Pakistani troops involved in skirmish with US troops

[Strike For The South]

Big picture? Like playing whack-a-mole for ages against forces you can't pin down because they keep prancing back across the border to safety? This would be different if there was ANY indication that Pakistan was actually DOING something that was helping us put down the taliban and Al Qaeda. However, I have yet to see any evidence that they're actually doing anything to us. So yes, in the big picture, lets not cross into Waziristan so we can continue to fight a war we can't win until we eventually drain our resources and eventually have to withdraw because the American people get sick of sending their sons over to a country all the way across the globe to fight an unwinnable war only to have them come back maimed or worse.

If thats what you wanna do fine but be prepared for a war. The US needs to find another way in. Directly is not going to work. Time to think outside the box

[Kadagar_AV]

TuffStuffMcGruff, can you honestly say the USA is keeping their promise of rebuilding the country? People have it worse now than before you started the bombings, no?

Drone, I more pity the country the US leadership choose to but the blame on... Concrete evidence has never been much of a factor when it comes to US bombings.

makaikhaan, crossing the border (uninvited) with more than 10 men in uniform is called an "invasion". Are you seriosly arguing US legitimacy to invade any country they want to?

Yesdachi, Being against something, and believing the world would be a better place if it happened, is not the same thing...

I believe the world would be a better place without uggly people, however, I do not think we should kill all uggly people. Get the point?

[ICantSpellDawg]

What is it with the air and water in Sweden?

[Kadagar_AV]

Among the cleanest in the world, back on topic? Are you claiming the USA is doing much about afghanistan these days?

[seireikhaan]

makaikhaan, crossing the border (uninvited) with more than 10 men in uniform is called an "invasion". Are you seriosly arguing US legitimacy to invade any country they want to?

To put a stop to a group of international (war)criminals? Yes.

[Kadagar_AV]

To put a stop to a group of international (war)criminals? Yes.

So... by your logic, it is ok if some country invaded US and arrested some of your warcriminals?

Or, heck, why cant some country break your boarders just in the search of warcriminals?

...

[ICantSpellDawg]

So... by your logic, it is ok if some country invaded US and arrested some of your warcriminals?

Or, heck, why cant some country break your boarders just in the search of warcriminals?

...

They are free to try.


If a nation can't contain and control terrorism and insurgency within its borders and it is affecting the security of a neighboring country - they can expect help, whether they'd like it or not.

Let's use a hypothetical Russian-Georgian conflict as an example. If North Ossetia was in rebellion from Russia and the Russians secured North Ossetia - but South Ossetia was part of Georgia and Georgia couldn't keep South Ossetians from doing cross border raids and then returning to safety... I would have supported a Russian incursion into South Ossetia to do the job that Georgia was responsible for, but unable to accomplish.

ESPECIALLY if Russia had been giving freebies and military aid to Georgia for a decade for the expressed purpose of securing their borders.

[Kadagar_AV]

They are free to try.

So... your point is that power = right?

Did I get you right?

*again, this is a great thread to show americans who dont understand why people over the world has a problem with them*

EDIT: Oh, you added more... In that case, what is the difference between a "freedom fighter" and a terrorist?
Afghanistan has been invaded, doesnt that mean the people opposing are freedom fighters, rather than terrorists?

[ICantSpellDawg]

EDIT: Oh, you added more... In that case, what is the difference between a "freedom fighter" and a terrorist?
Afghanistan has been invaded, doesnt that mean the people opposing are freedom fighters, rather than terrorists?

I am reminded of an excellent quote by non other than the vile oppressor and former hydra head Abraham Lincoln :

"The shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep's throat, for which the sheep thanks the shepherd as his liberator, while the wolf denounces him for the same act as the destroyer of liberty."

[seireikhaan]

So... by your logic, it is ok if some country invaded US and arrested some of your warcriminals?

Or, heck, why cant some country break your boarders just in the search of warcriminals?

...

That'd be quite okay, as long as they didn't wreck the place up while they were here, and left once they got their man.

[Kadagar_AV]

That'd be quite okay, as long as they didn't wreck the place up while they were here, and left once they got their man.

What? We are not allowed to do any "collateral damage"?

Say Russian special forces blew up a house containing a warcriminal, like someone who had fought in Vietnam, and the neighbouring houses blew up too (as is often the case with US bombings, as you might know). Would that be ok?

[seireikhaan]

What? We are not allowed to do any "collateral damage"?

Say Russian special forces blew up a house containing a warcriminal, like someone who had fought in Vietnam, and the neighbouring houses blew up too (as is often the case with US bombings, as you might know). Would that be ok?

First off: if the Russians payed for the damages in the form of an international 'civil' case, then yes.

Second: Contrary to popular belief, we don't just bomb everything; rather to the contrary as of recently, as we have discovered that the only possible way to deal with terrorists in hiding is through boots on the ground, particularly in desolate, mountainous regions such as Waziristan. So the whole argument for this case is rather ineffectual.



Third, to your point on people not liking Americans: please refer to my previous 'whack-a-mole' statements. You seem to be operating under the belief that America should follow procedure to its own death when its enemies quite clearly do not. I feel that we do not 'owe' Pakistan anything: as far as I'm concerned, they're harboring terrorists, and until there is some kind of actual evidence that they're actually holding up to their end of our deal to help us out, they are simply taking advantage of the US desire for an ally somewhere in the middle east.

[drone]

Drone, I more pity the country the US leadership choose to but the blame on... Concrete evidence has never been much of a factor when it comes to US bombings.

I never said it was. I'm just saying that if someone plants a nuke in the US and sets it off, your "better world" theory will not stand up. There will be vengeance and bloodshed and the world will not be a better place for it. Fear, anger, politics, and a whole arsenal of toys makes for a bad combination. The country with the reactor that matches the isotope fingerprint will be the first on the list.

I would not necessarily agree with the reprisal, but I know my country and it's people. The response would be horrific.