I've asked this question once before, with no real answer... let's see something this time.\nAnd for all of you who think Iraq has anything to do with the terrorist attacks, here *hands you coloring books and crayons* go into the other room, keep it between the lines and let the adults talk.\nFor those of you who think that Pakistan is actually doing some thing, save it because it's a very sad attempt. I mean to let Pakistan be the main force against someone who killed over 2,000 Americans, that's horrible.\nSo...what's the deal... I think if we went into Pakistan with everything we had, we would have him in about a week. I mean we went into Iraq for less...\nAnd does anyone think that his network is completely destroyed... maybe it was intially in Afghanistan, but he's had about 4 years to get his stuff together, I mean they've already hit london and spain since 9-11... he's probably already planning something.\nI guess I just want to know if there is a logical, rational reason?
208349
OK, I'm a Progressive, not a publican, but here's my 2 cents:  \nWith the circus that is Iraq, and Afghanistan (remember Afghanistan?) the amount of resources that the US has to spare for the project is a lot less.\n\nAlso international good will is getting thin.\n\nPakistani government doesn't have a lot of control over the area that Osama is said to be in, but we owe them something for helping us, or at least not standing in our way in Afghanistan.  If we just went into that area, the citizens would probably overturn the Pakistani government and put one in that's more sympathetic to Osama.\n\nOr maybe it's that Pakistan doesn't have a lot of oil.  The invasion of Iraq didn't make a lot of sense once we found out that the WMD's were a paranoid fantasy of the administration, but oil might explain it all.  Or at least the opportunity to claim some, which didn't work out yet for Haliburton, but might happen in the future.\n\nOh, yeah, I hear that Pakistan DOES have a nuke or two...
608095
I believe it was Sunni's who made the offer.  And this is another political move by the Sunni's. After they turned in Zarqarwi, they gained political seats, most importantly, Minister of Defense.  I haven't seen Pres. Bush's comments on the proposal.  This is the make or break time for the Iraqi government.  I hope something positive comes from this.  On the one hand, if Bush negotiates, he is negotiating with the terrorist and people will say they won.  If he doesn't, then he isn't really trying to get the troops out.  No matter what everyone is in an awkward position.  Hopefully, the end result no matter what is stability in the Iraqi government.  So I hope he talks to the Sunni's, even if they are pointing terrorism at us.  However, this doesn't solve the problem of terrorist from other countries.  Perhaps this will make the Sunni's obligated in helping to combat foreign terrorists.
114716
He needs to show support for the Pakistani government, since they show so much for the USA. It is the right thing to do.  As much as people think we show too much favor for India, it is funny, since my friends just spent 5 months there at a Army Hospital just for earthquake relief!!!  America may be fighting, but we are ALWAYS there when needed.  \n\nI hope relations between Pakistan, India and the USA get better and better.
331596
L'opinion: Pakistan needs UN and OIC umbrella to send peace-keeping forces to Iraq\nIraq-Pakistan, Politics, 7/21/2003 \n\nPakistan will only send peace-keeping missions to Iraq under a mandate of the United Nations and the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), Pakistani president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, who paid an official visit to Morocco, told Morocan daily "L'opinion."\n\nMusharraf said Pakistan has not yet made a decision regarding a request to send troops to Iraq for a peace-keeping mission, underlining that the final decision should serve Pakistan's national interests and its relations with Islamic countries in the region.\n\nOn the situation in the Middle East, Musharraf said the only means to establish sustainable peace in the region goes through carrying on negotiations that would lead to a comprehensive and fair solution in conformity with United Nations resolutions and based on the legitimate right of the Palestinian people of self-determination.\n\nEvoking Arab Maghreb countries' position on the Kashmir question, the Pakistani president underscored that he is certain that these countries fully understand Pakistan's position concerning its support for a peaceful solution to the conflict.\n\nMusharraf also said Pakistani authorities do not have any new information about where Ussam Bin Laden is, underlining that they don't know for sure if he is dead or still alive. In the same vein, he hoped Pakistani-Afghan relations would be further reinforced on the basis of mutual sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of the other party.\n\nHe added that Pakistan is participating in the re-construction of Afghanistan and that it fully supports the interim administration of president Hamid Karazay.
260978
Everyone with an IQ over single digits tends to hate Bush. I, for one, love my country and support the troops over there fighting right now; but I want them to come home.Now. Bush should have kept the war in Afghanistan and only in Afghanistan. That was our original target, right? Well now you don't even hear about Afghanistan anymore; everything's Iraq,Iraq, Iraq! Now it's shifting to Iran. What happened to Afghanistan? More importantly: What happened to Bin Laden!? Bush has his priorities all screwed up. But then again, I doubt if he ever cared about Bin Laden in the first place.
583508
To Loubean: He ain't in Afghanistan, he's in Pakistan. Where were you? Watching Faux News, probably.\n\nTo bungiebabe: Since when do we care about what other countries say? We're America, dammit! So you'd stand back and let Osama strike us again just 'cause another country is hiding them and calls invasion a "no no"? But if Clinton or another so-called "socialist" put the safety of our country before the rules, you'd call him reckless. \n\nThe Cancervative Party, none for all and all for the rich! Ain't ya proud to be an American?
355065
We have had terrorists living in our midst too. Would we appreciate France invading us for that reason? We have terrorists living within both our countries. Don't think so? Why not? The reasoning is the same. Pakistan is also trying to rid itself of terrorists. They pose a risk to their govt also.\n\nWere you aware this country sells nuclear technology to other questionable countries? The gov't makes it possible. Westinghouse, et al does the rest. It is no more right for us to do so than for them. What makes you think India has not done the same thing? And the French? Brits?Russia?China?\n\nThe fact remains that Pakistan is more useful to us than a problem, being one of the few Muslim countries willing to work with us. Sure they would like to be rid of our influence. The same with Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, need I go on? They need us & we need them\n\nOn the other hand, why don't we wage war on all Muslim countries? We can't possibly win. It would cure their problem with us. But it would keep the bloodthirstys among us happy while it lasted.
281318
... I agree... we're Americans and have a long history of not letting fear take what we hold most dear... our Freedoms... yet Bush is totally taking the opposite approach... everything is through fear... all actions are excused by "do you want another attack"... that's not a justification... \n\nI would rather be attacked again than loose what America stands for... we can stand another attack, we can't stand a loss of our freedom...\n\nAnd the other thing is... he talks about terror attacks, yet the man that was behind the first one is, odds are, in Pakistan and we're not doing anything about it..
441792
In all honesty, I don't think the man has ever thought about it. The sad truth is that we really are facing a threat from Islamic Terror, which is how he justifies his violations of the law. It's an enormous threat that would have eventually come up whether Bush was president or not. Although he's circumvented the constitution, lied to the American people, and invaded Iraq, a country that was absolutely no threat to the United States, and most certainly should have been left alone, he has brought to the forefront issues that we would have been facing in a few short years. They say every cloud has a silver lining, and perhaps what's transpired is better in that sense. We have to deal decisively with terrorism before it possesses easily attainable nuclear weapons. Even now though, Iraq is little or no threat in that regard, and therein lies Mr. Bush's greatest sin. When we needed a real President and real leadership, the man went along with a program to drain our treasury and line the pockets of his cronies with an unnecessary and probably illegal war. I don't believe he's smart enough to do this himself, but people like Dick Cheney are. They're manipulators of the darkest kind. Unfortunately that the good news. The bad is that we should expect to be in a state of war in the middle east for a very long time to come. There is virtually no way out of it now. The diplomatic door has been closed and so much fuel thrown on the fire that it will never go out. As I said, we would have faced this eventually, but we would have done it with the world, with real allies behind us. (Strangely, Iraq very well might have been one. Saddam was well aware of the threat that fundamentalist terrorism represented to his state.) Probably, and even more importantly though, we would have had the undisputed moral high ground, and maybe the money and will to win. I think both of those things are running out fast. They've been squandered by ignorance of the situation, and the greed of this administration. You asked if the President respects the laws of this land. Look at the record, look at what his law breaking and lying is going to cost us as a nation. It will be far more than cash, and felt long after his inglorious exit. That's my opinion and it saddens me. I hope I'm wrong about all this, but I try and read everything, and that how it looks.
299298
you are. no doubt about it. on one side u are talking about humanity on the other hand Hiroshima & Nagasaki.on one hand you are talking about fighting against terrorism on the other hand you are neglecting(or helping?) Pakistan. on one hand you are asking China to retreat from chinies taipei on the other hand you are occuping Afganistan,Iraq and Iran on the agenda next. you want the world to be under your foot. but never forget Hitler, Musolini, Alexander the great,Japan they all failed. where are you heading for? as far as China, India,Israel is concerned you will be axing the branch on which you are sitting. Pakistan is already under your control.
509568
I agree w/FreeBird, there are lots of forces working behind the scenes for wars. As has been so painfully shown in this current one, I mean if you believe what the admin is saying that we invaded Iraq to "Protect our country" and "Foster Democracy". Then;\nA) Like the elusive WMDs, there never were any terrorists in Iraq...oh yeah TILL WE INVADED!\nB) What about Iran, N. Korea, or a multitude of other countries that have said outright,"We HATE America, we ARE developing WMDs, and WE WANT TO KILL YOU!"? \nC) Why right after 9/11 after saying "Our #1 priority is capturing or killing Bin Laden.." did "Dubya" not even 4 months later say,"We don't know where Bin Laden is, & we honestly don't care, Iraq is our main focus now..."?\n\nThink about how much $$ the defense industry, Haliburton, Big Oil, etc, has made & continues to make from this war.\nThis war was orchestrated as "pay back" for Bush's backers.\nTo keep our focus away while Bush dismantled 40 years of environmental protections, gave billions in tax cuts to the ultra rich, "outted" government whistleblowers who disagreed with his devious plans, and tried to rewrite future legislation to patronize his "base".\nWell beginning today most of that will be just a bad memory.\nDon't get me wrong, with the exception of the environment I think both parties are essentially the same. But just like the Dems before 94 with their complete control of the last 6 years, the old adage rang true,"Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely". The Republican party had become what they promised they would fight, we came out of the fog & sent them a message yesterday. Democracy works best when there is balance, right & left, Liberal & Conservative. That is what our founders sought to achieve. May the investigations begin!
623513
What makes you think we have the right to Kill anyone there , 911 has been proved to have NOTHING to do with IRAQ and there was NO REASON to  Illegally Invade that Country. Your obviously a  hart less bastard with S h i t for brains . One more cruel Criminal who thinks he has the right to RULE the WORLD and lead our men into battle with LIES !!! Why is it all GOD Loving  loyalist Conservative Republicans always feel they have the right to destroy people , kill others for there greedy agenda?\nFor all those Mindless drones who need an explanation with apples follow the link
644307
I'm actually VERY surprised. I honestly thought that the Al Qaida leader in Iraq would be a white American Democratic Party volunteer. They seem to have a bigger problem with the American military presence in Iraq than anyone else does. They are Osama's biggest weapon. He has his little victory. He has divided the nation, and has almost half of the country screaming his own line for him. Congradulations, Mr. Bin Laden. Never before have I seen such a successful recruitment campaign.
504756
Bound's hubby here:\n\nYes, absolutely ... there hasn't been a week since 9/11/2001 that the terrorists have not attacked key targets throughout the U.S. ... and here we are defenseless against those scoundrels! How dare George leave us here without protection!\n\nHonestly, and realistically, we have been fortunate that there has not been any more bonafide terrorist attacks on our soil since 9/11. Perhaps that is because our troops have been overthere, taking the fight to them! Chances are very good they were hesitant to act here, because we were close to their loved-ones and their training facilities!\n\nI think the Dems have actually jumped onto another popularity bandwagon, and given the Islamic forces against us a "moral" victory and exposing us to greater threats!
348427
That all of you righties think that either:\nA: All terrorists are in Iraq and are too busy fighting there to plot or attack anywhere else.\nB: No terrorist in the world has access to a map and thus can only find the targets in the US if they "follow us here."\nor C: both A & B.\n\nAre you really that easily swayed by such a completely ignorant idea?
473321
an eye witness in the meeting said it was decided to attack iraq beacuse it had "better aerial targets" , when powell pointed out that iraq didnt have anything to do with it, then afghanistan was given priority and iraq was to be attacked second.\niraq had a brutal dictaor but it had the rule of law , electricty, water  and power, under the american occupation it has none or little of these things , sure saddam killed his own people but not as many as the usa. lets make this clear saddam was a secual republic , bin laden al khida were not welcomed in iraq, not because saddam was a good man but beacuse he didnt want to lose power, bush has given hope and thousands of recruits to the jihadist islamists of bin laden, bush is the best friend they have.\niran has attacked and breifly occupied greece and they are  now pushing to the medditeraina again, why becuse bush stoped their enemy saddam\n\nif like bush you dont know your history you are deemed to repeat it. apprently the usa didnt learn anything out of vietnam
623901
For everyone who says that Iraq had nothing to do with 9&#92;11. \nWe are fighting a war on terrorism and there is no single country that we are fighting. The terrorists are based and&#92; or supported  in many ways and operate independently of each other but they all have the same goal. Afghanistan was a host country, Iran supports them with money and equipment, Saddam paid $$ for suicide bombers and had training camps. Syria is also a sponsor. \nThe point is that while Saddam may not have been directly involved with 9&#92;11, he was a part of the bigger problem and had to be dealt with sooner or later. The terrorists are a network and need to be taken down wherever we find them.