The New 'Forgotten War'

For Obama and McCain, the debate is all about Iraq and Afghanistan. But the bigger problem is Pakistan.

By Michael Hirsh | Newsweek Web Exclusive
Jul 25, 2008 | Updated: 7:23  a.m. ET Jul 25, 2008

« Return to Article

 
Discuss
 
Member Comments
  • Posted By: HarleyisHere @ 08/02/2008 10:21:20 PM

    Comment: "Wasn't this going to be a campaign free of the usual partisan bickering?"...

    That's what John Mccain SWORE and has never looked back, as he and rick dahmer daivs fling mud, and lies everywhere. While Obama, laughingly responds and mccain says Obama creid "race"

    Funny how on the EXACT DAY Obama returns to asking the question to people "Are you better off then you were 4yrs ago, or 8yrs ago, do you think you can stand 4 more years of it?"...and gets a roar of "NOs!" from the crowd, John McCain, takes a piece of Obama'a speech which he has been saying for months now, and CRIES OUT about it...I will give RICK DAHMER DAIVS credit for his timing there ;)

  • Posted By: HarleyisHere @ 07/29/2008 4:27:21 PM

    Comment: AP DATELINE TUE JUL 29 2008: Senator and Presidential candidate John McCain plans to blame front runner Barack Obama for the earth quake in California today, McCain says it's because Obama had NOT visited California in months, McCain says he is there for California and lives right next door. More to come...

  • Posted By: HarleyisHere @ 07/28/2008 4:19:09 AM

    Comment: The problem for McCain is his "Judgment", if he really had superior military insight, he would have never agreed to go to Iraq until Afghanistan was "mission accopmlished". If mccain would have wanted to defeat Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, where they make base and train, if he would have wanted to actually bring BIN LADEN to justice, if MCCAIN has TRUE judgment, he would have stood on the floor of the Senate and said "WRONG WAR< WRONG TIME!" We would have "WON" in Afghanistan, instead of "cutting" our ablility to supply more troops and "running" to Iraq, for a "WAR FOR OIL" and for the bush ego.

    If McCain had done that, there would not have been a "SURGE" required, AT ALL. thousands of Iraqis and hundreds od Americans would have been saved...but NOPE! McCain and BUSH wanted to go to a country that NEVER ATTACKED THE US, and star another war, and now MCCAIN AND BUSH want to go "bomb Iran, bomb bomb Iran". before AFGANISTAn or Iraq are clear...and you call that a "military mentality", you call that "Judgment"?

  • Posted By: HarleyisHere @ 07/28/2008 3:31:49 AM

    Comment: Yeah keep assuring us, we feel "safe" now...lol

    Wait it's republicans that believe in the "boogeymen" that get you at "3am". Obama supporters see beyond WAR FOR OIL, and DRILLIN AND KILLIN, we see a country in need, run down by the last 8yrs of crime and deciet that mccain wishes to carry on.

    "hustle and jive talk" sounds a little..."OLDER WHITE MALE" to me...for those of you who read my earlier post on that topic, you get it right ;)

    We ALL know how this will turn out, better shut up and staartr getting used to it...mmmkay.

  • Posted By: nawawimohamad @ 07/27/2008 4:33:32 AM

    Comment: It???s like in the movies or Television drama series where CIA death squads are in operation to eliminate ???enemies??? of the United States. In Afghanistan, this movie is being played in real time with real people being killed and at times entire villages razed by an angry mob called the CIA paramilitaries.
    A United Nations investigator released a preliminary report citing widespread civilian deaths in Afghanistan, often at the hands of unaccountable units led by the CIA or other foreign intelligence agencies, including the Mossad ??? or Israel???s secret service.

    The British Intel is also involved in the secret battle in which the target is mostly civilians who knows too much about the Taliban and Taliban close allies in villages and cities.

    These ops ??? illegal according to the rules of wars ??? were condemned by Philip Alston who is the United Nations Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions Professor Philip Alston.

    ???My focus is on extrajudicial executions or what might be called unlawful killings. The principal actors whose conduct I have been examining include the Government, particularly the police, the international military forces and the anti-government elements, including the Taliban. The bottom line of my report is that there are many killings which are avoidable,??? he said after delivering a devastating report that showed the CIA were killing civilians with impunity in Afghanistan.

  • Posted By: myersbill2001 @ 07/27/2008 3:09:33 AM

    Comment: Is Mr Hirsh being naïve, or disingenuous, when he refers to unilateral action in Pakistan by the US in the conditional.
    Even if we dismiss the reports of covert actions by US special forces in the Pakistani tribal areas along the Afghan border how are we suppose to sweep under the carpet the aerial bombardments by Predators? It's been only six weeks since the US killed eleven Pakistani border police.
    It's ludicrous to suggest, as Mr Hirsh does, that unilateral US intervention in Pakistan is a highly controversial proposal dreamed up by Obama, when in fact it is actual, current US policy.
    William Myers, Madrid, Spain

  • Posted By: PacificGatePost @ 07/27/2008 12:18:54 AM

    Comment:
    POPPY FIELDS OF MASS DESTRUCTION ---- TIME TO AWAKEN

    The beautiful and delicate poppy that now paints the landscapes of Afghanistan with vibrant colors, has long been the symbol for sacrifice. The aesthetic is as soothing to the sense of sight, as it is exasperating to the conscience.

    http://pacificgatepost.blogspot.com/2008/04/poppy-fields-of-mass-destruction.html

    Drastic action is required.

  • Posted By: herbo21k @ 07/26/2008 2:53:52 PM

    Comment: No Pakistani govt could survive for very long if it embraced a serious military move against the tribal areas, a string of petty emirates each with thousands of fundamentalist, basically illiterate "subjects" most all of whom live in 14th century poverty. Therefore only occasional feints, a few brief firefights and many more years of feckless "negotiations" will ensue as "The Taliban" consolidates its position of authority within these strange societies. These areas are not only remote geographically but remote in every other sense of the word. A military campaign in the Waziristans, for instance would be next to impossible due to the extraordinary , costly logistics alone. The terrain is very rugged with hills higher than most US mountains, mountains that make the Rockies look like termite mounds. This terrain entirely favors the defense and is a major reason why neither the Pakistani Army, nor NATO forces want to launch any major offensives to "seek and destroy" Islamic militants in their own neighborhood. So far, anytime the Taliban has come out of these protected zones and gone on the attack, they have suffered serious defeats and major losses of life and weaponry. A "tit for tat" situation exists and is likely to remain so.

  • Posted By: chamsticks @ 07/26/2008 1:46:53 PM

    Comment: My comment got cut off so I'll finish it here. Bush had his chance and blew it. Now it's time to rethink this whole thing. I can't see how anyone in Pakistan right now is a threat to us. If there's any threat at all, they're in Europe or they're already here. Pakistan may be no friend of ours and if so, why are we sending them billions that Pakistani government sympathizers can use to finance the Taliban.

  • Posted By: chamsticks @ 07/26/2008 1:37:42 PM

    Comment: Why do we consider a bunch of tribals in mud huts to be threats to the biggest superpower in the world. I mean they got lucky once and might even get lucky again. Knocking down some buildings is pretty bad but throwing trillions of dollars down the drain is even worse. You contain them, keep an eye on them, just like we should have done with Saddam. Invading a nuclear power, on the other hand, is quite a hell of a risk. Bush had

  • Posted By: ragnar30066 @ 07/26/2008 12:28:54 PM

    Comment: Please, Obama can only learn so fast. Can this wait until he is comfortable with Iraq and Afghanistan?

  • Posted By: JTatEHT @ 07/26/2008 11:07:00 AM

    Comment: It seems to me that Obama has discussed, or at least touched on, these issues with Pakistan. He certainly includes Pakistan when discussing the need for more troops in Afghanistan. He clearly realizes that there is no way to defeat the Taliban and to destroy Al Quaida without engaging Pakistan in a more productive way.

  • Posted By: Trooper101st @ 07/26/2008 10:35:11 AM

    Comment: P-stan only appears to be a US ally. Thier ISI, military, have been either helping them directly or cutting deals that appease the jihadi's. If its a case of logistics, better find another route coz the only way to slow the T-ban/AQ down is hit them where they live-PAKISTAN. Selling them Block 50 F-16's to a gov. that is betraying us is more lunacy from Bush and friends. If we are to make A-stan stable, then a massive strike across the border is essential. The P-stani's have no authority in these tribal areas, and they are NOT the entity that governs these lands. Strike them out of the blue, tell the P-stani's to stay outta the way, or your actions will be dealt with in a hostile manner. P-stan 's Army Corps commanders are T-ban sympathysers, maybe even members. They have no intention of helping us. I been there 3 times, a total of 37 months, saw the camps in N. Waziristan, Baluchistan, and they operate with impunity. P-STAN IS THE ENEMY.

    • Posted By: SikandereAzam @ 07/26/2008 2:06:32 PM

      Comment: Trooper101st: It is very essential that we keep Pakistan as an ally, even if they are far from perfect. They have had some success in capturing al Qaeda figures and even a few Taliban.

      I respect your military experience there, but please remember some history:

      Cambodia, 1970. The Taliban would like nothing better than to have the U.S. start bombing Pakistan. It would be like Cambodia all over again with the Taliban (like the Kmer Rouge) taking control of the country.
      We could see a U.S. defeat (again) and all hell break loose on innocent Pakistani people reeling from the crazy doings of the Taliban...Agree or disagree, Sir?

  • Posted By: Fernadez @ 07/26/2008 9:50:46 AM

    Comment: John MCCain doesnt know Shiite and Sunni are Bitter enemy since saddam days,Also this spring, McCain twice appeared to mistake again twice Sunnis and Shiites, two branches of Islam that split violently

    John MMcain doesnt know where is Pakistan ,McCain responded: ???I'm afraid it's a very hard struggle, particularly given the situation on the Iraq/Pakistan border." The ABC posting added: ???Iraq and Pakistan do
    not share a border.

    ???Somalia??? for ???Sudan???: As recounted in a reporter???s pool report from McCain???s Straight Talk Express bus on June 30, the senator said while discussing Darfur, a region of Sudan: "How can we bring pressure on the government of Somalia?"
    Senior adviser Mark Salter corrected him: ???Sudan

    ???Germany??? for ???Russia??? memorializes McCain referring to President Vladimir Putin of Russia ??? following a trip to Germany ??? as ???President Putin of Germany.

    This spring, McCain said troops in Iraq were ???down to pre-surge levels??? when in fact there were 20,000 more troops than when the surge policy began.

    In perhaps the most curious incident, McCain said earlier this month that as a prisoner of war in Vietnam, he had tried to confuse his captors by giving the names of Pittsburgh Steelers starting players when asked to identify his squadron mates. McCain has told the story many times over the years ??? but always correctly referred to the names he gave as members of the Green Bay Packers

    ""Wakakaka"""' This the Guy going to Be President of United?..........I laugh my Ass off.

    In Phoenix earlier this month, McCain referred to Czechoslovakia, which has been divided since Jan. 1, 1993, into the Czech Republic and Slovakia. He also referred to Czechoslovakia during a debate in November and a radio show in April.

  • Posted By: Anju Chandel @ 07/26/2008 8:06:53 AM

    Comment: You are right about Pakistan being the real crucible of terror in the world. However, it would be unfair to say that Barack Obama has also missed it. Rather, he has already spoken about bombing Pakistan's north-west frontier borders in order to eradicate al-Qaeda terrorists, if need be. I think he should emphasize upon this plan more emphatically.

  • Posted By: a brighter America 08 @ 07/26/2008 3:15:57 AM

    Comment: Read all the comments. Very interesting and enlightening. Aren't we fortunate to speak our minds without fear of being beheaded or having my hands chopped off because my opinions are conveyed via the internet, letting my fingers do the walking on my keyboard while i do the talking. We are blessed to live in this country of ours, even with all our problems. i believe we need a president who can step out of the proverbial "box" and look at it from all angles and beyond. I don't McCain is capable of doing that. Right now he is centered on the surge, what he calls "my surge". By the wway,. McCain has been claming, lately, that he KNOWS how to win wars!!! He was in VietNam as a pilot, got shot down , ane was taken prisoner; JUST HOW did THOSE experiences tach him how to WIN wars?? McCain is not very bright, the highest grade in make in his 20 years in the Navy was CAPTAIN!! YES, CAPTAIN!! He was STILL a JUNIOR OFFICER when he retired from the U.S. Navy!! He graduated 395th out of his graduating class of 399 students in the Naval Academy!! I would say McCain is not very intelligent or even smart; however, like a common criminal, he is a con artist.

    • Posted By: the-commish @ 07/27/2008 12:24:50 AM

      Comment: I agree with almost everything you said, except one thing:

      CAPTAIN in the Navy is the equivalent of COLONEL in the Army or Air Force; hardly a "junior" officer.

  • Posted By: HarleyisHere @ 07/26/2008 2:26:30 AM

    Comment: OMGcheck out what CornHolyO posted...lol sick.

    Posted By: HolyRoller @ 07/26/2008 12:36:01 AM
    Comment: Got ya'll some more Handsome jokes. I can't stop masturbating. Maybe I'll make this a daily post..............

    Q. Why will Bill Oriley vote for Barack Obama?
    A. He saw that three pointer and thought there was "no spin".

    Q. Why will sharks vote for Barack Obama?
    A. Cause Obama already fed them Hillary, now it's McCain...a much better year for meat.

    Q. How will Osama Bin Laden vote for John McCain?
    A. From hte ranch in Crawford TX

    Q. Why will Britney Spears vote for John McCain?
    A. Becuase he father her another child and then left her like his first wife
    guess that Viagra is working out for John...he was quoted saying..."whoops, I did it again".

    Q. What do McCain and Bush have in common?
    A. Wait their not the same person?

    Q. Why doesn't McCain drink Bud?
    A. He prefers BUSH.

    Q. Why wouldn't McCain support the American troops?
    A. He said he forgot there were any "heros" except himself.

    NOBAMA!!!

    Extra:

    Larry Sinclair submitted this one....

    What do EXXON and HolyRoller have in common?
    A: Niether one knows how to handle their oil, but they both like "drilling".

  • Posted By: a brighter America 08 @ 07/26/2008 2:05:32 AM

    Comment: Perhaps someone whould interview McCain about this since he is the self-proclaimed expert at knowing how to win wars. What puzzles me about his claim is if he really knows how to win wars, howcome we are still in both Afghanistan and Iraq?? If he is such an expert WHY didn't he SHARE HIS UNLIMITED EXPERTNESS AT WINNING WARS with President Bush and the military commanders?? Please, I am not trying to be funny, I WANT AND DESEVE answers from McCain; I believe we ALL do!! Since he absolutely KNOWS how to win wars and did not share his UNLIMITED KNOWLEDGE with our President and the Military generals, then it is CLEAR he wanted these wars to go on for years to come! WHY?? Does he derive pleasure from all the killing that goes on in these wars?? Dos he have some sick reasoning to punish the Iraqis, especially, to get back at the Viet Cong?? What kind of sick thinking is McCain all about?? The truth of the matter is McCain knows NOTHING about winning war. He was shot down and taken prisoner, what did THAT teach of about winning wars?? ZILCH!! WHAT WARS has McCain WON to give him the experience of winning wars, especially when he was NEVER IN COMMAND DURING WAR?? TRUTH: McCain is feeding America's citizenry with a pack of self-serving lies to benefit him!! Come on, fellow citizens, think! McCain's claims are delusional at best! Lately he has proven he is very short on foreign affairs.

  • Posted By: Wisconsin Voter @ 07/26/2008 1:33:12 AM

    Comment: Obama knows where Pakistan is.


    More then I can say for McSame!

    • Posted By: HarleyisHere @ 07/26/2008 1:55:07 AM

      Comment: McCain knows it's on the border of Iraq lol

      • Posted By: a brighter America 08 @ 07/26/2008 2:15:37 AM

        Comment: McCain believes Chechoslovakia is still a country and he wants to help protect it!! This particular country split into TWO countries in 1993: The Chech Republic and Slovakia. McCain DOES NOT KNOW this!! He also believes the Sunnis fighting the insurgents with troops from the US and our allies backing was the result of what HE calls HIS surge. McCain does NOT know the Sunis were doing this a few months BEFORE the surge. McCain cannot tell the difference between the Shites and the Suni, and Shia (sp)!! McCain doesn't really know what he is talking about! And how I literally detest that phoney smile when he's said something against Senator Obama!!

        • Posted By: Fernadez @ 07/26/2008 9:32:49 AM

          Comment: Shiite and Sunni are Violently Enemy between them ,just like Serb and Bosnia.John McMCain doesnt know any of the facts......so my vote goes to Putin of Germany

        • Posted By: Fernadez @ 07/26/2008 9:30:59 AM

          Comment: Shiite and Sunnis are Viloently Enemy between them .John MCaain doesnt know anything.......My Vote goes to Putin of Germany

          • Posted By: raddave @ 07/28/2008 3:03:00 PM

            Comment: Putin is Russian, not German

          • Posted By: LIKEITIS @ 07/27/2008 1:45:50 AM

            Comment: HMMMM.

  • Posted By: PacificGatePost @ 07/26/2008 1:29:07 AM

    Comment:
    POPPY FIELDS OF MASS DESTRUCTION ---- TIME TO AWAKEN

    The beautiful and delicate poppy that now paints the landscapes of Afghanistan with vibrant colors, has long been the symbol for sacrifice. The aesthetic is as soothing to the sense of sight, as it is exasperating to the conscience.

    http://pacificgatepost.blogspot.com/2008/04/poppy-fields-of-mass-destruction.html

    Drastic action is required.

  • Posted By: thehappyamerican @ 07/25/2008 11:24:01 PM

    Comment: Obama can't know much about anything when he's only dimley awar eof what his own pastor said...
    .....for years....
    the hotspot is Iranand Iraq...and it was Bush who saw things threw to get things in North korea resolved without further conflict. Obama is not going to heal the world. He's not going to go the distance.

    • Posted By: HarleyisHere @ 07/25/2008 11:41:49 PM

      Comment: And then you have McCain, who believes that Iraq borders Pakistan, does NOT know what a KURD is, can't tell the difference between Sunni and Shia, NEVER (until recent promptsfrom Obama) speaks of Afghanistan or Pakistan (except that it dorders Iraq), or Bin Laden.

      McCain may not even live the distance sad to say, hope he choses one hell of a veep ;) Not that it REALLY matters just humoring the idea LOL.

  • Posted By: Medge @ 07/25/2008 10:52:31 PM

    Comment: Since when are things going well in Iraq? Is this the reason why Malaki wants a timeline for U.S. withdrawal?

    Do the tribal areas in Pakistan have authority independent of the central Pakistani government, that permits them to give the Taliban use these areas as safe havens? Is president Pervez Musharraf a paper tyger, that lets the tribal leaders to protect the Taliban after they return from military incursions against the ally forces in Afghanistan? Maybe Obama is right. Pakistan's border with Afghanistan has to be more secured, and Musharraf is not doing much about it.

  • Posted By: Driver of wagons @ 07/25/2008 10:50:24 PM

    Comment:

    And today, the word of the day in the corporate press is... "presumptuous." Used in a sentence: Senator Obama is being presumptuous during his trip -- acting all presidential and dignified. How dare he be presidential while running for, you know, president. Presumptuous. During the live CNN web feed of the Berlin address, an anchor used it to describe the event. Joe Klein used it in a blog post today. Of course Joe attributed it to racist voters rather than very serious reporters -- racist because it's presumably a synonym for 'uppity' and we can't accuse the press of such awfulness. And Candy Crowley used it in her post-address analysis on CNN. That's a lot of coincidences. "Presumptuous" must really be a popular word. Odd that it's being used so often by people who want Senator Obama to win.

    AP: "In a speech that risked being seen as presumptuous..."

    TIME Magazine: "capable to become the Commander in Chief of a superpower -- without seeming presumptuous..."

    The National Journal: "He is well aware voters here at home might see that as presumptuous..."

    Washington Post: "Whether by the end of this week he will be seen as presumptuous or overly cocky..."

    Chicago Tribune: "That means walking the fine line between looking presidential and appearing arrogant and presumptuous..."

    Boston Globe: "plus the growing sense in some quarters that the presumptive Democratic nominee is getting a little presumptuous..."

    Can you feel the wanting-Obama-to-win love radiating off your computer screen? No?

    The reality is that positive coverage of any Democrat is limited and temporary for fear of networks and newspapers either being accused of liberal bias or being tossed out of the very serious barbeque loop. Regardless of whether the Democrat, in this case Senator Obama, is having a good day, it's somehow unethical to report on such good news for too long without deliberately concocting an antidote to appease the far-right. So rather than standing up as the only industry explicitly named in the Constitution and defending the very basic idea of journalistic integrity, the corporate media is all too quick to capitulate to these specious Republican attacks -- that is, when they're not tossing their ethics aside and taking bribes in the form of barbeque and McBusch beer from a candidate whom they're supposed to be covering objectively.



    • Posted By: Medge @ 07/26/2008 12:26:33 AM

      Comment: I think that for a wagon driver, you presume too much.

  • Posted By: HarleyisHere @ 07/25/2008 10:16:54 PM

    Comment: "For Obama and McCain, the debate is all about Iraq and Afghanistan. But the bigger problem is Pakistan."

    BullSh!t!!!

    Obama has NOT forgotten it, only McBush, who NEVER mentions it unless pressed on it. I get so sick of the "both sides are doing it" PC crap. Both sides have not forgotten, only BushCain. Just like during the primaries, it was Hillary SPEWING garbage, like McCain now, and Obama being restrained in his response, mature even, as he still is now, But the media would say "both sides" need to tone it down, or "both sides" have been a little rough on each other...BULLSH!T! ;)

    • Posted By: HarleyisHere @ 07/25/2008 10:26:11 PM

      Comment: Oh yeah Obama has addressed Pakistan also...whoops ;)

  • Posted By: HarleyisHere @ 07/25/2008 10:12:21 PM

    Comment: Here if the answer, if I may. THE SURGE HAS NOT WORKED if it has WHY ARE WE STILL THERE?

    The bigger issue is what if?

    "IF" McCain and Bush had NOT abandoned our troops in Afghanistan to go to Iraq. "IF" we had"stayed the course" in Afghanistan and defeated Al Qaeda there captured Bin Laden, and depleated the Taliban. Then went to Iraq, taken Sadam down, and got the hell out all would haev been minimized we did not. We rushed to Iraq as Bush wanted to do even before 9/11 and it started out ok, it was not until the unexpected appearence of...Al Qaeda, causing the need for more troops, which we should have had to begin with and would have had if not fighting two wars, the surge is a DIRECT reflection of the BAD JUDGMENT of both McCain and Bush.

    Leaving Afghanistan was the biggest and most costly mistake Bush and McCain have made (imho). The cost of lives and money could have been greatly reduced, if McCain and Bush had better judgment on Afghanistan, which McCain STILL will not talk about, and when he does, he sound like Obama...lol

    There is why we needed a "surge" and why Al Qaeda is now stronger in Afghanistan, the FAILURE OF MCCAIN/BUSH MILITARY POLICIES.

  • Posted By: logical_thinker_007 @ 07/25/2008 9:46:49 PM

    Comment: Very good article. The real problem is indeed Pakistan, and I think that is why Obama is so urgently calling for getting out of Iraq and focusing again on Afghanistan. Until the Pakistanis are able to clean out Al Qaeda from their territory they will keep causing havoc in Afghanistan. This will be a VERY difficult problem however, because no one wants 200 Million Pakistanis angry over unilateral incursions into their territory, yet leaving it alone to fester leaves Al Qaeda able to plan another 9/11. I think Obama's approach of selective force is the best start, and hopefully things don't get too out of hand.

  • Posted By: gunlingbluecollarman @ 07/25/2008 9:36:19 PM

    Comment: Mr Hirsh, it's a pleasant suprise to see that you can actually build an argument based on real life situations. You should stick to this kind of commentary and forget about the oversimplified Republicans bad, Democrats good opinions you are so fond of (and most of all the cheerleading for the unintentionally funny Joe Biden).

  • Posted By: olderwiser @ 07/25/2008 7:43:46 PM

    Comment: The price for war continues long after armistice. The world war one veterans came home with problems from being gassed, and diseases from wading knee deep in mud for months in the trenches, not to mention the gunshot wounds and other invasions of the body. World war two sent them home with the usual bullet wounds and lost and broken limbs, and the signature legacy was shell shock. The horror of the war was manifest and they simply didn't want to talk about it. Many were said to be depressed, but we now know that it was from post traumatic stress syndrome. Korea alternately froze the troops in winter and heated them up in the summer. Loss of toes from frostbite was a big seller. Those who were captured were brainwashed and many of them came home confused and disoriented. Viet Nam gave us agent orange and who knows what from that exposure, along with lost limbs and other essential parts from the bouncing betty's set off by tripwires as the troops walked through the jungle looking for the enemy, along with PTSD, drug addiction, and who knows what else. Years afterwards that same war got hold of the secretary of defense Mc Namara, who was so much in favor of it at the time, and in those years later he spent an hour crying on national television over the guilt that he felt which was left over from that war.
    Those wars provided at least one saving grace and that was the war brides and refugees who came here to enrich our culture. The sad thing about the war we are presently so foolishly in is that there are not even any war brides to give us some consolation for the loss that always comes from this brutal activity. Maybe we will at least get some refugees who can come and help us get over this as our veterans lick their wounds in the years to come. Welcome to America, Iraqi refugees. Help us get over this foolishness.

  • Posted By: olderwiser @ 07/25/2008 7:22:36 PM

    Comment: There is such a careless air about all of the ideas that we can just make a little war here, and a little more war there, willy nilly, convenient to our world politics. We really can't do that. We are broke, literally in the hole. A big hole. Our military is an all volunteer force. They are stretched to our limit while our government has not asked us to sacrifice and has instead borrowed from other countries in effect to wage unnecessary and poorly planned war. We are now out of war. There are no more places for us to war unless we agree to a draft to fill our military blanks and extra high taxes to pay for more equipment and troops. So, if you are a draft aged blogger and you wish to wage a few more little wars, then get your affairs in order. Especially, pay off all your debt. You are soon to be a 100 dollar a month drafted private in the army. Enjoy it. It will make your life better. Especially it will teach you to be realistic about wars, their necessity and their cost in life and resources needed for other things. Best of all, you will get out of the service with the GI Bill for Education which will allow you to go to a good college and learn more about wars and their folly, if you hadn't already learned about them in one of war's bloody trenches, either freezing or burning in tropical or desert heat.

  • Posted By: mrzoid @ 07/25/2008 6:35:07 PM

    Comment: Yes, the greatest threat to the world is Pakistan/India. We ignore most of wjat is going on over in those countries because we have no contingencies to deal with either country. We stand by and let tensions continue to escelate, and we are to afraid to even bring our problems up to the leaders of the countries. Lets start focusing on the real threats to this country and the world at large.

  • Posted By: RO in Reno @ 07/25/2008 6:32:31 PM

    Comment: As was stated "no one has offered a better answer yet" The probablity of direct conflick with Pakistan continues to grow.
    The Bush failure to fignt the war on terror where the terrorists actually were is rapidly growing out of control.
    But I think you sell Obama short, he has been acutely aware of this failure and as you noted has clearly stated he will take the fight to the enemy in Pakistan if need be.
    McCain on the other hand is busy still trying to sell the surge and thinks Pakistan shares a border with Iraq, so we can safely assume he doesn't even know where Pakistan is.

  • Posted By: jehadder @ 07/25/2008 6:18:08 PM

    Comment: They didn't miss it..They're ignoring it because it's radioactive

  • Posted By: jehadder @ 07/25/2008 6:15:27 PM

    Comment: They didn't miss it..They're ignoring it because it's radioactive.

  • Posted By: SikandereAzam @ 07/25/2008 5:49:19 PM

    Comment: I agree with Michael Hirsh that Pakistan, along with Afghanistan, is the center of gravity for the focus of the fight against international terrorism. Of course, it is my firm conviction that this scourge can be defeated through helping to end two very serious conflicts in the world today and I will comment on of the conflicts-Kashmir.
    Some contributers to this forum have very balanced, insightful and informed opinions. But I am aghast at the extreme and uninformed opinions that inhabit this forum also.
    For instance, it is my experience that most people from both India and Pakistan are good and reasonable people. Not everyone in Pakistan is a jihadist or a terrorist, most people are not. Not everyone in India is against negotiations on Kashmir; many people there would like to see better realtions between India and Pakistan and have Kashmir solved.

    The world community needs to do some prodding of these two countries, both with beautiful cultures and talented people, to help with the resolution of the Kashmir dispute if the world is to have some semblance of peace in that part of the world.
    I have been a fortunate person to have visited both countries and have many friends from both India and Pakistan and I also am fortunate to be able see the beauty in the people from both countries.

    • Posted By: the-commish @ 07/27/2008 12:40:41 AM

      Comment:
      Friend, there is another problem in Kashmir, one which only a few people know about: China actually occupies a small portion of Northeast Kashmir. It's not just India and Pakistan duking it out, they have to be careful of China, another armed nuclear power!

      Not that the Chinese need any more landmass; they have already usurped Tibet!

  • Posted By: bayravin @ 07/25/2008 4:07:43 PM

    Comment: I am no fan of Iran. But, if one views (without bias) our foreign policy towards Iran in the past 60 years, we have done a lot of doublespeak. If we were inside the shoes of an Iranian, how would we feel towards a superpower that is always taunting and imposing sanctions when there has never been a threat made by Iran towards the United States.
    We need to find a means to articulate a policy that allows Iran to pursue peaceful uses of Nuclear power. We cannot engage the Middle East without addressing the nuclear prowess of Israel.
    And, we keep telling the world that we are a nation of laws, and we abide by them. However, when it comes to Israel, we break our principles and double-speak to the rest.
    We have accepted the role of a 'fair broker' and never lived up to it. The younger Muslims will no longer believe us unless we show some action that is fair.

    • Posted By: oldguru @ 07/25/2008 7:08:20 PM

      Comment: Well, Iran did take Americans hostage , and mistreat them horribly. The Mullahs who run Iran are a bunch of crazy old men who are fundementalist religious nuts.( not that we don't have a few here meddeling in our politics) We have messed in the politics in Iran, and we are not respected because of that. We set the Shah up, and he turned out to be worse than Mossadech(sp) for the iranians. If one takes the time to look at a map, you can understand why the Iranians want nuclear power, and the ability to produce weapons. We are in Afghanistan on their border. We are allied with Pakistan, on their border. we are in Iraq on their border. We are allied with Saudi Arabia just across the Gulf. We have them surrounded, and we have Israel right in their neighborhood who keeps poking their fingers in the eyes of the Palestenians and generally causing trouble in the reigon. Gee whiz. Is it any wonder that they are feeling a little defensive? We have them totally surrounded, and we keep making threats.

  • Posted By: just jerry @ 07/25/2008 3:45:58 PM

    Comment: Our nations focus internationally since the end of World War II has been to maintain our own position as a super power. During this time we have shifted alliances to meet our own needs to keep other nations from challenging us. We would, and did, side with Iraq when it suited us, with Iran when it suited us, with this dictator, or that dictator, as it suited our own interests.
    The result for many other nations in the world has been to suppress their ability to gain stature and influence. If Iran got too strong we would back Iraq in their disputes with Iran, if Iraq got too strong we would back Iran in their disputes with Iraq. We would do the same throughout the world; maintaining instability everywhere else so we could maintain our position as a super power.
    We can't continue this successfully anymore; the costs are simply too high and the progress of others on the international stage has been too great for there not to be some kind of realignment of power so that we have less influence and less power.
    We can't pretend the rest of the world will do our bidding anymore, they want to achieve a greater equality with us and there are nations that now do have more legitimate power that are moving into the power vacuum created by the misdeeds of our present leadership. Our present leaders are so ineffective the rest of the world has had no choice but to look elsewhere for leadership, and they are finding and developing that leadership in a manner that does disminsh our influence, though not necessarily in a manner detrimental to us or the rest of the world.
    A greater independence from us isn't necessarily bad and not too much different than when our own children gain their independence. It scares us and we need to develop a more mature basis with our children in that circumstance and it is the same with the rest of world as they take on a greater since of responsibility as well.
    Both candidates live in the past, as they believe they must as politicians confronted with an electorate that in their lifetimes have seen us as the most important superpower, with actual superpower and a sense of control in the world. The real change that we face and they will face is how do we share power with others in a that works for them, for us, and for the rest of the world while allowing other nations greater equality with us in their relationship with us.

  • Posted By: topcat2001 @ 07/25/2008 3:08:20 PM

    Comment: Can anyone here tell me why we invaded Iraq in the first place?

    • Posted By: bayravin @ 07/25/2008 3:18:01 PM

      Comment: Yes, OIl

      • Posted By: olderwiser @ 07/25/2008 4:01:57 PM

        Comment: Hubridity. A blend of hubris and stupidity.

        • Posted By: olderwiser @ 07/25/2008 4:05:53 PM

          Comment: The war is a giant pig. The more lipstick that is applied to this pig, the bigger its lips get. We will quit and come home as soon as we run out of lipstick. She will not follow us home.

          • Posted By: olderwiser @ 07/25/2008 4:09:21 PM

            Comment: She will simply lie there in her wallow until the next fool comes along with some lipstick and seduce him as she has us. We are exhausted. She needs some other fool. Let's come home.

  • Posted By: Lee Holmes @ 07/25/2008 2:45:18 PM

    Comment: Not so fast Hirsh.

    The Associated Press July 25,2008: ''Iran May End Cooperation With Nuclear Investigations''.

    Among the details observed as presented by IAEA Deputy Director Olli Heinonen in Geneva yesterday are drawings ''of uranium shaped to fit a warhead'', ''explosives tests that could be used to develop a nuclear detonator'',and ''Iranian draft plans to refit missles with nuclear warheads''. A worried British Foriegn Office has released this statement:

    ''The IAEA has raised serious concerns over Irans activities with a military dimension''.

    Irans Vice President has concluded that these talks are over. Replied other diplomats,''The IAEA is at a dead end''. Theres your ''diplomacy''in action Obama. [And there is the worth of your NIE you so blindly embraced less than a year ago Hirsh].

    • Posted By: the-commish @ 07/27/2008 12:48:50 AM

      Comment: That does not change the fact that the Mullahs are not stupid. They may indeed be seeking nuclear weapons, but that does not mean they will use them. Let me point out that the Soviet Union (RIP) had nukes from 1946 on, and did not use them once. MAD is still a valid concept, even though the Soviet Union no longer exists. Iran knows that an attack on Israel, for instance, would be suicide for them. As I say, they are neither stupid or suicidal.

    • Posted By: oldguru @ 07/25/2008 7:12:48 PM

      Comment: Well, the threats from our cowboy president sure haven't done any good. Perhaps if he had not bullied them we could have gotten somewhere with diplomacy.

    • Posted By: basedrum777 @ 07/25/2008 2:54:41 PM

      Comment: So you agree that we should've handled them before Iraq then huh?

      • Posted By: Lee Holmes @ 07/25/2008 3:56:38 PM

        Comment: Or at the same time. Regardless,Obamas plea [which is elsewhere covered here on NEWSWEAK],has fallen on deaf ears. We will expect fully,that ,in the circular,going-nowhere round of ''diplomacy'',now that the truculent Iranians are packing up their show,that a UN Security Council meeting and another of these ''resolutions'' that you could use to wallpaper the Houston Astrodome,will be in the offing...While Iran furthers its plans. The ball is out of Obama and even McCains hands. Look to Israel to see what will soon be coming upon a complete breakdown in ''diplomacy''[which is already occurring],and the IAEA inspections regimen,which is being defied by Tehran.

  • Posted By: little5er00 @ 07/25/2008 2:29:45 PM

    Comment: Nicholas Kristoff wrote a brilliant column recently in the New York Times, and I couldn't help but remember it when I read the last line of this article about no one having a good answer yet. "It takes a school, not missiles," he says. Read more at http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/13/opinion/13kristof.html?scp=1&sq=schools,%20not%20missiles&st=cse

  • Posted By: AZJUDY @ 07/25/2008 1:49:31 PM

    Comment: WE poor and middle class are sick of john McCain he is another millionaire like geo. bush
    and he can't remember anything ,he only for the rich and cank even talk looks like old age to me VP very importain for this one , he may live ,but his mind is going .

  • Posted By: Dollared @ 07/25/2008 1:33:47 PM

    Comment: Hirsh: Obama and McCain have no differences in Iraq? That isn't lazy reporting, that's a direct misrepresentation of McCain's position, to McCain's advantage. McCain has not advocated complete withdrawal from Iraq at any time.

    You sir are a liar.

  • Posted By: SikandereAzam @ 07/25/2008 1:19:44 PM

    Comment: Mr. Toradze, you are using a great deal of sophistry to try to counter some of my points.
    It won't work.
    Though I am open to criticism, these points are clear and I will clarify them again:

    1) It is imperative that the 2 longest standing conflicts in the world (and on the books of United Nations resolutions) be solved.
    2) If someone denigrates the religion or ethnicity of one of my friends (or toward anyone in a public forum), be they Hindu, Muslim, Jewish, Christian or otherwise, I will immediately defend them and make common cause with them.

  • Posted By: topcat2001 @ 07/25/2008 1:14:37 PM

    Comment: SikandereAzam - throughout history tell me of one instance where you pakis and muslims have been satisfied with the blood you extracted. you think you can blackmail us on your agenda? if you want peace or sympathy try protesting in a peaceful way like mandela, ghandhi or martin luther king. ofcourse that is an alien concept to you suicide bombers with your illusion of life with the 70 virgins.

    • Posted By: AskPlus @ 07/25/2008 1:46:55 PM

      Comment: What you describe is what the US does too. We are not innocents and we should be weary of judging others. I'm sure you have little love for Mandela, King and Ghandi. The war needs to be mitigated as soon as possible because we are losing just like Bin Laden hoped for and predicted. We are spending 4-11 Billion a day fighting ghosts, shooting at mountains with heavy equipment, and transporting our loses. There were other ways of fighting this war with counter-terrorism, focused military ops and premeditated week-long offensives from distance which Powell wanted to try first, that could have done the job with less loss of life, trust and economy. I think most who read your entry will feel hopeless for you and your lack of humanity.

      • Posted By: topcat2001 @ 07/25/2008 3:06:56 PM

        Comment: Askplus I am not supporting bombing innocents in Iraq and wasting our money on a war the reason for which we still dont know. I am merely saying that folks like SikandareAzam and his Paki buddies cannot blackmail the US or any other country saying 'you better solve this' or we are going to continue this. If anything the idiot Bush should have invaded Pakistan which we all know is the breeding ground for terrorists everywhere.

        • Posted By: SikandereAzam @ 07/25/2008 4:48:18 PM

          Comment: Solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the Kashmir conflict is only the domain of Muslims, it is in the interest of the entire world community because it is the right thing to do.
          The war on terrorism will be unending until the world community realizes it is these root conflicts that keep most terrorism alive. No reasonable person would like to see these conflicts continue.
          ...and for topcat2001: Your racism seems to know no bounds-I will not give you the satisfaction of telling you my real religion or ethnicity except to say you are incorrect so far.

          • Posted By: SikandereAzam @ 07/25/2008 4:52:51 PM

            Comment: Sorry, should read, "not only the domain of Muslims"

  • Posted By: SikandereAzam @ 07/25/2008 12:51:20 PM

    Comment: Mr. Toradze, I apologise for calling you a bad name.

  • Posted By: SikandereAzam @ 07/25/2008 12:49:16 PM

    Comment: Mr. Toradze: I agree with you, it is a disease which must be adressed in solving the 2 major conflicts. But the conflicts themselves have become like festering sores and I am in no way branding the 99% of Muslims as a disease nor is their religion a disease. The conflicts themselves also have a non-religious component. Yes, the terrorists are infected with the disease of madness and are using the non-resolution of these 2 conflicts toward their twisted religious thinking. But these 2 conflicts are not an "us vs. them" issue, these 2 conflists should be solved because it is the right thing to do.

    I have a strong conviction that these 2 conflicts resolved will have a beneficial effect on the fight against international terrorism and can bring about a world more peaceful no matter what religion you are.

  • Posted By: pragma @ 07/25/2008 12:38:28 PM

    Comment: A cat chasing its tail.
    A quandry
    Gee can you say nucleare (Bush speak)
    Gee can India help if we go in?
    And what about Iran? DAHHHHH
    And And
    Oh and what does Obama have in the way of military experience????
    This is why McCain would be better. We will need to fight the next stage of this Longggggg conflict
    war what ever you want to call it.
    See we should go into the tribal regions PERIOD!!!!!!!!!
    We need to show the world enough is enough

    • Posted By: raddave @ 07/25/2008 1:05:44 PM

      Comment: actualy it would be nucular in Bush speak. Military expereience does not equate to a good president, see Grant. McCain, while having military experience, does not have much command experience. He only commanded a squadron and never a ship or a major sea command.

      You seem to forget that McCain said that Pakistan is a sovereign nation and we have no justification for going into it.

    • Posted By: John_Toradze @ 07/25/2008 12:47:23 PM

      Comment: Our primary need is to focus what wealth we have left on our own nation, where it will do some good. War is extremely costly. It is bankrupting us. So what we need to do is to ignore slights, develop our economy, and regroup so that our nation does not crash, and by crashing bring the whole world down with it.

      Hubris brings down all. This administration (which I voted for the first time around) is full of hubris, and worse than that, incredible stupidity.

  • Posted By: newkid1 @ 07/25/2008 12:33:12 PM

    Comment: There is a subtilly annoying little fact that everyone seems to forget. It is the fact that neither the President or The Vice President can start a war before consulting Congress. Congress is and where we need to concentrate our efforts for re-election, not the President. All these comments are cicumstantial until we have conformation from Congress.

    • Posted By: raddave @ 07/25/2008 1:38:23 PM

      Comment: Neither the president or vice president can start a war. Declaring war is falls under the constitutional authority of the congress.

      • Posted By: the-commish @ 07/27/2008 12:58:17 AM

        Comment:
        That is true only for a "declared" war. The president can start an "undeclared" war (which is war just the same), but Congress would have to fund it, or it would soon end.

  • Posted By: newkid1 @ 07/25/2008 12:33:08 PM

    Comment: There is a subtilly annoying little fact that everyone seems to forget. It is the fact that neither the President or The Vice President can start a war before consulting Congress. Congress is and where we need to concentrate our efforts for re-election, not the President. All these comments are cicumstantial until we have conformation from Congress.

  • Posted By: mpirog01 @ 07/25/2008 12:25:45 PM

    Comment: Giraffe Fart!

    • Posted By: olderwiser @ 07/25/2008 3:43:11 PM

      Comment: It's so far down there on a giraffe that he can't hear his own, and therefore thinks that no one else can hear them either. Since the subject was raised, just thought I'd try to elaborate.

  • Posted By: SikandereAzam @ 07/25/2008 12:14:30 PM

    Comment: We all should visualize the solving of the world's 2 most serious conflicts today (Israeli-Palestinian & Kashmir) much like the past battles in efforts for:
    The discovery of Penicillin (1942)
    Finding a vaccine to conquering the scourge of Polio (1955)

    • Posted By: 2cents @ 07/25/2008 12:43:39 PM

      Comment: Also the discovery of penicillin was an accident not a battle like the supposed "war on cancer". Bad analogy.

    • Posted By: John_Toradze @ 07/25/2008 12:30:59 PM

      Comment: Kid, you really need to learn how to think and be critical of what is rolling around in your head.

      First. always start by asking, "Is this true?" Start with Israeli-Palestinian & Kashmir bing the so most serious conflicts today. Are they? What other conflicts are going on? For instance, did you know that the largest land battle in the history of the world took place during the US bombing of Kosovo?

      Second, when you use parallels, ask yourself, "Does this make any sense?" After that, ask yourself, "Does this support my position?" and if it doesn't, then ask yourself, "Should I change my position now?"

      In this case, you have equated two conflicts based on Muslim ideology and culture with non-Muslims with battle against disease. Essentially what you did was tell me that the root cause is a disease. That means that there is a common thread. Aha! It's Islam and its culture! So you just told me that Islam is the disease that must be cured for there to be resolution of these conflicts. I must say that I have to agree.

      • Posted By: the-commish @ 07/27/2008 1:02:10 AM

        Comment: The largest land battle in the history of the world took place during WWIi; it was callet the Battle of Stalingrad!

      • Posted By: raddave @ 07/25/2008 1:25:22 PM

        Comment: Kosovo, the largest land battle in history? Kosovo is about 10,000 square Km with a population of about 2 million. Kosovo is smaller than New Jersey and has a population about the size of Sofia, Bg. Definately NOT the largest land battle in history. Palistine and kashmir are not conflicts based on Muslim Ideology and culture, but about land. Islam is not a disease, the disease is HATRED on BOTH sides.

        BTW I feel that us getting involved in Kosovo was a HUGE mistake because Kosovo was a part of Serbia and Kosovo should have never been allowed independance because it cause instability in all of the Balkans.

  • Posted By: topcat2001 @ 07/25/2008 12:07:41 PM

    Comment: Sikander you paki scum. Get out of this country. We all know the character of paki terrorists very well. why isnt the fbi after terrorist sympathisers like you?

    • Posted By: SikandereAzam @ 07/25/2008 12:21:53 PM

      Comment: If you insist that I am Pakistani, then I am Pakistani. I always become the religion or nationality that is the object of racism. If someone puts me down beacuse they think I am a Jew...poof! I am a Jew, making common cause with Jews! If someone puts me down because they think I am a Hindu..poof! I am a Hindu, making common cause with Hindus...and so on down the linewith other relions and nationalities.

      In your blind racism, you are never going to guess my real religion or background.

      • Posted By: John_Toradze @ 07/25/2008 12:42:27 PM

        Comment: If you are a jew kiddo, then I am a pink elephant. If you are a Hindu, then I am a bright blue penguin. Now, there are jewish kids that are loudmouthed, uneducated fools, yes. There are hindus that are the same. But it does appear rather unlikely that you would choose to pontificate as you have here if you were either one.

        Racism: a belief that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
        Race, kid, is genetics. You can't change it. A person can stop being Pakistani by emigrating, because Pakistan is a nation. A person can stop being muslim by conversion. A person can stop being hindu by converting to something else.

        Try another tack. Try being honest, straightforward, and not paint yourself into a corner. Try thinking, and try taking in new information instead of making a fool of yourself with shibboleths. Where did you collect this pile of trash you call your positions? What real study did you do? What real thought did you apply to it?

        • Posted By: SikandereAzam @ 07/25/2008 2:23:24 PM

          Comment: Mr. Toradze, in answer to your question of why I am not reveaing my religion or ehtnicity:

          I will not give a bigot (re: topcat2001) the satisfaction of telling him or her what is my religion or ethnicity.

          I will take on proudly the badge of the abused religion or ethnic group.

        • Posted By: raddave @ 07/25/2008 1:28:48 PM

          Comment: Racism is not genetics, it is ingorance. No race is more superior to another.

          • Posted By: AskPlus @ 07/25/2008 1:52:01 PM

            Comment: John may believe that calling someone a negative name - to him - makes it so. John may believe that he understand what he is saying.

  • Posted By: SikandereAzam @ 07/25/2008 12:00:55 PM

    Comment: The world community should realize that the 2 solutions needed to defeating international terrorism ly in solving the 2 root conflicts which breed about 75% of the terrorism:
    1)Solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
    2)Solve the Kashmir conflict between India and Pakistan

    All of us should focus on the resolution of these 2 conflicts. The world would be happily rewarded...

    • Posted By: John_Toradze @ 07/25/2008 12:19:58 PM

      Comment: 1.) Solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is simple. The first step is for Muslim nations to stop sending arms, and stop paying gangsters to vie for wealth and power by showing themselves to be the ones who can continue the conflict. The second step is for Muslims to purge their world of all the hate literature that teaches children to kill jews (and christians - "First comes Saturday, then Sunday." ). The conflict is alive for two reasons:
      A. Because Mohammed personally conquered the Jews and it is offensive to Islam to see Jews governing themselves.
      B. Because it is convenient for all the Arab rulers to turn the anger and frustration of their people away from their fat, royal selves and toward Israel.

      2.) Solution to the Kashmir conflict is simple. Pakistan must stop allowing jihadists to operate through Pakistan. But since it is Pakistan's ISI that is running things there, this will never happen.

      You are quite right, Sikandere. Resolution of these two conflicts would be a great thing. But it will never happen because the politics of Muslim nations will never allow it.

      • Posted By: raddave @ 07/25/2008 2:31:34 PM

        Comment: Your "resolutions" to these two conflicts are simplistic at best. the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would not be solved if all muslim nations stopped sending arms to Palestine. Israel had continually defied UN resolutions, first the 1947 resolution that partitioned Israel and Palestine and UN resolution 242 that called for Israel to withdraw from Palestine. Israel illegally built settlements on the occupied land, and has refused to return all of the occupied land back to Palestinian control.

        You need to re check your history. Mohammad never concured the Jews, he never even attacked the Jews. In fact, it is believed that Mohammad was given sanctuary in Jerusalem.

        I do agree with you that it is convenient for Arab ruler to turn the anger of their people toward Israel. But, Israel's policies have made it much easier for them to achieve this.

        Kashmir is not that simple either. Both sides have fanned the flames of this disputed territory. When India and Pakistan were partitioned, Kashmir was 90% muslim and it was anticipated that it would join Pakistan. After the conflict of 1947, the ceasefire stated that Kashmir would be able to decide to either become part of India or Pakistan. This resolution never occurred. There have been four wars over this territory, including one between Indian and China.

        The resolutions will only occur when ALL sides let it happen. Right now, NO side is willing to let it happen.

        • Posted By: LIKEITIS @ 07/25/2008 6:43:03 PM

          Comment: GIVE ME A BREAK!...............IF MEXICO ATTACKED THE U.S.A. IN THE WAYS THAT HAMAS AND HEZBOLLA DO(WITH THE AID OF THE COWARDLY BlTCHES THAT LOST THE 6 DAY 1967 WAR), MEXICO WOULD BE THE 51-60 STATES...........PERIOD!

          RES. 242 CAME AFTER THE 6 COWARDLY "LIONS OF THE DESERT" LOST (IN FINE STYLE) THE ATTACK OF THE SMALLER ISRAEL, WHERE WAS THE U.N. WHEN THAT HAPPENED?

          THOSE LANDS ARE THE PRICE THE LOSERS PAID TO GET THEIR COLLECTED A$$ES WHIPPED, DO YOU BELIEVE THERE SHOULD BE NO PENALTY FOR THAT LEVEL OF AGRESSION?..........PLEASE!

          • Posted By: raddave @ 07/28/2008 3:12:15 PM

            Comment: Israel attacked the "cowardly ***" in 1967, not the other way around.

  • Posted By: SikandereAzam @ 07/25/2008 11:48:45 AM

    Comment: Mr. Toradze, you are madman! And you have no conception of the quality and character of the the Pakistani people.
    Oh yes, conduct the war on international terrorism by wiping out one of the world's most prominent and important Muslim countries.

    Racism and ignorance are alive and well!

    • Posted By: John_Toradze @ 07/25/2008 12:11:11 PM

      Comment: First - objecting to an ideology of violence and war, like Islam, Marxism/Leninism is not racism. Racism is about genetics. Ideology (call it religion if you like) is a choice. Race is genetics. It is you who prove your ignorance by pretending this is racism. But of course, that is understandable, because Islam is the most bigoted ideology the planet has ever seen. Islam makes this distinction between anyone who is Muslim and anyone who is not. Those who are not are not real people, they are supposed to be in thrall to you.

      Second - I have studied Pakistan far more than you have young man. This is obvious from your ignorance of the rather simple politics of how Pakistan's leaders have risen to power. Or are you objecting to my totally factual characterization of the Bhuttos?

      Third - Nobody would talk about having to destroy Pakistan someday if Pakistan were a responsible nation of adults behaving responsibly on the world stage and with its nieghbors. There are few Pakistanis who are not either jihadists or head-stuck-in-the-sand fools in denial about what is really going on. Get real young man. Get yourself down to a library and study the history of your nation.

  • Posted By: 2cents @ 07/25/2008 11:45:49 AM

    Comment: Prediction: After 2 more long and mixed years of war in Afghanistan the US will be forced to "do something" about the Pakistan tribal areas. This will raise hell in Pakistan which will be beset by bombings and kidnappings. This will further descend into an all out civil war with elements of the military playing both sides and the civilian government helpless and sidelined. Then attacks in India will increase over the Kashmir situation. India may become involved on the ground in Pakistan.

    So: Afghanistan - still facing attacks with NATO and Karzai getting tired. Pakistan - civil war a la Iraq complete with suicide bombs and beheadings, but this time with India and US trying to defend and quell the situation. Also a question of nukes gone missing. India - war in Kashmir and northern districts with Pakistani/Kashmiri militants.

    Wild cards: Will Iraq be stable or fall apart. Will Iran stay out of it or try to destabilize Iraq. What, if anything will Isreal do.
    Nuclear clock set to 3 min to midnight. Chance of WWIII - 65%

  • Posted By: SikandereAzam @ 07/25/2008 11:40:31 AM

    Comment: Then the nuclear deal should not be offered to either India or Pakistan! It has upset the balance there and caused a souring of the atmosphere conducive to prosecuting the war on international terrorism.

    Also, Basedrum's very stipulation that the same nuclear deal not be offered to Pakistan proves the point that the "deal" will give enhanced military advantage to India (or hypothetically, to Pakistan) and not the enhanced "peaceful" dividends the U.S. says it will give.

  • Posted By: John_Toradze @ 07/25/2008 11:37:41 AM

    Comment: Pakistan's dictators have all come to power by using Islamic militants willing to die for Jihad. Musharraf did the same thing. Once in power, they then turn the militants loose on their nieghbors. This keeps the militants occupied. This is why, if India gave Kashmir away, the war would simply move into the next boundary region on the next ridiculous pretext.

    The "democratically elected" leaders, like the Bhuttos were corrupt beyond imagination. Benazir made off with 4% of the GNP of her country. Small wonder she lived well when she fled. She was but a criminal.

    The problem in Pakistan is not going to be "solved" because at its root the problem exists because of the ideology of Islam which must make war. Even when most do not war, the militants will always turn it to war. As political allies, they are far more useful than the unmotivated slackers who make up the body of most democratic societies.

    The solution the USA needs to come to must be inexpensive. That means that India is the primary partner, because India waits in the wings to roll over Pakistan and wipe out the population there, once and for all - which is something the USA cannot do. Since Pakistan's politics cannot produce anything but war with its nieghbors and support for jihadist creeps, that is how it must be played.

    The USA should ignore Pakistan's borders and launch a major offensive to surround and clean house in Darra, Quetta, and the rest of the Taliban region. That will make whoever is dictator very clear about the position of Pakistan on the world stage.