Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Pwnzerfaust]

To be frank, I don't really care about Pakistan's opinion. They should be thanking us for not just dropping a cruise missile on the complex.

[Gorjo MacGrymm]

Pakistan was allowing the use of one of its air bases for drone strikes, which we left on April 21, 2011, after the general squabble over them went viral.  But that is how Pakistan rules itself.  Lots of varied ethnicities and tribal alliances smashed together via lines on a map which got called Pakistan.  Keeping the populace riles up, specifically religous or anti-India has been how they maintain order and create a group identity.  Now they are usig the US.  Its simply a tool of the Paki (note:  Paki is not derogatory, its an Urdu word - the official language of Pakistan, which means "Pure) government to add cohesiveness to a loos collection of near enemies.

[Servant Corps]

To be frank, I don't really care about the opinions of this topic, because all the points have already been laid out, we'd just be talking in circles. This thread should be thanking me for not being insane enough to spend $830,000 to buy a cruise missile and then dropping it on said thread.

note:  Paki is not derogatory, its an Urdu word - the official language of Pakistan, which means "Pure"

Paki, in reference to Pakistan, however, is an acronym.

The name Pakistan means Land of (the) Pure in Urdu and Persian. It was coined in 1933 as Pakstan by Choudhary Rahmat Ali, a Pakistan movement activist, who published it in his pamphlet Now or Never.[18] The name is an acronym representing the "thirty million Muslim brethren who live in PAKSTAN—by which we mean the five Northern units of India viz: Punjab, North-West Frontier Province (Afghan Province), Kashmir, Sind, and BaluchisTAN".[19] The letter 'i' was later added to ease pronunciation.

So I view it as an insult. Not other people though, but at least for me, I view it as an insult.

EDIT: Removed the rest of the post which I felt would be slightly provocative and insulting. I'm sorry. Wasn't in a good mood.

[ChairmanPoo]

To be frank, I don't really care about the opinions of this topic, because all the points have already been laid out, we'd just be talking in circles.

Very much. I've been trying to stay away because of this. What's the point of repeating the same things over and over?

[SalmonGod]

My detachment is superior!  I made my points pages back and have not repeated them at all, nor have I come back to comment only on how pointless participation in the topic is or how I refuse to repeat my points.

...

wait... fucked that up, didnt I...

[ChairmanPoo]

Do not mock me Fegelein!

[Bohandas]

So Pakistan officially says "no" to US combat troops, but allowed and has allowed US special forces to operate openly in their territory, fighting Al Qaeda and training local populace to fight militants.

I... don't think that's a conclusion that can be drawn from the article, actually.

Unlike Afghanistan and Iraq, Pakistan does not allow U.S. combat troops on its territory, making training local security forces an important part of ensuring that militants are not able to use the area as a sanctuary from which to attack American and NATO troops across the border in Afghanistan.

As far as I can tell, it seems to be saying "US troops are allowed into Pakistan in cases where their being in Pakistan is specifically allowed by the Pakistani government".  Not "US forces can do whatever they like, whenever they like".

I dunno... I wouldn't say this mission was incorrect or that it's likely to be challenged by Pakistan, but it should be borne in mind that it may not have been legal and if such a mission is botched in future (civilian casualties, false positive, target escapes etc) it would have HORRIBLE implications, and therefore the US probably shouldn't go nuts with assassinations in Pakistan.

I can't imagine ANY scenario in which the elimination of Osama Bin Laden could be construed as either being or being an obvious precusrsor to, "going nuts with assassinations"

[Leafsnail]

I can't imagine ANY scenario in which the elimination of Osama Bin Laden could be construed as either being or being an obvious precusrsor to, "going nuts with assassinations"

Well, he's hardly the only high up member of al-Qaida likely to be hiding out in Pakistan...

[Angel Of Death]

Do not mock me Fegelein!

Bring me Fegelein! FEGELEIN! FEGELEIN! FEGELEIN!

[Strife26]

To be frank, I don't really care about Pakistan's opinion. They should be thanking us for not just dropping a cruise missile on the complex.

[Leafsnail]

With friends like these...

[Jackrabbit]

Really? Because if you dropped a cruise missile on a home in a residential area full of high-profile people (who aren't wanted terrorists), I think more than just Pakistan would be bothered.

[Strife26]

I'm pretty sure that it'd be completely within all the agreements for us to drop a Reaper or Predator in instead. Of course, to kill that SOB, certainty is important. Insertion was the way to go.

[Jackrabbit]

I don't know, I don't think any country should be allowed to drop a bomb on a house in a peaceful area of their ally's country. Or that Pakistan would take it well, even with prior warning. The public reaction would be enormous.

[Pandarsenic]

I don't know, I don't think any country should be allowed to drop a bomb on a house in a peaceful area of their ally's country. Or that Pakistan would take it well, even with prior warning. The public reaction would be enormous.