Does the attempt to kill Zawahiri with missiles, but instead killing 18 other people (including women and children), bother any one?

There is no doubt Zawahiri is a bad man and should be captured and sent to trial for his crimes. I'd have no complaints if we sent in a commando team if we thought we knew his whereabouts and try to capture him, or even kill him in the attempt.

But, to be wrong and kill presumedly innocent people just doesn't fit in with the way I think my country should act.

Here's the thing:

We just committed an act of war against a nuclear power.

We invaded their country and bombed their citizens with no warning and no provocation.

Would it have been so hard to ask for cooperation from the government of Pakistan before shooting?

Now because we're the big tough guys on the block, Pakistan is asking for no more than an apology and compensation for the relatives of the deceased. (What are the odds that Bush is actually going to apologize?)

Does anyone else see something immoral about this situation?

The U.S. is supposed to be the cowboy in the WHITE hat.

Just when you think things wouldn't get any worse.

If they had gotten Zarqwiri then MAYBE Pakistan wouldn't have minded so much, but to go into a sovereign nation like that is absolutely wrong in every way imaginable.

Time for the citizens in our country to really think hard about what they want for our country and from our government and act to achieve it. Things are greatly amiss.

Boys, do y'all realize just how bad we'll be screwed if we piss off Pakistan or they have a coup?

Pakistan needs us as an ally in case India decides to invade, so all they can do is make noise sufficient to demonstrate the semblance of outrage to calm their own populace. The Pakistani gov't doesn't actually control much of the country, and relies on the good will or lack of open hostility of tribal chieftains. The earthquake pretty much decimated any resources the country may have to expend in armed struggle right now, and the military is focused on simply helping people survive the winter.

MacMagus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Here's the thing:
>
> We just committed an act of war against a nuclear
> power.
> We invaded their country and bombed their citizens
> with no warning and no provocation.
>
> Would it have been so hard to ask for cooperation
> from the government of Pakistan before shooting?

Oh, come on. Do you really think Musharraf wasn't informed before the strike? He's been playing winky-winky for years doing whatever he can to (a) keep the level of US dollars flowing in, (b) solidifying his base (which likely REQUIRES) our military presence, and (c) trying to find some way to marginilize the tribesmen in that hell hole of a region.

If he was smart, he'd cede that territory to Afghanistan. They don't provide any economic benefit to Pakistan. It won't happen because it puts him at odds with Pakistan's land squabble with India about the Kashmir.

The current income stream to Iraq and Afganistan is from the US. They'd no more disrupt that than Congress would disrupt theirs.

The President will spend whatever it takes to do whatever it is he wants to do. He hasn't yet been told what it is he wants to do.

Pretty incompetent, as usual, and another embarrassment for us around the world. Not to mention that there's something plain wrong with us wacking innocent women and children (if the reports are true) in a botched attempt that might have gotten this guy.

I wonder how many of these administartion big wigs can actually hit the bowl when they take a leak? (or can actually even locate it?)

---

JoeM

RgrF Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> The President will spend whatever it takes to do whatever it is he wants to do. He
> hasn't yet been told what it is he wants to do.


I thought Dick Cheney was out of the hospital and back on his feet.

JoeM Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> I wonder how many of these administartion big wigs
> can actually hit the bowl when they take a leak?
> (or can actually even locate it?)
>

I think the expression you're looking for is, "How many of them could empty a bucket of water with the instructions printed on the bottom of the bucket?"

---

_____________________________________________
I think….
there….
4a.m.

blah, blah. Where were you guys when Clinton cruise missled the area in the 90's ? And there was 'collateral damage'. And his target was Usama. Sheesh. Pakistan has always 'approved'. After all, we sold them a boatload of guns & ammo (F-16's etc.) I would not be surprised if we had had some 'wink wink' knowledge of their nuke development.

I know first hand that we knew about their ICBM development. So there.

Besides, the NWFP has always been a wretched den of scum and villany. And the producer of some awesome minerals (Onyx, etc..)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/17/2006 11:07PM by cbelt3.

The difference between Clinton's attack and Bush's is that we weren't viewedn at that time through the lens of Abu Ghraib by the billion plus Moslems in the world. This was really dumb at a time when we need to win the hearts and minds of Afghanistan's neighbors, which will now be even more willing to support the resurgent Taliban. Timing is everything. That said, Clinton killed more Iraqis than Bush. They serve the same masters. Get over your delusion that we live in a two-party state.

---

i would say 'viewed through the lens of Al Jazeera" instead. As a 'media ' organization, they are basically ownzed by Al Quaeda.

"Al Jazeera has been criticized by many of its Muslim viewers for giving air time to Israeli officials. Some have accused Al Jazeera of being too pro-American or pro-Western in its coverage, and have mockingly taken to calling it "Al-Khinzeera," which means "The Pig.""

[en.wikipedia.org]