Pakistani troops involved in skirmish with US troops

[seireikhaan]

ALLY?

I doubt that. If they were an ALLY, there would be all kinds of hell being raised on their border with Afghanistan; the previous ruler of the country was a former general, and had full support of their military. Yet, the situation only dissolved the longer he was in power. Musharraf did NOTHING to stop the influx of militant groups into his OWN country, and the new government has done little better. And now we've got a democratically elected government, whom I'm sure just LOVES how we propped up the regime of a man who usurped power from, of all things, A DEMOCRACY. That Pakistan is actually an ally to us is a laughable to me.

[Strike For The South]

ALLY?

I doubt that. If they were an ALLY, there would be all kinds of hell being raised on their border with Afghanistan; the previous ruler of the country was a former general, and had full support of their military. Yet, the situation only dissolved the longer he was in power. Musharraf did NOTHING to stop the influx of militant groups into his OWN country, and the new government has done little better. And now we've got a democratically elected government, whom I'm sure just LOVES how we propped up the regime of a man who usurped power from, of all things, A DEMOCRACY. That Pakistan is actually an ally to us is a laughable to me.

okay keep impeding on their sovrigenty squander any sort if diaoulge we can have them. Squander any sort of sway we have with the general populace. Squander it all for what? More miles of terrorists? Does Pakistan need to get on the ball? yes, however poaching on their lands is more likely to make them want to help them then it will make them want to help us. I like to play Rambo to but sometimes you have to look at the big picture.

[seireikhaan]

okay keep impeding on their sovrigenty squander any sort if diaoulge we can have them. Squander any sort of sway we have with the general populace. Squander it all for what? More miles of terrorists? Does Pakistan need to get on the ball? yes, however poaching on their lands is more likely to make them want to help them then it will make them want to help us. I like to play Rambo to but sometimes you have to look at the big picture.

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.

[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?

...

[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.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Pakistan is pissed because they were having fun as 3rd party blackmailers. They say "if only we had attack choppers we could effectively deal with the Taliban threat", "if only we had enough anti-India missiles or fighter aircraft". They love terrorism within their borders, it allows them to engage in unparalleled extortion. If the U.S. does the job themselves, Pakistan's military gifts would dry up - they won't have that.

We need to let them know that the party is over - we've come to collect. All those years of military aid should mean cooperation in eliminating mutual threats.

[KarlXII]

Since your statement has the Swedes calling for the nuking of the US

WHERE DOES THAT LEAVE ME????

[drone]

"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."

As much as I like Abe, that quote uses a poor analogy. The end result for the sheep is the same, the shepherd isn't minding the flock out of the kindness of his heart.

And Jesus wasn't a terrorist, he was a hippie trying to shake up the system.

[ICantSpellDawg]

As much as I like Abe, that quote uses a poor analogy. The end result for the sheep is the same, the shepherd isn't minding the flock out of the kindness of his heart.

And Jesus wasn't a terrorist, he was a hippie trying to shake up the system.

He was a pretty conservative hippie.

[seireikhaan]

He was a pretty conservative hippie.

Define "conservative", in Jesus' sense.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

nice troll job, btw

[ICantSpellDawg]

Define "conservative", in Jesus' sense.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

nice troll job, btw

C'mon. He wasn't pulling a Herod Antipas, there is no material evidence that he used drugs. Without the sex and drugs he wouldn't have been much of a hippie at all. He seemed to have been even more intense in many parts of his religious observance than the traditionalists; if your eye, hand, foot offends you with sin cut/pluck them off/out.

Also - we don't know what happened after our second cheek was struck. "If a man strikes you, turn the other cheek" could have been followed by "if they strike the other cheek, drop the mother-effing hammer".

[Sarmatian]

And if "define conservative in Jesus' sense" we've practically solved the problem, right? What the heck Jesus has got to do with US crossing border into Pakistan?

You guys are thinking too much about morality when you should be thinking about reality. It doesn't matter much if incursion is morally justified if the goal is catching terrorists - what matter is what Pakistanis are going to do.

They're not going to be happy about it and at one point they may decide to test those weapons on their maker. And this is not Iraq or Afghanistan, this is a country that has nuclear weapons, 800,000 sq km territory, 200 million people living in it and 7th largest army in the world. Care should be taken when dealing with such a nation, especially considering that militancy is high after what's been happening in the recent past. US troops rolling across the border would make perfect target to those elements within the country that are looking for one.

Better to play whack-a-mole with a few more terrorists than to try to take head on Pakistani army. Intensify border patrols and use carrot and stick system to get Pakistan to close those camps. It takes time but it is safest and offers the only sustainable solution. Has anyone thought what would happen if let's say US troops get in, destroy all terrorist camps and get out? No? New ones would be made.

So the strategy: get in, destroy, get out has two possible outcomes:

Outcome 1: Pakistanis don't react, in which case camps are reopened very soon after US soldiers leave - it doesn't change anything.
Outcome 2: Pakistan reacts and there is war and many more US soldiers die. And even if America manages to acquire control of Pakistan you get Iraq and Afghanistan times 100 and many more US soldiers die.

To sum up - incursions into Pakistan won't solve anything, won't reduce the risks of US soldiers getting killed (in the best of the best case it might, but only for a short time) and it may lead US army which is already very stretched out into bigger conflicts with the 7th largest military in the world. What those incursions can do, and likely will, is piss of Pakistan, which is in very delicate situation and should be treated very carefully...

[Tribesman]

Just wondering , what with all this go across the border and attack the terrorist safe havens stuff in a nominally friendly country , does it remind anyone of another conflict America couldn't win ?

[Strike For The South]

Just wondering , what with all this go across the border and attack the terrorist safe havens stuff in a nominally friendly country , does it remind anyone of another conflict America couldn't win ?

nvm

[ICantSpellDawg]

Just wondering , what with all this go across the border and attack the terrorist safe havens stuff in a nominally friendly country , does it remind anyone of another conflict America couldn't win ?

I was thinking Laos during the American operations in Vietnam, but every situation has unique nooks and crannies. What didn't work for one may work for another.

Please don't say "Madness is doing the same thing and expecting different results". It is never the same thing and you should always expect different results.