Oh boy! An exciting day to turn the tables! I did not say "people of
Pakistan." Rather, I said "people in Pakistan," not thinking it necessary
to offer a long and boring recital of what we all already know.
When you say it was the Pakistani gov't with US money who put the Taliban in
place, you imply something that isn't true. It was the OLD Pakistani gov't,
of which remnants remain in power, but most have been purged. It was also a
cold war era event.
Things have changed. The "people IN Pakistan" who put the Taliban in place
come primarily from the south, where trouble still boils. The cold war is
over. Power vacuums come and go, and so thugs will come and go.
The fact is that it is difficult to watch everyplace in the world, so that
errors can and do occur, and people with hidden agendas can get away (for a
while) with their mischiefs. It is easy to hide in the frozen north and
pontificate on things which will not directly affect you, especially when
(in your frozen north case) you depend upon the citizens of the US to defend
you. It is not so easy when you live next to one of the top targets in the
world for a terrorist's attack. (I had to get in at least ONE ad homonem
attack, since people on this list are so fond of them, and at least one
personal ownership issue. And yet, both statements have a lot of truth in
them ... :-)
And, if you haven't noticed, Manny is in jail. And Clinton gave the Panama
Canal to the Chinese. So, some problems have been rectified, and others
have not yet been rectified.
Marc A. Schindler wrote:
My original point was to ask why the US was so obsessed with Iraq when
presents a greater danger. And there's more to it than saying they were put
power by the "people of Pakistan." It was the Pakistani government plus
clerics, using US taxpayer dollars, who put the Taliban into power.
This is Manuel Noriega all over again.
Jon Spencer wrote:
> Who objected to Marc's obvious statement? The Taliban was put in power by
> people in Pakistan.
> This is a real "Duh!". By the way, are you advocating that we attack
> Pakistan first, and THEN Iraq? I have a better idea. First, we'll attack
> Israel - that will completely fool the fake Islamists and we can sneak in
> sucker punch at both Pakistan and Iraq when they are still in shock.
> can come next.
/// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at ///
/// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html ///
This email was sent to: email@example.com
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!