else entirely to accuse that ally of participating in acts of war against you. After all, that is the action of an enemy, not an ally.

Given that Mullen chose to make such a charge publicly, you have to believe that the evidence to support it must be very strong, and that the behavior he condemned is part of a longstanding pattern. Indeed, the New York Times reports today on a 2007 attack on U.S. military personnel by Pakistani forces that killed Maj. Larry J. Bauguess Jr., the father of two young girls. The incident was hushed up at the time because of its political impact.

And yet, even in his testimony to the Senate last week, Mullen defended ongoing attempts to reach out to Pakistan, arguing that “a flawed and difficult relationship is better than no relationship at all. Some may argue I’ve wasted my time, that Pakistan is no closer to us than before, and may now have drifted even further away. I disagree. Military cooperation again is warming.”

Again, only in extraordinary times can a military official accuse an ally of backing attacks on our forces, then turn around and in that same session claim that military cooperation is warming. Yet frustrating as it is, Mullen’s testimony accurately reflects the tortured realities of our effort in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Yes, Pakistan harbors and aids Taliban guerrillas who attack our forces. Yet Pakistan also serves as a critical conduit for supplies needed to keep our forces in Afghanistan fed, armed and fueled. (In the past year, U.S. forces have sharply reduced their reliance on Pakistani supply routes, but it remains significant.) So while we have no reason to trust Pakistan, we do find the relationship useful. And they no doubt feel the same way about us.

The question is what comes next. The public nature of Mullen’s criticism suggests that the United States may be building a case for direct action against Haqqani guerrillas in their Pakistani bases, including perhaps ground action. If Pakistan won’t address the problem on its own soil, the implication is that the United States will.

With the bulk of U.S. and NATO forces scheduled to leave Afghanistan by the end of 2014, you get the idea that reducing the threat posed by the Haqqani network is high on the generals’ to-do list.

– Jay Bookman

Mullen’s testimony

244 comments Add your comment

Brosephus™ - Browning America Since 1973

September 27th, 2011
9:12 am

We need to just let them all blow each other away…

stands for decibels

September 27th, 2011
9:12 am

while we have no reason to trust Pakistan, we do find the relationship useful. And they no doubt feel the same way about us.

that’s way, way too brain-hurty for the simple sloganeering that passes for foreign policy debates, Jay.

FrankLeeDarling

September 27th, 2011
9:13 am

Strange days

Paul

September 27th, 2011
9:14 am

There is a reason outgoing high-level officials (SecDef Gates’s remarks, CJCS Admiral Mullen’s remarks) are used. It brings just a certain level of ‘personal or policy?’ question to the target. And any questioning, which causes uncertainty, when action is planned is a good thing.

Admiral Mullen’s remarks, taken with the Obama Administration’s record of increasing attacks on terrorists, is consistent with the conclusion the US will ‘address’ the problem.

The first part of the article is a good illustration that nothing in international relations or alliances is ever pure. You try to maximize the good and minimize the bad.

It’s rather ironic. Pres Obama is every bit as much, if not more, willing to step up military action than was his predecessor. It’s a characteristic Republicans are loathe to address. Shatters too many stereotypes.

ByteMe

September 27th, 2011
9:14 am

Cut off aid. Make them China’s and India’s problem. None of it is important to us any more, except as a means to keep our war machine going strong.

(ir)Rational

September 27th, 2011
9:15 am

I think we screwed up with both Afghanistan and Pakistan back in the 80s when we turned the Soviet war in Afghanistan into their Vietnam, but let the Pakistanis take credit for it. They learned they could screw us over with impunity, and the Afghanis thought when we came in after the fact and took credit for everything that we were full of it. Funneling the weapons through Pakistan was probably a necessity, but we should have figured out a way to let the Afghan people know where they came from. Then MAYBE they wouldn’t be using those same weapons against us now. Just my thoughts on the matter. Oh, and as far as Pakistan goes, we could just cut off their aide, and let India know we won’t stand in the way if they get expansionist ideas.

ByteMe

September 27th, 2011
9:16 am

BTW, I don’t believe that Mullen would have made the comments publicly without Hillary approving it first. Think about that a while.

poison pen

September 27th, 2011
9:16 am

Jay, Just what we need, another war. We should get out of all these countries and bring our troops home.
There leadership is corrupt, they for the most part don’t like the USA and it will take 50 years until they really become a democracy if ever.

I know there are people on here who think that we should be the keeper of the World, but I don’t feel that we should be.

stands for decibels

September 27th, 2011
9:16 am

Probably going to hell for posting this, but…

the threat posed by the Haqqani network

Are they affiliated with the Heckawi?

ty webb

September 27th, 2011
9:18 am

“with ‘friends’ like this…?”

(ir)Rational

September 27th, 2011
9:18 am

ByteMe – Yeah, you know Hillary had to give him the “OK” for him to open his mouth about that. Otherwise, he would probably already be before a Congressional Panel losing his job.

Paul – The fact that Obama, for the most part (seemingly anyway) has had the testicular fortitude to go after and kill terrorists when we find them, is one of the few things about him that I like.

jm

September 27th, 2011
9:19 am

The US and Pakistan appear to be at low level war with one another…..

(ir)Rational

September 27th, 2011
9:19 am

sfd – Thanks for that. I guess I’m too young to remember that, but it was funny.

ByteMe

September 27th, 2011
9:20 am

Otherwise, he would probably already be before a Congressional Panel losing his job.

He’s already retiring. So I think this was a “message” coordinated with State where Mullen wouldn’t be there long enough to be the focal point of a strained relationship and at the same time the next person might have it easier.

poison pen

September 27th, 2011
9:20 am

” It’s rather ironic. Pres Obama is every bit as much, if not more, willing to step up military action than was his predecessor. It’s a characteristic Republicans are loathe to address. Shatters too many stereotypes.”

So it’s ok for a war as long as a democrat gets credit for it…. really?

jm

September 27th, 2011
9:21 am

We bomb their country (or those in it) pretty much every week…..

(ir)Rational

September 27th, 2011
9:21 am

ByteMe – Possible. It makes sense, which makes me skeptical, but it is possible.

jt

September 27th, 2011
9:21 am

Paki-men will not willingly give up their wealth, unlike………….some.
Oh well, GS has its ways for state-sponsored plunder————-

“The Goldman Sachs Foundation-State Department partnership will expand the number of countries reached by 10,000 Women. The public-private partnership will select women entrepreneurs and provide training at the Thunderbird School of Global Management, which is already a 10,000 Women partner in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The State Department currently collaborates with Goldman Sachs 10,000 Women and the Department of State that includes a training program for Pakistani small business women. “

jm

September 27th, 2011
9:23 am

I just hope we have a real plan (and guts) to go after Pakistan’s nukes if the government collapses.

As opposed to the Libyan stingers that are now in terrorist hands.

poison pen

September 27th, 2011
9:24 am

” We need to just let them all blow each other away…”

SoCoBroBrowning, That’s the way to start the day.

kayaker 71

September 27th, 2011
9:24 am

Charlie Wilson’s War might have made a great movie but when we did that and walked away leaving them holding the bag, we sealed out fate in Afghanistan. The corruption in both countries is beyond rational and that 2 Billion is probably used to fund the very thing that we find unacceptable…. attacking our own troops. Time to leave. Another war lost. When are we going to win one?

(ir)Rational

September 27th, 2011
9:25 am

jm – That’s why I think we should just quietly make it known to India that we won’t stand in their way. With as much as the Indians and Pakis hate each other, you KNOW they have some sort of plan. Plus, they already have nukes, so I don’t think we would have to worry too much about them having more.

Paul

September 27th, 2011
9:26 am

sfd 9:16

We need a good game of Trivial Pursuit!

poison pen

September 27th, 2011
9:26 am

Kayaker 71, Amen, as long as they remain political wars, never.

(ir)Rational

September 27th, 2011
9:27 am

k71 – That’s what I was basically saying in my first post. I blame the State Department for letting Pakistan get away with what they did during that. Something tells me the Mujaheddin wouldn’t have turned down the weapons had they known they were coming from us. And they would have probably been grateful for them to the extent that they may have liked us after they kicked the Soviets out.

Call it like it is

September 27th, 2011
9:29 am

Lets see hows that go, the enemy of my enemy is my friend, unless the friend of the enemy is more of an enemy then my friend first thought, or they might just be all enemys or they all are friends. It goes something like that not sure.

jm

September 27th, 2011
9:29 am

(ir)Rational – ignoring the obvious sovereignty violations, I think the international community would find it far more acceptable for us to go get the nukes than India.

India going and getting the nukes would seriously inflame Pakistani tensions. Even more than us doing so would….

Imran Afandi

September 27th, 2011
9:30 am

American people have always been a jackass when it comes to history. Technological superiority does create a certain arrogance.

1811/0311

September 27th, 2011
9:31 am

Kind of like …………..

“Obama: America’s friend and America’s enemy”

P.S.

If this was a Republican Administration, Jay would be going beserk over this about wasted money, wasted American lives, etc., etc., etc.

I know it, you know it, we all know it ………….. Jay just won’t admit it.

Adam

September 27th, 2011
9:32 am

poison pen: So it’s ok for a war as long as a democrat gets credit for it…. really?

If it gets more and more Republicans to be anti-war when they weren’t before, then yes. Personally I think it’s just a ruse. If they get a Republican President there will be war again, and nary a peep of condemnation will come from the right.

jm

September 27th, 2011
9:33 am

Sorry Jay. I told you so. :)

SIREN: CHILLING STORY TO DRIVE DEBATE FOR ’12 AND SUPERCOMMITTEE – “Coke chief criticises US tax rules” in Financial Times video interview at Clinton Global Initiative: “Coca-Cola now sees the US becoming a less friendly business environment than China, … citing political gridlock and an antiquated tax structure. … Muhtar Kent, Coke’s chief executive, said ‘in many respects’ it was easier doing business in China, which he likened to a well-managed company. ‘You have a one-stop shop in terms of the Chinese foreign investment agency and local governments are fighting for investment with each other … They’re learning very fast, these countries … In the west, we’re forgetting what really worked 20 years ago. In China and other markets around the world, you see the kind of attention to detail about how business works and how business creates employment.’ …

“Kent argued that US states did not compete enough with each other to attract businesses while Chinese provinces were clamouring to draw investment from international companies. … Kent’s remarks came a month after Coke said it was ramping up its investment in China … Kent said that US tax burdens and political polarisation were creating uncertainty for businesses and hurting investment. ‘I believe the US owes itself to create a 21st century tax policy for individuals as well as businesses … If you talk about an American company doing business in the world today with its Chinese, Russian, European or Japanese counterparts, of course we’re disadvantaged … A Chinese or Swiss company can do whatever it wants with those funds [earned overseas]. When we want to bring them back, we are faced with a very large tax burden. … When a country is in trouble, you can’t have a polarised political process … There’s too much comfort. We need more needles to stick in politicians.’”

http://www.politico.com/playbook/0911/playbook1555.html

Aurelius

September 27th, 2011
9:33 am

Tough times. There is little black and white anymore, way to much gray.

And all the gray makes debate on an issue difficult. Those leading currently the debate are candidates. And candidates like short “bumper sticker” answers. But there are no bumpers sticker answers on Pakistan.

Pakistn is a nuclear power. Their most hated rival is India, also a nuclear power. The differences are beyond political and enter the religious arena where rational thought seems to take a backseat to “divine mandates”.

We need to think long and hard about military answers in Pakistan. The ISI is currently in the minority.
To strong a military push could delivere the ISI support from the majority. We are already skating on thin ice with our unmanned attacks on Pakistani targets.

Obama, or whoever has the job in Jan 2013, needs to think long and hard on military solutions in Pakistan.

Someone please remind the candidates of the Powell Doctrine. We do not need anymore Iraqs or Afghanistans.

1811/0311

September 27th, 2011
9:33 am

This Pakistani thing is just a larger “Fast and Furious”.

Imran Afandi

September 27th, 2011
9:34 am

Gee who would have thought after 9/11 the real enemy would turn out to be .. not Afghanistan, not Iraq .. no not Iran either .. whoa Pakistan! a country who has a little good experience in bringing down a super power .. well couple of decades ago. God bless Reagan and the Mujahideen.

Adam

September 27th, 2011
9:35 am

BTW, didn’t take long for this to be all about Obama, AGAIN

St Simons - we're on Island time

September 27th, 2011
9:36 am

well that explains a lot.
I called customer service and got a call center in Pakistan. I told them I was upset, and they asked “just how upset are you? Do you have backpack? Can you drive truck?”

(ir)Rational

September 27th, 2011
9:36 am

jm – You’re probably correct about that, but that is (to my mind) like expecting us to go to Tehran and and taking their nuclear arsenal (assuming they have one). It would be in our best interests, but are we really going to do it? Probably not. Israel however would. Same thing with India and Pakistan. To my mind anyway.

thewindwhistler

September 27th, 2011
9:37 am

It is absolutely amazing. The U.S. gives Pakistan $2 billion a year in aid and at the time, Pakistan is declared by the Chairman of the joint chiefs of staff that they are our enemy and carrying out attacks against our embassy. That is plain talk, we have to be the laughing stock of the middle east.

AmVet

September 27th, 2011
9:38 am

This is most discouraging.

In less than three years, countless Bush acolytes seem to have given up on the War on Terror.

Are they surrender monkeys?

Cut and runners?

Do they not understand that for the US to survive, we need a permanent war economy?

(ir)Rational

September 27th, 2011
9:38 am

St Simons – love that joke.

stands for decibels

September 27th, 2011
9:39 am

Jay would be going beserk

Scout, kindly provide one (1) example of Jay ever actually “going be[r]serk.” Thanks.

JohnnyReb

September 27th, 2011
9:39 am

We can’t let them blow each other away. Pakistan has nukes. If you think that is not a direct threat to US soil, you need to take a very cold shower. Obama has done one positive thing since being POTUS, taking the leash off the military to go into Pakistan. The stakes are extremely high that he must continue that and use what ever force and diplomacy necessary to bring the situation under control. If Pakistan collapses similar to the arab spring, start digging your fallout shelter.

jm

September 27th, 2011
9:39 am

Romney 2012.

1811/0311

September 27th, 2011
9:40 am

And what is the common thread, the elephant in the room that causes the Haqqani and those in the Pakistani government to allow this duplicity ??

Radical Islam

soha

September 27th, 2011
9:41 am

You need another war to keep your gigantic war machinery running and continue to endeavor large chunk of American tax funds. Rest of everything is an effort to architect, engineer, build and making a case for it. Just listen Webster Tarplay in this regard. you calculate everything very seriously but Pakistan is neither Veitnam, nor Afghanistan or Iraq any miscalculation even in slightest fraction could change everything. So let us wait what comes out of the bolt in sky. A Pakistani

Joe Mama

September 27th, 2011
9:41 am

IMO, India is wisely standing back and letting us figure out what’s going on by ourselves. They’ve long tried to tell us not to trust Pakistan, and by not being dicks about it, they position themselves as a regional & moderate player; a counterbalance to China.

If and when things come to formal blows with Pakistan, I think we will find India to be a ready and willing ally.

jt

September 27th, 2011
9:41 am

Actually the first three Goldman Sachs executives who tried to re-penetrate the Pakistan/Aghgan market were “wildly successful”……………in a way.
.
Their dried body parts are still being used in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and the Balochistan provences as a kind of macabre currency.
.

Mighty Righty

September 27th, 2011
9:41 am

We should have never gone to war in Afghanistan. It is stupid to continue. We should not give a penny to Pakistan who is in fact our enemy. The Bush Administration was wrong to begin with and the Obama Administration is equally stupid. Get out and get out now. No other option makes any sense.

1811/0311

September 27th, 2011
9:43 am

decibles:

Beserk is “Southern” for berserk …………………. :o

1811/0311

September 27th, 2011
9:44 am

More 7-11’s over there might help ?

(ir)Rational

September 27th, 2011
9:44 am

Joe – Yep.

jm

September 27th, 2011
9:45 am

Nominate Romney, Fire Obama, 2012. We can have a new President that knows how to get America working, assuming a nutjob isn’t the nominee.

Doggone/GA

September 27th, 2011
9:47 am

“Nominate Romney”

“assuming a nutjob isn’t the nominee”

Contradict much?

Joe Mama

September 27th, 2011
9:47 am

JohnnyReb — “Pakistan has nukes. If you think that is not a direct threat to US soil, you need to take a very cold shower.”

Pakistan’s nukes pose no threat to US territory. Their missiles are of limited range and to the best of my knowledge, they have no subs (so no sneaking up close to shore and firing one) and no bomber capability that could reach the US.

There’s always the possibility of a Pakistani-facilitated terror strike (like putting a thermonuclear or atomic device on a cargo ship and sending it to a US port), but as far as military capabilities go, I think the Pakistanis have zero capability to threaten US territory with atomic weapons.

jm

September 27th, 2011
9:48 am

Adam

September 27th, 2011
9:49 am

jm: Please, knock it off for at least a couple of pages.

JohnnyReb

September 27th, 2011
9:50 am

Joe Mama – the threat is radical islam getting their hands on a nuke. It may sound like a far-fetched movie plot, but it could turn deadly real.

jm

September 27th, 2011
9:50 am

Adam, don’t worry I have to get back to work shortly. You run this blog?

Dirty Dawg

September 27th, 2011
9:53 am

Let me see if I’ve got this straight…the Pakistan version of the CIA is working secretly and perhaps without the knowledge of the ‘official’ government, with a radical group to do all sorts of mayhem toward us. Where have I heard this before? Mmmmmm….oh yes, the ex-head(s) of the CIA here – one named Bush and another named Casey – worked with that bunch in charge of Iran (at the height of our disagreements with them, and when doing business with them was a Federal crime), to see to it that the incumbent President, James Earl Carter, wasn’t able to get anything done about the Embassy hostages in time to stand a chance to be re-elected. And furthermore, they, the two ‘exes’, worked closely with, then current operatives – who didn’t care for Jimma’s policies regarding their, shall we say, more heinous acts. You may say that back then those working to undermine our ‘elected’ government weren’t, exactly, blowing people up – at least not with truck bombs – but more effective military hardware that they ultimately used in their war with Iraq – which we also instigated, by the way. You can also say that they, with that initiative, set in motion a process that has, arguably, virtually blown up this country, perhaps forever.

So lets’ not be so harsh toward the Pakistani ISI, we not only probably inspired them, we showed ‘em how to do it. OK, now you can blast me as being a ‘Blame America Firster’,,,but recall the phrase – ‘Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.’…it’s Biblical, look it up.

Jay

September 27th, 2011
9:53 am

jm, “going in to get the nukes” is an impossibility. You’ve watched way too many war movies.

Adam

September 27th, 2011
9:53 am

A request, jm. You’re just posting multiple posts that say the same off topic thing. I really don’t know what you are trying to accomplish by doing that.

carlosgvv

September 27th, 2011
9:53 am

Just out of curiosity, I wonder how many “allies” like this Russia, China, Britan, France and Canada have? If the answer is none, then what does that say about us? And AmVet, being on a war economy does NOT mean we have to give billions to people who hate us.

Doggone/GA

September 27th, 2011
9:54 am

“You run this blog?”

A request is not an order

Normal

September 27th, 2011
9:55 am

Paul,
below about Dit & Git…

AmVet

September 27th, 2011
9:56 am

Are the Republicans now the new French?

Bunch of silly appeasers and peaceniks.

The next thing you know they’ll be demanding cuts in the already undersized and struggling DoD budget…

jt

September 27th, 2011
9:57 am

Al-Quida, Hammass, Haqqani …………don’t think for a minute that it can’t happen here.
.
Back when I was coming up, we had the Who-dlum.
I never saw one but people would call you that,if up to no good.
.
I don’t know what happened to those guys.

Osama Bil Laden

September 27th, 2011
9:57 am

When one is faced with liars, cheaters and thugs, like Pakistan is facing, there is no harm in dealing ‘doubly’.

BADA BING

September 27th, 2011
9:58 am

Boycott Slurpies !!

Nanda Parlre

September 27th, 2011
9:59 am

Statehood never happened in Pakistan….
How do we Statehood with the Messih?
Ig-ni-coriya? Or what is it?
Some people can eat-off but never leave semitism.

DBCOOPER

September 27th, 2011
9:59 am

Two billion in military aid?! Thats funny.

We are paying them off just like our enemies are paying them off. The so-called government of Pakistan is receiving “pay-offs” from many different sides for many different reasons.

A country like Afghanistan that is tribal and corrupt to its very soul. Can never be changed. The 2 billion of American Taxpayer money goes in the pockets of corrupt officals that hand it out as they see fit. Why do you think our Un-manned vehicles get air space? We pay for it and call it military aid. What about filtered intelligence? We pay for it.

The question should be? Is it worth it?

DebbieDoRight

September 27th, 2011
10:00 am

Jay: Questions about Pakistan’s reliability as an ally are hardly new; U.S. officials have long been critical of the level of cooperation it provided, particularly after Osama bin Laden was discovered living near a Pakistani army base.

Pakistan is like that good friend that everyone has. She’ll come over and help with your kids when you’re sick — cook, clean, take care of you — and then sleep with your husband as a form of repayment for her services.

Normal

September 27th, 2011
10:00 am

Nanda,
Say What???

Joe Mama

September 27th, 2011
10:01 am

JohnnyReb — “Joe Mama – the threat is radical islam getting their hands on a nuke. It may sound like a far-fetched movie plot, but it could turn deadly real.”

Frankly, I think we have more to fear from a dirty bomb or chemical/biological attack. Building an atomic device (forget about a nuke; those use A-bombs as triggers and are an order of magnitude more complicated than A-bombs) takes a LOT of specialized knowledge and equipment, and it’s really easy to eff them up if you don’t know what you’re doing (like North Korea’s fizzled test a couple of years ago). Plus, they want their attack to *succeed.* A complicated thing like sneaking A-bomb components into the US, assembling the device (which is HARD), transporting it and then setting it off at a key target would be REALLY difficult, and they don’t want to get busted ahead of time. I think their history shows that they’ll look for the gaps in our armor and the oversights in our attention, and then home in on that with whatever attack method they can manage. An A-bomb attack has never sounded practical to me.

An atomic attack would be the golden egg for Islamic terrorists; I agree with that. But it would be so complicated and difficult that I think they’d conclude that *other* types of attacks would give them more impact for less cost and effort.

Mick

September 27th, 2011
10:01 am

You know we have done quite a lot of damage ourselves with those drone strikes, doesn’t that count? Very complex country with nukes, it’s the only possible reason that we are still lingering around in afghanistan. Still, we need to get out and far away from that part of the world. Let china have at it if they want to be a super power…

Guy Incognito

September 27th, 2011
10:03 am

Normal

September 27th, 2011
10:00 am
Nanda,
Say What???

Ditto??!!??

AmVet

September 27th, 2011
10:03 am

carlos, haven’t you heard?

They hate us for our freedoms!

At least in Republispeak.

This not having botched invasions and occupations is a very dangerous road to start going down. Fortunately George’s nephew surged into Afghanistan. And the right wing surrender monkeys never even saluted him for getting more GI’s KIA’d needlessly.

(When do we invade Iran?)

Aquagirl

September 27th, 2011
10:03 am

You’re just posting multiple posts that say the same off topic thing. I really don’t know what you are trying to accomplish by doing that.

Hijacking the blog so he can b!tch about Obama. All these shades of grey are making his head hurt. Obama, on the other hand, is the root of all evil—problems in Pakistan, bad economy, drought, lack of oil production, hippies, and that patch of eczema on his elbow.

Thomas

September 27th, 2011
10:06 am

cook, clean, take care of you — and then sleep with your husband as a form of repayment for her services.

Debbie- names and numbers please.

(ir)Rational

September 27th, 2011
10:06 am

Debbie – That doesn’t sound like a very good friend. She probably went to AU. :D

(ir)Rational

September 27th, 2011
10:07 am

Aquagirl – Obama is responsible for hippies? I didn’t like him before, but now, now he must go.

Adam

September 27th, 2011
10:07 am

Aquagirl: I have a Facebook “friend” who posted that the freeway being shut down and making her miss her friend’s wedding was another thing to add to the list of reasons to not like Obama.

Where do people get these notions? He is NOT a Messiah!

Yawar Bokharee

September 27th, 2011
10:09 am

Friends with Benefits !!

I guess America now unable to get the benefits from Pakistan ! Every one know 2 billion each year, please have an over view of causalities each year both in civilians and in military lines took place of Pakistan. Over 3200 are dead in this war…..still if the America dont trust Pakistan after this much commitment then i guess they have to redefine “Friends” in their books.

Pragmatic Matti

September 27th, 2011
10:10 am

Agree with Mighty Righty today (@9:41). Let’s get our troops the heck out of Afghanistan. Now. It’s long past time to break up with Karzai on a post-it note: “It’s been real, but it’s over. DON’T MAKE US COME BACK HERE.” Seal Team Six gave us the reason we’ve been waiting for. WTF else are we waiting for? Everybody over there to decide to be nice? Never gonna happen. I want our military HERE, on our homeland, where they belong.

AmVet

September 27th, 2011
10:13 am

You know things are upside down when the cons have all gone touchy feely on us, regarding the Holy War on Terror!

Thank gawd, we have courageous statesmen like Herman Cain to keep the Sharia-law loving Muslims out of our inner sanctum.

And even more fortunately we have an Uppity Muslim who finally saw the pro-American light and killed Public Enemy Number One, who was living across the street from the local police station, just up the way from Pakistani military academy and only 40 miles from Rawalpindi, military headquarters in Pakistan..

(Oh, and did I mention that OBL’s compound was eight times the size of anything near it?)

Aquagirl

September 27th, 2011
10:15 am

Obama is responsible for hippies?

That info is straight from Pakistani intelligence.

Oh, and now Obama is responsible for traffic jams, according to Adam’s “friend.” LOL. What’s next?

(ir)Rational

September 27th, 2011
10:15 am

As far as the wars are concerned, I’m all for ending them. However do we really think it is the best idea to just pull out leaving a power vacuum where our military was to be filled by whomever? Isn’t that basically got us into this mess in the first place? The Soviets were kicked out, with our help, leaving a power vacuum. The people that ended up in power, knew nothing of our help, hated us, and gave us the Afghanistan we’ve all come to know and hate for the last 20 years. Let’s pretend we know what we’re doing, and pull out gradually, leaving the government (hopefully) strong enough to control the country (hopefully again) leaving them as an ally, and not recreating an old enemy.

harvey

September 27th, 2011
10:16 am

A “friend” only has to screw me over once to cease being a friend. I figure our government is really stupid.

(ir)Rational

September 27th, 2011
10:16 am

Aquagirl – If that came from the ISI, then you KNOW it has to be true. Not sure the other info is reliable though, I’ll do some polls and get back with you.

(ir)Rational

September 27th, 2011
10:18 am

harvey – You’re just now coming to this conclusion? You been hiding under rocks or living in caves?

Joe Mama

September 27th, 2011
10:18 am

(ir)Rational — “Obama is responsible for hippies?”

Only the patchouli-smelling ones. The dirty ones are still the fault of Johnson and Nixon.

(ir)Rational

September 27th, 2011
10:21 am

Oh, well, generally I’m only opposed to dirty hippies, so I guess I’ll strike that off my list.

Pakistani Student

September 27th, 2011
10:23 am

iam pakistani and will be pleased if america and allies attack Pakistan….Actually we are tired of fighting each other we want usa forces to come here and hence we will get chance to kill them instead we have to go to Afghanistan.We will teach them how to fight.Pakistan is not an easy country that can be digested easily…Pakistan is not iraq or afghanistan…1 thing i want to say that suicide bombing rates is much higher than iraq and afghanistan in pakistan without invasion so consider if america invade pakistan than what would happen…Pakistani People are ready to die to defend the country.Yes we supported taliban by money,arms and by training and we are admitting it what can you do now?hahah you are coward your forces are not capable of taking Pakistan.I would like to say we can take kashmir in just 3 days from india…let the time come

DBCOOPER

September 27th, 2011
10:23 am

The worst part is the groups that have recieved favortism for at least 35 years now have yet to capatalize from it.

faz

September 27th, 2011
10:24 am

i think american must abort all sort of relations with pakistan, then pakistan will learn what thy have remaining…..

1811/0311

September 27th, 2011
10:25 am

You know ………….. the world didn’t look this bad in the late 1930’s.

Why? Even Germany or Japan didn’t have nukes.

(ir)Rational

September 27th, 2011
10:25 am

What’s with the sudden influx of stupid trolls this morning?

poison pen

September 27th, 2011
10:27 am

Adam

” A request, jm. You’re just posting multiple posts that say the same off topic thing. I really don’t know what you are trying to accomplish by doing that.”

Adam, He will accomplish the same thing as Getalife.

AmVet

September 27th, 2011
10:28 am

“We’re fighting them there, so we don’t have to fight them here.”

Brought to you by the lying and deadly idiots who said Iraq was involved in 9/11…

poison pen

September 27th, 2011
10:30 am

Aquagirl, According to the AJC this morning the traffic on our roads is getting better.

AmVet

September 27th, 2011
10:31 am

“You know ………….. the world didn’t look this bad in the late 1930’s.”

Amazing.

The legacy of willful blindness and Churchillian appeasement…