O/T for politics junkies

[Hardmill]

quote:

---

'Nuff said Mr. Meyette.

Bush is receiving a lot of flack for his boldness. But, isn't the leader of the free world supposed to bold and stand up for what he believes.

 

BUT I, Shane Aaron do not apologize for standing up for what I believe. That is Christ and him crucified.

 

Rookie 1 teh unapologetic and unashamed Christian.

 

--------------------

Shane Aaron

MC9.1 SP2 Level 3

Windows XP Pro

 

 

---------------------------------

Colossians 3:1-4

---

Yea, Yea, what he said

 

PEACE

[Hardmill]

BTW nice thread Gcode.

 

PEACE

[gcode]

This is too good!!

 

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/anncoul...c20040212.shtml

[gcode]

quote:

---

When you kick a tiger in the a$$....

---

This is the teeth part

Osama, we are coming for you!!!!

 

THE STRATFOR WEEKLY

13 February 2004

 

Pakistan Braces for the American Storm

 

Summary

 

Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf has begun warning his

country that if it does not root out al Qaeda, the United States

will.

 

Analysis

 

As part of its self-declared "war on terrorism," the United

States has been involved in the Afghan theater of operations for

more than two years, since it succeeded in overthrowing the

Taliban government in late 2001 by employing a strategy heavily

dependent upon local allies. Since then, U.S. efforts have

followed a bifurcated path: maintaining some semblance of order

in Kabul -- where the "national" government resides -- and

bombing any concentrated pockets of resistance.

 

The strategy makes sense. Unlike the Soviet occupation of 1979-

1989, the United States is not attempting to control the entire

territory of Afghanistan. Split as it is by the Hindu Kush

mountains -- and a plethora of ethnic groups with little to no

sense of a shared history -- the country probably is not capable

of forming a unified state in the traditional sense. The least

violent existence that Afghanistan can hope for is probably to

have a very weak central government in which the various regional

capitals -- Kandahar, Herat, Mazar-i-Sharif -- exercise de facto

sovereign control.

 

The U.S. strategy, then, is geared toward maintaining the fiction

of a "united" Afghanistan, without providing any troops to

enforce central rule. The NATO-led International Security

Assistance Force (ISAF) patrols only Kabul and the immediate

surrounding area, while various regional militias rule their

respective territories.

 

The strategy is not exactly brilliant, but -- considering

Afghanistan's history and geography -- it is probably one of the

few that could work. As a side effect, it leaves al Qaeda and its

sympathizers free to prowl largely where they will and conduct

hit-and-run nuisance attacks.

 

For al Qaeda, this is far from a happy state of affairs.

Afghanistan can no longer be used as a major training facility,

and the network has been funneling most of its fighters into

Iraq. A smaller presence in Afghanistan is a more vulnerable one,

so al Qaeda has done what any business would do under similar

circumstances: move.

 

The mountainous border region of the Afghan-Pakistani border

region is porous, relatively unguarded and home to the Pushtun

ethnic group that straddles national boundaries. Al Qaeda,

unhobbled by state loyalties, has most likely moved its core

personnel into this region, where it is more complicated for U.S.

forces to operate.

 

But more complicated does not mean impossible.

 

The Bush administration is looking for the end game. Al Qaeda has

proven unable to mount a major strike on U.S. targets since Sept.

11, 2001. The attacks that have occurred -- Casablanca, Bali, An

Najaf, Riyadh, etc. -- have been far less ambitious in scope,

carried out by affiliate groups and, most importantly, have not

touched the U.S. mainland. The next major push from the United

States will be an attempt to roll up al Qaeda's prime senior

members themselves.

 

As with all other major policy pushes in 2004, the White House

has its eye on domestic politics as well. Melting down al Qaeda

into a commemorative coin set to present to the American voter

just in time for Nov. 4 would, of course, be a nice touch from a

White House perspective. Doing that, however, means rolling into

Pakistan with a lot more than a disposable State Department

officer with snazzy shoes and a sharply worded demarche. Unlike

Afghanistan, Pakistan is a real country with a real army -- and

real nuclear weapons. Hence, at the highest levels, Washington

has been tightening the screws on Islamabad -- most recently

regarding the indiscretions of its nuclear development team.

 

Musharraf has received the none-too-subtle message, and this week

began preparing his country for the inevitable onslaught -- and

spurring it into action so that the United States might not need

to come calling with a whole division of troops when it comes.

 

In a Feb. 10 interview with the New York Times, Musharraf made it

clear that the onus of responsibility for the nuclear technology

leaks was on the CIA, which he said had not provided any proof

about the nuclear proliferation until quite recently. While the

primary message of "don't blame me or push me around" came

through loud and clear, there was also a secondary, more subtle,

message: "Show me proof and I'll act."

 

The buzz in Pakistan this week, at least according to the Daily

Times, is that CIA Director George Tenet paid Islamabad a secret

visit on Feb. 11. In short, Musharraf was preparing the public

for what sort of terms would be necessary for him to cater to

Washington's wishes, and Washington just might have provided the

appropriate information about al Qaeda's new digs in Pakistan.

 

That brings us to a more recent statement by Musharraf concerning

militant activity. Speaking at Pakistan's National Defense

College in Rawalpindi on Feb. 12, Musharraf said, "Certainly

everything [within Afghanistan] is not happening from Pakistan,

but certainly something is happening from Pakistan. Let us not

bluff ourselves. Now, whatever is happening from Pakistan must be

stopped and that is what we are trying to do."

 

On Feb. 10, Musharraf outlined what Washington would need to do

to get him to move. On Feb. 12, he made it clear to other power

brokers within Pakistan what needed to be done. Stratfor expects

a third, more direct, statement to tumble from Musharraf's lips

in the near future.

 

The issue now is simply one of timing. The Afghan-Pakistani

border currently is difficult to navigate: Mountains plus winter

equals no tanks. Once spring arrives, however, the United States

can roll in and -- in theory -- nab all the appropriate

personalities, just in time for the Democratic National

Convention in July. If the Bush administration can pull it off,

more Democrats than Howard Dean will be screaming.

 

The plan is not quite as neat as it seems. Northern Pakistan is

rugged territory, but people actually live there and like it.

Most are none too pleased with what the United States has been

doing across the border in Afghanistan of late. This region,

dubbed the Northwest Frontier Territories, is heavily Pushtun and

is rife with al Qaeda supporters. Rolling into it would not be

pretty.

 

In the hopes of heading off what would likely be a bloody U.S.

intervention in Pakistan, Musharraf is trying to make the case

for a major Pakistani military offensive against al Qaeda and its

supporters in these tribal areas.

 

The Pakistani president is in quite an uncomfortable position,

attempting to balance his role as a trusted U.S. ally in the war

against militant Islamism, while leading a country where anti-

Americanism is at a fever pitch. Despite Musharraf's attempts to

proceed with caution, decisions resulting from the U.S. pressure

are critically injuring his domestic image.

 

Musharraf has long stressed that his government furnished the

United States with only minimal assistance in terms of logistical

support, intelligence-sharing and so forth, and that Pakistani

troops are not committed to campaigns outside the country. Both

Interior Minister Syed Faisal Saleh Hayat and Information

Minister Sheikh Rashid Ahmed routinely deny that U.S.

intelligence and military forces are engaged in any operations in

Pakistan against al Qaeda/Taliban suspects, particularly when

arrests are made or suspected militants are killed in shoot-outs.

Hayat and Ahmed have gone to lengths to underscore that Pakistani

forces are doing the actual work, while the United States is

merely providing intelligence and logistical support in the

background.

 

U.S. troops conducting a large-scale operation inside Pakistan

would take away the Pakistanis' we're-doing-it-ourselves factor

and could well fracture the Pakistani military, not to mention

prompt a backlash from the public.

 

But Musharraf has no illusions about where he falls on the U.S.

priority list. If destroying al Qaeda once and for all means

losing the Pakistani president, well, the United States has

survived Pakistani regime changes before. Therefore, Musharraf

issued an oblique warning to his country that it needs to do a

housecleaning -- before the rat-a-tat of U.S. M16s is heard

across the Northwest Frontier.

 

It is unclear just how Musharraf will be able to muster the

support necessary for this latest step his government has had to

make in the wake of Sept. 11. Initial signs are promising. So far

jirgas (councils) of the Utmanzai and North Waziristani tribes

have decided to set up militias to hunt down foreign militants.

It is far too early to evaluate the tribes' seriousness -- much

less their success -- in the matter, but it is obvious that the

political dialogue has been sparked.

 

Islamabad does not have much time to get results. Warmer weather

soon will set in, and the ISAF already is taking over policing

duties in Afghanistan from U.S. forces, which will free up even

more U.S. forces for a counterinsurgency offensive, should

Islamabad fail to get the job done.

.................................................................

 

STRATFOR SERVICES NOW AVAILABLE:

 

Join decision-makers around the world who read Stratfor for daily

intelligence briefs, in-depth analyses and forecasts on a wide

range of international security, political and economic affairs.

 

Stratfor Premium is our flagship product providing comprehensive

global intelligence including daily analyses, special reports,

intelligence alerts, premium analyses, situation reports, country

and regional net assessments as well as Stratfor's sought after

Annual and Quarterly Forecasts. Corporate or multi-user volume

discount packages available. Visit this web page for details:

http://www.stratfor.com/corp/Corporate.neo?s=SUB&c=c

 

Stratfor Basic offers daily analysis, situation reports and

ongoing

coverage of global events. Also available with this package is a

pay per view service for many of our premium reports. Visit this

web

page for details:

http://www.stratfor.com/corp/Corporate.neo?s=SUB&c=d

[?Mark]

This is getting better...

 

Thing I like about current government is the balance Bush introduced with Chaney, Rumsfeld and Powell.

Talk about teeth and brains...

 

By the way, if they (arabs) hate US so much how come the lines at a US ambasies are so full of people willing to emigrate here...

 

[chopsley]

I don't knock Kerry for doing his time in the Nam and coming out of it mixed up and confused. Same thing happend to me. That said, I do not think I could vote for him. I do not like George Bush's "Immagration Policy", If you can call it that. Truthfully, I would vote for Tony Soprano if he was on the ballot.

 

[Scott Bond]

Kerry goes in for shoulder surgery, and the US

economy sores.

[MichaelJ]

"Kerry goes in for shoulder surgery"

For trying to pat himself on his back.

[Andris Skulte]

Heh - I just came back to work from my shoulder surgery Wednesday. My doctor was also Kerry's surgeon. I was about to ask him if he could drop a few marbles in there, but didn't know if it'd xxxx him off or not... Don't want a mad surgeon! The shoulder is doing fine, now

[SledGeek]

quote:

---

WE let them rob us, We let them lie to us, we let them have affairs in the white house, We let them get there ENron buddies out of trouble.

---

Although I sometimes feel "we" could do more to influence our politicians decisions, I more strongly beleive in something else.

CAPTALISM. This , IMHO, is the foundation of our govrnment and society as a whole.It is the multi billion dollar viewpoints that make this country what it is today. Where else is being a lobbyist an actual recognized profession !

 

As soon as our government decides to rule solely on what's best for the "people" on a more personal level, i guarantee you WILL feel a change in your lifestyle. Big money and influence has always and will always be the controlling factor in the political game.

When big money gets ruled against, they tend to get ornery and take their business elswhere. Think in terms of this hypthetical situation :

 

You spend 25 years working at "joe blows engineering" in small town u.s.a. Your whole life is based on this town and your income from this shop. The Ford plant in your area goes to renegotiate their contract with the city. No tax breaks are given because the people said no. Ford moves. Your shop does 90% Ford work, your laid off-permanently. This directly effects your life.

 

What "WE" let them do only influences which way it get done, not whether or not it get's done.The reason your life hasn't changed one bit, is because "WE" have never been able to derail this great business driven , capitalistic,political locomotive.Thank GOD.

 

The facts how I perceive em'