Have we won the War on Terrorism?

[Peter Dow]

[exploited]

So they allow a terrorist group to take one of their nukes, smuggle it to the US, and detonate it in New York or Washington. Then they say "Whoops," causing the US to give them billions of dollars.

I'm sorry... But what? If that happened, Pakistan would be lucky to not be turned into a glass parking lot. America went on a global rampage after 3500 dead and the destruction of some buildings. It devastated two countries while droning a couple more.

In reality, America would beat Pakistan to death in a frenzy of violence. Country after country would be toppled and destroyed. Even the jihadists would prefer to nuke India or Saudi Arabia or Israel before they dared detonate such a weapon in the US... They know it would mean their total destruction.

[The Comrade]

if a country ever allowed a nuke to be detonated on american soil if we didn't immediately glass them i'm pretty sure the american public would revolt.

[Peter Dow]

[The Dharma Bum]

The fact that you perceive that Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have no choice but to pretend to be allies to our face and then covertly support efforts to fight us show you understand on some level what we are doing to them, their people, and their country.

Do you imagine this situation somehow exists without any input from us? That's it's all because they are bad guys and we are good guys?

That's ridiculous and if we cannot as a people think more clearly than that then our own lack of clarity is our greatest security threat.

[Lobster]

Do you imagine that situation somehow exists without any input from them? That it's all because they are poor victims and we are the bad guys? Of course you do. Because your own simplistic lack of clarity is just as obvious to anyone ever subjected to the whiny self-flagellating you spew all over these boards.

[eynon81]

[The Dharma Bum]

[Indy]

While the reality of Pakistan being the ultimate bad guy in 9/11 is certainly valid and something that we've ignored since 9/12/01, every valid point you made gets wiped out when you then start puffing about how well at least Bush had the cojones to go after them--sorta--whereas Obama is in "retreat."

a) What Bush did in Afghanistan was boneheaded and a disaster. We are STILL there. President Cheney didn't ever acknowledge Pakistan's role in 9/11 or their ongoing role in backing the Taliban against us since then--they called them our "allies," just like they sickeningly called Saudi Arabia our "allies." Then when they got bored with Afghanistan--quickly--because there were "No good targets" and also thought that the slightly elusive OBL wasn't worth the trouble, they disastrously turned toward Iraq and managed to f**k up another war, this time costing 4,400 American lives.

The only "at least" with Bush was he operated with the least mental capacity one could have possibly had after 9/11.

b) That said, just WTF is Obama supposed to do? He refuses to yank us out of Afghanistan, which has been a disaster since, oh, about a month after we invaded and has been bleeding money and resources from this country for... 13 years now. Yeah, he apparently doesn't want to get or doesn't get the Pakistani thing, but neither did Bush. To cast one as the white hat and the other as an "appeaser" is just ridiculous and revisionist.

You also seem to forget that the "appeaser" is the one who finally offed OBL after Bush/Cheney failed to do so during their entire two terms, offering us instead the booby prize of Saddam Hussein and 4,400 dead Americans.

Keep the rancid partisan bullshit out of it and stick to the facts.

[The Dharma Bum]

Warmongering is not acceptable just because it is a democrat behind it.