Print

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

[devek]

As some people asserted earlier, might makes right, and only thing that suffers is one's international reputation.
Which might or might not be a big deal.

I don't really agree with that. There are some pretty weak countries out there that do some bad things(like oh, genocide) and no one cares.

Might gives a country more power, but on the flip side what strong countries are up to matters more. There are a lot of things we couldn't get away with that other countries could

[KaelGotDwarves]

OH FOR FUCKS SAKE PEOPLE DID NONE OF YOU READ THE LINKS I SUPPLIED THAT SAID THAT PAKISTAN IS ONE OF THE USA'S LARGEST STRATEGIC ALLIES AND ALLOWED US TO DO WHATEVER THE FUCK THE US GOV'T WANTS AS LONG AS IT DOESN'T PISS OFF THEIR POPULACE TOO MUCH?

But please, continue to compare it to China and Russia covertly placing troops on US soil. And blame America.

It's like reality has no basis in certain people's claims.

[ChairmanPoo]

Chill, k? Things are never simple, and everyone is entitled to his opinion. Yours is just an opinion, too.

[KaelGotDwarves]

I'm chill. But honestly, it's utterly pathetic. HERPDERP IGNORE REALITY 5 MINUTES HATE IN PROGRESS.

EDIT: As to your edit. No, it's not an opinion that the US is not breaking Pakistani sovereignty. They invited the US. The governments are closely military and strategically allied. The US has broad operating power GRANTED to them by Pakistan to operate within Pakistan. That is a thing called a fact.

[Nilocy]

Chill, k? Things are never simple, and everyone is entitled to his opinion. Yours is just an opinion, too.

He's a buddist, you can't be angry as a buddist.

[ChairmanPoo]

It is an opinion because it's your interpretation of a broad description of deals and realpolitik relationships whose details we don't know.

[Leafsnail]

If you can provide clear evidence that Pakistan gave the US unilateral authority to do whatever the heck they wanted in their country without informing them... then yeah, I guess it isn't an opinion.

I'm not so sure that's the case though, since Pakistan recently asked the US to call off its drone strikes, and the "US is funding Pakistan" thing could be because the US wants the Pakistanis to combat extremism, rather than as evidence that the US is bribing Pakistan to allow them to perform their operations.

[KaelGotDwarves]

He's a buddist, you can't be angry as a buddist.

It's not angry, last time I was angry I got myself deported from Myanmar.

This is voicing my frustration that otherwise intelligent people get frothy and ignore facts to spread their hate through their already decided wrong opinion.

It is an opinion because it's your interpretation of a broad description of deals and realpolitik relationships whose details we don't know.

Complete strategic and military alliance.

If you can provide clear evidence that Pakistan gave the US unilateral authority to do whatever the heck they wanted in their country without informing them... then yeah, I guess it isn't an opinion.

I'm not so sure that's the case though, since Pakistan recently asked the US to call off its drone strikes, and the "US is funding Pakistan" thing could be because the US wants the Pakistanis to combat extremism, rather than as evidence that the US is bribing Pakistan to allow them to perform their operations.

Once again, signed a complete strategic and military alliance. Public opinion is just that, opinion. The politicians in Pakistan are just blowing hot air because they know public opinion in Pakistan of the US is bad, but guess what. None of them are calling it a violation of Pakistan's sovereignty, if anything, they've all been apologising for the vast failure in their intel gathering as Bin Laden was hiding in their basement.

[Il Palazzo]

Complete strategic and military alliance.

Well, it's at least arguable:

Spoiler: globalsecurity.org (click to show/hide)

In September 2008 it was reported that President George W. Bush had approved secret orders allowing U.S. forces to conduct ground assaults in Pakistan without Islamabad's consent, although that country's military insists it will not allow foreign troops to carry out operations on Pakistani soil. The chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, U.S. Admiral Michael Mullen, announced the new strategy will allow American forces to fight militants in Pakistan's tribal regions as well as in Afghanistan.

Pakistan's military leadership insists it will not allow foreign forces to carry out operations on Pakistani territory. In a written statement released by the military, General Ashfaq Kayani said "no external force is allowed to conduct operations” inside Pakistan." The statement also vowed that Pakistan's sovereignty and territorial integrity will be defended at "all cost."

from: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/pakistan/forel-usa.htm

Now, it's by no means a definite argument, as I have yet to find the Pakistani statement itself, but I'm sure you can see how it's not such a clear-cut situation as you're painting it to be.

[Leafsnail]

Once again, signed a complete strategic and military alliance. Public opinion is just that, opinion. The politicians in Pakistan are just blowing hot air because they know public opinion in Pakistan of the US is bad, but guess what. None of them are calling it a violation of Pakistan's sovereignty, if anything, they've all been apologising for the vast failure in their intel gathering as Bin Laden was hiding in their basement.

I'm asking for evidence of this "complete strategic and military alliance" and what exactly it means, because I'm not sure it goes as far as "You can carry out extra-judicial executions in our country without asking us first".

And yeah, Pakistan probably won't complain about it due to embarrassment over it, but it would remain a legal breach (barring Pakistan giving US authority to carry out missions like this).  It would have been interesting to have seen the aftermath if the mission had gone wrong, too...

[Il Palazzo]

Ok, this one is more directly stated:

In an unusually strong public statement, Pakistan’s army chief has lashed out at the US-led coalition forces in Afghanistan over the cross-border raids in the tribal belt and vowed to defend the country’s sovereignty and territorial integrity “at all cost”.

Such intrusions were not covered by “any agreement or understanding with the coalition forces”, Ashfaq Parvez Kayani said.

They are not “allowed to conduct operations on our side of the border”, Kayani said in a statement late on Wednesday. His reaction comes in the wake of mounting crossborder violations by US predator drones and a raid by coalition special forces inside a village in Pakistan’s tribal belt, which killed over 15 people.

Under the “well-defined” rules of engagement with the coalition forces, the right to conduct operations against militants within Pakistan is solely the responsibility of the country’s armed forces, he said.

(emphasis mine)
Unless, somehow, somewhere, there happened to be a radical change of attitude and new agreements in the three years since that incident has been made, of course.

[KaelGotDwarves]

Here's another interesting article then to clear up confusion.

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 but kept hush-hush "because of opposition here to American boots on Pakistani soil".

I'm not sure it goes as far as "You can carry out extra-judicial executions in our country without asking us first".

Those in power in Pakistan aren't upset about it, visibly. The Republicans tried pushing that point in congress but congressional Republicans trying to make a point about worrying about another country's sovereignty... hahaha.

[mainiac]

Anyone vaguely familiar with politics knows that politicians say one thing sometimes and mean another.  Pakistani politicians would never officially condone US unilateral action but it was tacitly understood that a certain level was acceptable UNTIL it rose to the level that a public outcry resulted.  The barely audible protests that Pakistan made after the raid to take out Bin Laden tell you all you need to know.  If they actually wanted to cause a shitstorm over this it would be all over the media.

[Leafsnail]

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.

[KaelGotDwarves]

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.

Well, a bunch of US SF convoy trucks were driving around rural Pakistan, I imagine if Pakistan had a real problem with it they wouldn't have been able to drive into and around Pakistan. The conclusion I drew is that Pakistan doesn't have a problem with it until it turns into a political liability, as mainiac said.

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".

This is all hypothetical now, because we won't know if the US had asked Pakistan politely to go after Osama if he would ever have been caught. What we do know is that because the operation was successful, hardly anyone there is complaining except Al Qaeda sympathisers.