Pakistan FIRES on US soliders crossing in from Afganistan

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by JW8725, Sep 15, 2008.

  1. JW8725 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 8, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #1
  2. Ntombi macrumors 68030

    Ntombi

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2008
    Location:
    Bostonian exiled in SoCal
    #2
    Whoah.

    I guess now that Mushariff's gone, Pakistan has decided to remind W. that it's a sovereign nation.
     
  3. iGary Guest

    iGary

    Joined:
    May 26, 2004
    Location:
    Randy's House
  4. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #4
    Better be careful: they've got nukes and a delivery system.
     
  5. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #5
    To get to the U.S.???

    In a boat, maybe. :p
     
  6. glocke12 macrumors 6502a

    glocke12

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2008
    #6
    yeah, too bad they cant control the nutjobs that live there.
     
  7. mkrishnan Moderator emeritus

    mkrishnan

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI, USA
    #7
    In contrast, we even go so far as to provide public housing to our nutjob. It's called the White House. ;)

    American troops doing operations inside Pakistan is dangerous... I have a hard time seeing this helping regional stability. As far as my personal concerns go, the last thing I want to see is this to cause more of these militants to be flushed East into India. They cause enough trouble there already. This is an affront to Indian border stability also, and India certainly has done far less to support terrorism than the United States has.
     
  8. glocke12 macrumors 6502a

    glocke12

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2008
    #8

    So the U.S. is a larger supporter of terrorism than India???:confused:
     
  9. adroit macrumors 6502

    adroit

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2005
    Location:
    Victoria, BC
    #9
    "Pakistan FIRES on US soliders crossing in from Afganistan"

    Misleading and somewhat inflammatory thread title.
     
  10. JW8725 thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 8, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #10
    so?
     
  11. CortexRock macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Location:
    Canterbury, England
    #11
    Here we go again... saddle up and ride roughshod over the rights of sovereign nations in pursuit of the bogeyman. :mad:
     
  12. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #12
    Pakistan International Airways.
     
  13. Much Ado macrumors 68000

    Much Ado

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Location:
    UK
    #13
    Or TNT. Hah.
     
  14. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #14
    Definitely, yes. Major supporter of a certain Osama Bin Laden, death squads all over South and Central America, support for Georgian armed forces, various unsavoury Central Asian republics, not to mention inflicting Shock and Awe on the populations of Iraq and Afghanistan...
     
  15. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #15
    It's a great shame that you lot actually elected your own nutjobs to national office.
     
  16. JW8725 thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 8, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #16
    LOL! Lets hope another 2 don't make it to office. When is the election anyway? Can't be long now?
     
  17. mkrishnan Moderator emeritus

    mkrishnan

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI, USA
    #17
    Unfortunately, yes, we have been. We made too many deals with the devil during the cold war. We've supported and armed many of the militants we've been fighting recently, 20 or 30 years ago.

    Besides in 2008, after multiple major examples of how this plan fails to curb terrorism, why are we doing it again?
     
  18. Cromulent macrumors 603

    Cromulent

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2006
    Location:
    The Land of Hope and Glory
    #18
    Don't forget a huge backer of the IRA.
     
  19. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #19
    does this have to do with the secret plans W. allowed to go into pakistan??

    WHY IN THE HELL is the media not all over that? have we decided taht hes done so much wrong that another one up on the board doesnt count???

    Is he just trying to start wars now to make it easier for Mccrazy to get in seeing as he has "more military experience"? WHAT is going on?

    seriously!?
     
  20. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #20
    I'm probably going regret throwing in here, but the real issue is that Bush made a tacit deal with Musharaff which allowed him to obtain U.S. military aid, while effectively averting his attention from what was going on in the tribal areas. Musharaff's response to the Taliban and Al Qaeda strongholds in this part of Pakistan was the pathetically under-armed, untrained and under-funded Frontier Forces. The mistake was putting so much stock in Musharaff, and not predicating military aid on restoring order in the tribal areas. Now Bush is acting out of desperation to salvage some part of his presidential legacy. That said, let's not pretend for a moment that Pakistan's allowing bin Laden and the Taliban to operate safe havens within Pakistan is an issue we should not care about.
     
  21. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #21
    Not in an official capacity, though. That was private backing from private citizens.
     
  22. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #22
    Of course it is a great concern, but carrying out cross-border raids into an ally's territory without permission is tantamount to an act of war.
     
  23. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #23
    I doubt that it will be treated that way, and it is certainly arguable that by providing the Taliban with safe havens to attack Afghanistan, Pakistan has already engaged in an act of war. The new government in Pakistan has been making more noises about dealing with the tribal areas than Musharaff ever did, but it's not clear that they have the capacity to do anything about it in the immediate term. I have an idea that the Pakistani government will issue protests mainly for domestic consumption, while privately welcoming others to do their dirty work for them. The sign to look for is whether Pakistan takes a grievance to the UN. I bet they don't.
     
  24. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #24
    Do you not remember that the Taliban and Bin Laden were both launched into Afghanistan from Pakistan by the USA and the Pakistani ISI when it suited them? "As ye sow....".
    Anyway, against whom would this act of war be? Afghanistan, the USA or NATO?
     
  25. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #25
    No one is arguing that we should be happy that Pakistan has effectively provided bin Laden and company a safe haven. The question is, what do we do about it?

    Do we invade and occupy Pakistan in an effort to enforce Bush's assertion that anyone who feeds a terrorist is, by default, a terrorist themselves? My understanding is that this is a non-starter for several reasons. Of course, due to it being a non-starter, it also makes Bush look like the ineffective "speak loudly and carry no stick" blusterer-in-chief he is trying to avoid being seen as.

    Do we work with the Pakistanis? So far that hasn't worked out at all. The ISI seems riddled with Taliban supporters (and indeed it has been since the days when the ISI openly supported their Taliban bretheren in Afghanistan) who will alert any targets to the news that they are being targeted just as surely as a mob informant on the police force keeps the don informed about police raids. While there may be some promising signs from the new Pakistani government, that doesn't change the centuries-old loyalties that affect the relationship between members of the ISI and the Taliban.

    So do we isolate Pakistan? Seems like we can't just ignore a nuclear power. And sanctions don't often have the desired effects. See one Castro, Fidel. If we want to have any chance of catching bin Laden, we can't just ignore the Pakistanis.

    However; we have to be very careful in using clandestine operations wherein we invade a friendly sovereign nation. They have a tendency to backfire spectacularly when things go wrong. A mis-use of these tactics could easily tip any potential anti-Taliban allies in Pakistan away from us in a hurry. If, for example, we killed 90 civilians by accident. Stuff like that can hurt our long-term efforts to combat terrorism.
     

Share This Page