Pakistan could end cooperation on the war on terror.

[panamania79 2]

http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/rss/topst..._re_as/pakistan

[Saddle Bronc 124]

How much effect--as Pak military has long had elements in it sympathetic to Taliban, who have been supplying them with info. Maybe time to put the "cooperation" out of its misery.

[IAMX 3,055]

This is the result of the Bush administration's policy on pissing people off who are/were friends.

[panamania79 2]

This is the result of the Bush administration's policy on pissing people off who are/were friends.

The Bush's,doing what they do best !

[alienlovechild 75]

This is the result of the Bush administration's policy on pissing people off who are/were friends.

The whole world doesn't revolve around the U.S.. Pakistan has its own foreign policy goals against India and gaining influence in Afghanistan under the Taliban both of which predate Bush. There's a lot of internal dissent in Pakistan that has little to do with Bush and will continue after he is gone.

That's way too complex for your mindset so we'll leave it at that.

Edited September 13, 2008 by alienlovechild

[IAMX 3,055]

This is the result of the Bush administration's policy on pissing people off who are/were friends.

The whole world doesn't revolve around the U.S.. Pakistan has its own foreign policy goals against India and gaining influence in Afghanistan under the Taliban both of which predate Bush. There's a lot of internal dissent in Pakistan that has little to do with Bush and will continue after he is gone.

That's way too complex for your mindset so we'll leave it at that.

Well guess what, Pakistan may very well have a leader that is more sympathetic to the U.S. So if this administration's foreign policy didn't comprise of being complete retards (boy, more rhetoric against Venezuela now.. making friends everywhere), they might be able to gather some political influence on Pakistan, thus helping their situation both there and Afghanistan. No, of course not, that must be too complex for your mindset.

[panamania79 2]

This is the result of the Bush administration's policy on pissing people off who are/were friends.

The whole world doesn't revolve around the U.S.. Pakistan has its own foreign policy goals against India and gaining influence in Afghanistan under the Taliban both of which predate Bush. There's a lot of internal dissent in Pakistan that has little to do with Bush and will continue after he is gone.

That's way too complex for your mindset so we'll leave it at that.

Well guess what, Pakistan may very well have a leader that is more sympathetic to the U.S. So if this administration's foreign policy didn't comprise of being complete retards (boy, more rhetoric against Venezuela now.. making friends everywhere), they might be able to gather some political influence on Pakistan, thus helping their situation both there and Afghanistan. No, of course not, that must be too complex for your mindset.

Well said !

[alienlovechild 75]

Well guess what, Pakistan may very well have a leader that is more sympathetic to the U.S. So if this administration's foreign policy didn't comprise of being complete retards (boy, more rhetoric against Venezuela now.. making friends everywhere), they might be able to gather some political influence on Pakistan, thus helping their situation both there and Afghanistan. No, of course not, that must be too complex for your mindset.

Pakistan and Venezuela have nothing in common but it shows you don't much knowledge about that region either. Here's a clue- they don't share a common border or continent for that matter.

I'll give you chance to redeem yourself. What can Pres. Obama (I don't care if he ain't your favorite) do to improve relations and what will Pakistan do for us in return? Simple questions.

[IAMX 3,055]

Pakistan and Venezuela have nothing in common but it shows you don't much knowledge about that region either. Here's a clue- they don't share a common border or continent for that matter.

Wow, great reading, I clearly suggested that Venezuela and Pakistan are next to each other.

Attempt at belittlement = fail.

I'll give you chance to redeem yourself. What can Pres. Obama (I don't care if he ain't your favorite) do to improve relations and what will Pakistan do for us in return? Simple questions.

With his foreign policy? Nothing.

Unfortunately, like the Democrats in Congress, he would cave to politically correct Republican Rovian tactics and continue opening this recent rift between the U.S. and Pakistan.

[alienlovechild 75]

I'll give you chance to redeem yourself. What can Pres. Obama (I don't care if he ain't your favorite) do to improve relations and what will Pakistan do for us in return? Simple questions.

With his foreign policy? Nothing.

Unfortunately, like the Democrats in Congress, he would cave to politically correct Republican Rovian tactics and continue opening this recent rift between the U.S. and Pakistan.

Contradiction there since politically correct is the province of liberals and Rove wouldn't fall into that category. So your saying Pres. Obama will have no power even if the Democrats control Congress because of the Republican minority? I can't help but belittle somebody who apparently never had a government 101 class. When a president and his party control the White House and Congress the minority party can't do much on foreign policy. Domestic political considerations aren't the sole or most important driver of U.S. foreign policy and it more likely the Republicans will cave in to Obama since they prize national security. Happened with Bosnia and Serbia under Clinton and the Repulicans controlled Congress.

[IAMX 3,055]

Contradiction there since politically correct is the province of liberals and Rove wouldn't fall into that category.

Actually, no, the Rove tactic is to turn an issue into a politically correct one by making another candidate's views or actions seem extreme. So yes, it is to turn something into a politically incorrect view by skewing it.

So your saying Pres. Obama will have no power even if the Democrats control Congress because of the Republican minority?

Nope. Fail at reading again. He wouldn't do anything to improve relations.

I can't help but belittle somebody who apparently never had a government 101 class.

Well, you'd be retarded in belittling someone who has had a government 101 class. Another person pretending to know about someone and getting it wrong. Don't you ever get tired of being wrong?

When a president and his party control the White House and Congress the minority party can't do much on foreign policy.

They can at least work across the isle and get something done. Something both parties failed at doing, besides stupid ####### like the PATRIOT Act, or the authorizing of force against Iraq. Again, using Karl Rove tactics, they made the public believe that someone rational in opposing it was un-American. Funny thing is, the un-Americans were right. As usual.

Domestic political considerations aren't the sole or most important driver of U.S. foreign policy and it more likely the Republicans will cave in to Obama since they prize national security. Happened with Bosnia and Serbia under Clinton and the Repulicans controlled Congress.

That was a bit of a different Republican Congress. There were actually moderates willing to work across the table 10 years ago, as well as moderate Rockefeller Republicans. This one is far more extreme, far more uncompromising, far more ideological. And the captain obvious statement is yet another laugh -- "domestic political considerations aren't the sole or most important driver of U.S. foreign policy".

However, Bush did prove your statement incorrect. He had his own agenda against Iraq, and by making ####### up about them having WMD's, possessing, obtaining, yadda yadda, he used his own, or even borrowed from daddy's foreign policy of wasting American lives and taxpayer money going to a place that will ultimately result in zero accomplishments. And here we are again. Nothing learned by you. Nothing new to me.

[alienlovechild 75]

Nope. Fail at reading again. He wouldn't do anything to improve relations.

So it doesn't matter if Obama, McCain or Bugs Bunny is running foreign policy with Pakistan.

Well, you'd be retarded in belittling someone who has had a government 101 class.

Was in a class on American government?

Domestic political considerations aren't the sole or most important driver of U.S. foreign policy and it more likely the Republicans will cave in to Obama since they prize national security. Happened with Bosnia and Serbia under Clinton and the Repulicans controlled Congress.

That was a bit of a different Republican Congress. There were actually moderates willing to work across the table 10 years ago, as well as moderate Rockefeller Republicans. This one is far more extreme, far more uncompromising, far more ideological. And the captain obvious statement is yet another laugh -- "domestic political considerations aren't the sole or most important driver of U.S. foreign policy".

The make-up of the Republicans inCongress is conjecture but we know they lost power in 2006 and the conservatives never had a presidential favorite so I there's no strong conservative presence doing anything regardless of what you may think.

However, Bush did prove your statement incorrect. He had his own agenda against Iraq, and by making ####### up about them having WMD's, possessing, obtaining, yadda yadda, he used his own, or even borrowed from daddy's foreign policy of wasting American lives and taxpayer money going to a place that will ultimately result in zero accomplishments. And here we are again. Nothing learned by you. Nothing new to me.

How exactly were Bush's domestic political powers increased by losing control of Congress mostly because of Iraq in 2006? How exactly does spending billions abroad in Iraq aid Republicans in Congress who could use the money bring pork to their districts? Wouldn't a stronger economy increase Republican popularity? Clearly, foreign policy goals overshadowed the long term political prospects for the Republicans. All of those facts are new to you because you have no clue beyond recycled statements circa 2003.