What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
All-time Low Fares for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up. Nifty all-airline calendar identifies absolute cheapest dates to fly.
61 Comments
- WordsnCollision, on 01/06/2008, -9/+29It's Cambodia/Laos all over again - Bush is the new Nixon.
- MortalCoiled, on 01/06/2008, -1/+18This "allied country" is in a state of extreme turmoil. For God's sakes, we are not invading Pakistan*.
*May not be accurate by the time you finished reading this clarification. - Ned888, on 01/08/2008, -7/+20Unbelievable. Opening another front? In an allied country? It must be true that we don't learn from history.
- dansacks, on 01/06/2008, -5/+14This is a reasonable and responsible approach to the potential strategic dangers facing the US and its allies. Moreover the action discussed is limited and envisions consultations with the current Pakistani gov't. I am not sure how the above managed to once again deduce this administration is "criminal" or these proposals under consideration warrant condemnation, but I will attribute it to a mindset that begins all debate with the premise that the US is evil and this administration is corrupt.
- inactive, on 01/07/2008, -1/+10I have been training for this in COD4 for a while now....I can do this.
- morningmatters, on 01/06/2008, -1/+9As much as most Americans dislike Bush and his current policies, if other nations decided to send in foreign operatives and engage in covert operations in order to influence US policies most Americans will probably react violently towards these foreign operatives once exposed. If the US were to meddle with other nations' politics at this point, it better does it with care.
- Chilian, on 01/06/2008, -2/+9Oh it's real covert now...
- jeffiek, on 01/06/2008, -1/+8Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.
- theteller, on 01/06/2008, -2/+71 of things that sets these guys apart is they don't learn from past mistakes. They refuse to even acknowledge past mistakes. As corrupt as Nixon was, on policy stuff he did sometimes recognize mistakes or failures and occasionally rethought things. Here, administration group think forbids it.
- scotticus, on 01/07/2008, -1/+6I'll cover you in the AC-130.
- djohnmalkovich2, on 01/06/2008, -0/+4*****. Where are we going to get the money for all this *****. Bush is going to bankrupt this country.
- scotticus, on 01/07/2008, -0/+4Good... we should have done this 4 years ago. If Bush stood by his word, we wouldn't be in this Iraq mess.
"...those who harbor terrorists will be held accountable for this action." - burningmanstan, on 01/07/2008, -0/+4The stability of Pakistan was issue as soon as we went into Afghanistan. How do you win a war if you only have access to one side of an international border while the enemy crosses the border freely. It's Laos and Vietnam all over again. You can't have stability in Afghanistan if the tribal regions of Pakistan are a lawless free-for-all. Makes you wonder if they ever really intended to succeed in Afghanistan.
- appleseed1234, on 01/07/2008, -1/+4Trying to catch Osama right before the elections?
- niczar, on 01/07/2008, -3/+6Cheney, Rumsfeld and many others were in the Nixon administration.
It's not a new generation, at all -- go watch "Power of Nightmares." - CondoleezzaRice, on 01/07/2008, -0/+3"Obama said if elected in November 2008 he would be willing to attack inside Pakistan with or without approval from the Pakistani government, a move that would likely cause anxiety in the already troubled region."
http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN0 ... - burningmanstan, on 01/07/2008, -0/+3As an Obama supporter I completely agree with this policy. Bush ignored the issue of stability in Pakistan. Obama has consistently said that success in Afghanistan is directly tied to lawless regions of Pakistan. This is something Bush has ignored while he is busy screwing up Iraq and threatening Iran.
- Tippis, on 01/07/2008, -0/+3Learning from history? Pffff...
I mean, what is there to learn from? Well, apart from Vietnam, Iran, Grenada, Iraq, and Afghanistan, that is... oh, and probably a few more I forgot... - morningmatters, on 01/07/2008, -1/+4Perhaps you should RFFA. From the article - "Critics said more direct American military action would be ineffective, anger the Pakistani Army and increase support for the militants. “I’m not arguing that you leave Al Qaeda and the Taliban unmolested, but I’d be very, very cautious about approaches that could play into hands of enemies and be counterproductive,” said Bruce Hoffman, a terrorism expert at Georgetown University. Some American diplomats and military officials have also issued strong warnings against expanded direct American action, officials said."
Or maybe you are just stupid enough to actually believe that the CIA could effectively carry out its missions with one of its biggest backers in the region Musharraf weakened. - sensia3, on 01/07/2008, -2/+5This ally of US is one of the most notorious supporter of terrorism over last few decades in teh indian subcontinent and during these days US kept pressing on a policy of supporting the fundamentalist regim in Pakistan to offset the effect of Soviets over Afganistan/India. CIA must swallow the bitter pill of Pakistan now...period.
- ubuwalker31, on 01/07/2008, -0/+2I'm a flaming liberal, but I think we should invade the small mountainous Wazeristan region where bin laden is hiding...we shouldn't be invading Iran though...
- inactive, on 01/07/2008, -0/+2World melting? Don't tell me you rightard climate deniers are finally getting a clue.....
No dumbass, what's being discussed now is more right wing warmongering despite their constant failures in that regard.
But let's address your comment......
Man, why do you right wing losers hope liberals are all gay?
Dreaming of a man lover who cuddles when you are done? Those right wingers you are giving a squeeze job to not treating you well enough?
I hear Jeff Guckert/Gannon is still working pole. If he's good enough to service the closet cases in the White House he should rock your tiny world. Your comments make it clear you are a Bottom, so that works out since he's a "muscular Top".
Don't forget the lube.
What am I thinking? He's a pro. He won't forget.
Just think, while taking it from behind you can pretend you are President Bush!
That's really the only rational explaination for your intense desire to have the liberals be gay. - snypa, on 01/06/2008, -1/+3Nothing new here. Same tactics, different case.
- MBX1, on 01/06/2008, -3/+5Yeah and people still make fun of those who say 9/11 was a inside job. Hell, if you research on what the CIA did in the past and if you think about what they can do in other countries, then imagine what they can do in their own country and with a little help of mossad, mi6 and norad.
- jeffiek, on 01/06/2008, -4/+6So what premise would you begin the debate with? That the US is a pure as the driven snow?
- toasty168, on 01/07/2008, -0/+2albeit this is a bit different in that Pakistan does have nukes. an unstable nuclear power is something to be worried about and mushareff has ***** things up quite a bit. i don't really consider mushareff an ally as much as a patsy.
- scotticus, on 01/07/2008, -2/+4You = *****
- Gav0510, on 01/07/2008, -0/+2Haha, you gotta love the old "Al-Qaeda is really the CIA!" theory. I'm a Masters student in Islamic Studies and I can tell you for certain that Al-Qaeda is not CIA run. However if the US had been serious about dealing with Al-Qaeda in the first place, Pakistan should have been their first port of call. Pakistan is the source of the majority of Al-Qaeda members, mostly due to the US support for Musharraf.
- sanman, on 01/07/2008, -0/+1that's Warezistan -- where all the torrent servers are hidden
- Richandler, on 01/07/2008, -3/+4This is a duh. We are the American Empire remember. We must spread fixed democracy through killing!
That's what happens when you keep electing the same clones into the Presidency and Congress. - supernaut, on 01/07/2008, -0/+1yeah. real covert!
- sanman, on 01/07/2008, -0/+1the surge is now showing that it's working
- NanFan, on 01/06/2008, -5/+6This is outrageous...but not a surprise, unfortunately. What the hell do we have to do to wise up the US Congress to the fact that we have criminals in the White House who want instability in the World so that they will benefit financially. They do NOT care about the World, Pakistan, the US or anyone or anything other than themselves and their power! I'm sickened...once again.
I wonder if there is, as Barack Obama says there is, any real "hope" for America.
Nan - RobotCitizen, on 01/07/2008, -0/+1US military action within Pakistan will only sway Pakistani public opinion further against the US and could quite possibly deliver the country into the hands of the religious extremists, which is the very thing we don't want to happen.
- inactive, on 01/07/2008, -0/+1so we are going to go do something that will destabilize the government in order to stop people who are trying to destabilize the govt., whether or not that govt. wants us to, because the guy who is stealing that govt. says there are people there who tried to steal the govt. I am sure on some level that omg this is just the best thing ever to do, but i must be naive or something because it looks like a steaming pile of ***** to me.
- sanman, on 01/07/2008, -0/+1well, most liberals have pilloried the Bush admin for not yet having captured Bin Laden. So that amounts to an endorsement of Bush directly hunting down Bin Laden. It's about time already!
- Adrian540, on 01/07/2008, -0/+1Can't invade Iran anymore.. gotta go somewhere, right?
- Osjpr, on 01/07/2008, -1/+2Hopefully CIA agents will be punished someday for these violations. Preferably by a foreign power.
- amoo3, on 01/07/2008, -1/+2Yeah, thats really covert. Its only digg, no one will notice.
- blergle, on 01/07/2008, -1/+2Somewhere I suspect similar plans are being drawn up against America in the event of the idiot Huckabee getting elected.
- valkyries, on 01/07/2008, -0/+1Just to let you guys know we've had troops in Pakistan for awhile now, mostly in the Waristan province (northern Pakistan)
- ordig, on 01/06/2008, -2/+3Thats been their excuse for every military intervention since 9/11. the reason they have been weak about going after them, is that the administration dosen't care about al queada as long as they serve as an excuse to further their global agenda.
- scooticery, on 01/06/2008, -4/+4I have no problem with going after al queada...we have been pretty weak about that so far
- shaha68, on 01/08/2008, -0/+0I have been very well pretty weak about that so far
- justiceape, on 01/07/2008, -0/+0Well, see, they're just not militant enough yet to become a threat politically useful for the political elite at home. They just need a little push, and I guess that's what this is.
- nick111, on 01/07/2008, -0/+0Forgive them, they know not what they do.
- Albionshores, on 01/06/2008, -8/+8Nixon resigned when the people resented his administration. This is an altogether new generation of neo-con.
- harry8227, on 01/07/2008, -0/+0Yep here we go again, leave it to the New York times and Washington Post to talk about classified OPs. Why don't you just tell Alqaeda (or however its spelled,,who cares) we're coming for them so they can move again.Damn Stupid New Papers
- ktkc7c, on 01/07/2008, -1/+1There is if you spell hope R-O-N. He is the only candidate that actually supports change. All the other candidates are in bed with corporations and the CFR. If you think more government is going to do anything to end corruption, you are sadly mistaken. Abuse of power should come as no surprise. Support that candidate that wants to take power AWAY from the government. In order to support Ron Paul, you must be able to change your ideas of what the role of government is. Is it there to protect your rights, or is it there to tell you what's right.
-
Show 51 - 62 of 62 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is