Pakistan military leaders to troops "kill the invaders"

[dead0man]

..and they ain't talkin' 'bout the Taliban.

link

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[War on Want]

The hive has been stirred...

[dead0man]

If they could do their damn job we wouldn't need to be there to stir up the insects.  And how the hell do they think they're going to kill well trained Americans when they can't even kill a bunch of dogs hiding in rocks?

[Kaine for Senate '18]

I'd like to see Pakistan try and take us down.

[Associate Justice PiT]

I'd like to see Pakistan try and take us down.

     This. If Pakistani forces attack us, we cannot be held accountable for our actions after that.

[War on Want]

Jingoism can sometimes be funny, I also think we are justified but to act like this wouldn't happen and then act all tough about it like we can just beat down Pakistan in a war is just stupid.(which isn't even happening)

[AkSaber]

Jeez Louise. If the Pakistanis won't do it, then we need to. They want us to stand around with our thumbs up our asses while the Taliban is busy murdering everyone they can.

[Хahar 🤔]

LOL Pakistan.

Hell, even Bangladesh was able to defeat Pakistan in a war.

[Sbane]

Oh boy let's see if they have the balls to do it. US and India vs Pakistan lololol. Wonder how that will turn out.

[Sbane]

LOL Pakistan.

Hell, even Bangladesh was able to defeat Pakistan in a war.

Not to mention America even sent a aircraft carrier to the bay of bengal to scare Bangladeshis and Indians. Didn't matter though obviously. Just proves Nixon was a real first class douche.

[GMantis]

LOL Pakistan.

Hell, even Bangladesh was able to defeat Pakistan in a war.

Not to mention America even sent a aircraft carrier to the bay of bengal to scare Bangladeshis and Indians. Didn't matter though obviously. Just proves Nixon was a real first class douche.

Chomsky said that there were really only two humanitarian interventions in the 70s: India's in Pakistan and Vietnam in Cambodia. And the US was opposed to both of them.

[Хahar 🤔]

LOL Pakistan.

Hell, even Bangladesh was able to defeat Pakistan in a war.

Not to mention America even sent a aircraft carrier to the bay of bengal to scare Bangladeshis and Indians. Didn't matter though obviously. Just proves Nixon was a real first class douche.

Chomsky said that there were really only two humanitarian interventions in the 70s: India's in Pakistan and Vietnam in Cambodia. And the US was opposed to both of them.

And then he caused a great famine in Bangladesh.

It's no wonder BAKSAL came about.

[JSojourner]

Pakistan should have been given the same choice the "government" of Afghanistan was given after 9/11:  Surrender the terrorists to us or stand aside as we capture or kill them.  Unfortunately, we are much less able to fight an expanded war on terror in Pakistan because of the tens of billions of dollars we are pouring every month into a Mesopotamian craphole called Iraq. 

Had we never taken our eye off the ball and dramatically diverted our forces and resources, I'd be surprised to see Pakistan so emboldened.

Even so, the Decider is to be commended for trying to do the right thing here. 

[AkSaber]

Even so, the Decider is to be commended for trying to do the right thing here. 

Indeed. Yeah, the President has been in the tank for the oil industry since the start, but the Taliban is our enemy, as is Al Qaeda. About time we took care of business.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Even so, the Decider is to be commended for trying to do the right thing here. 

Indeed. Yeah, the President has been in the tank for the oil industry since the start, but the Taliban is our enemy, as is Al Qaeda. About time we took care of business.

     Yep. If we had a president who didn't go into Iraq, but rather fought Al Qaeda across Afghanistan & Pakistan, these last eight years would have been a much smoother ride.

[phk]

Pakistan should have been given the same choice the "government" of Afghanistan was given after 9/11:  Surrender the terrorists to us or stand aside as we capture or kill them.  Unfortunately, we are much less able to fight an expanded war on terror in Pakistan because of the tens of billions of dollars we are pouring every month into a Mesopotamian craphole called Iraq. 

Had we never taken our eye off the ball and dramatically diverted our forces and resources, I'd be surprised to see Pakistan so emboldened.

Even so, the Decider is to be commended for trying to do the right thing here. 

Yep attacking a nominal ally with nuclear arms is going to be really smooth, especially one with arch-rival terms with its nearest neighbor.

The ideal thing would have been for former President Bill Clinton to pressure Musharraf to keep the plan that him and former Pakistani PM Sharif had kept that Musharraf had scrapped. Which was to send 50,000 Pakistani soldiers and some US special ops forces to Afghanistan to destroy capture OBL, destroy Al-Qaeda and damage the Taliban.

An invasion of Pakistan would pretty much turn messy and quickly. Probably worse than the USSR's plan to invade Afghanistan and salvage it as a USSR satellite state.

[phk]

The problem has to do with the Pakistani military’s inability or unwillingness to take action against militants within its border.

Now, one may ask: Was it a violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty to conduct this raid? The answer is: Yes. The next question is: Were The United States justified? The answer is: Yes.

When elements within one country are conducting attacking against another state or its interests, the attacked state has the right to respond, by force if necessary. If, after so many years of threatening and cajoling and persuading Pakistani forces to take action against militants to end their incursions into Afghanistan, the state that has sovereignty does not cease and desist such acts (or cause them to stop), the attacking state may be attacked as retaliation, to take out offending elements, or as an invasion. This occurred, I hope people will remember, between Turkey and Iraq where the offending elements were Kurdish terrorists and the offended party was the state of Turkey. Although a violation of Iraq’s sovereignty, Turkey was within its rights to respond as it did.

However, this discussion skirts the real issue: what is to be done about terrorist, militant elements in Pakistan that are attacking American interests, interests of allies in Afghanistan, and Afghani interests?

I see the raids not as a true attack to eliminate militants (if it were, they would be much more extensive and would take many, many such raids). I see this as part of the delicate relations between Pakistan and The United States: this is The United States sending a strong message to Pakistan.

The United States could not conduct these raids while Musharraf was in office because doing so would mean he would be ousted, resulting in immense chaos. With Musharraf out and there being no strong ties between The United States and Asif Ali Zardari, the new president of Pakistan, The United States could send a strong message. The message was: Get to work, and eliminate the militants, or we’ll do it.

I think this message was also to assert that The United States will not allow Pakistan to dictate terms. The United States will pursue their interests, and the Pakistani forces ought to get in line.

In response, the Pakistani military revealed that the Pakistani military has orders to fire back if any foreign entities violate Pakistan’s sovereignty. So, if Americans try to do the thing the Pakistanis have failed to do, the Americans will be attacked, rather than the militants.

However, this is all part of a face-saving campaign. Many Pakistani authorities have made somewhat staunch and belligerent stances against America. This is essential, otherwise the public will think that Pakistani authorities were allowing Americans to violate Pakistan’s sovereignty, which could result in chaos and riots if not all-outs coups.

Furthermore, not one American thing will be hurt. While the Pakistani military may be jingoistic, in fact they will not do anything. The fallout of such an incidence would be immense. Additionally, the orders seem to be allow the Pakistani military room to not attack - it has to be unmistakably and verifiably a foreign entity, and likely by the time such a thing could be verified, it would be too late.

The raids also made the Pakistani authorities perk up. There were a number of meetings between Pakistani and American military officials to discuss the issue. Now the Pakistanis know they’ll have to do something. And while the public may or may not support them, at least the Pakistani military will know it has to get to job done.

The good news, which the post by Neptunus Lex on August 27 mentioned, is that the Pakistani military has been getting more active with regard to taking action against militants. The result is painful for Pakistan: there is a wave of suicide attacks. But the military is pushing forward.

So while things seem chaotic and perhaps discouraging, I think through the clouds we can see quite a bit of sunshine. The Pakistani military has begun taking its job a little more seriously, and it may be that with local help, the militant threat will be eliminated.

Issues will he rehashed, and others will be elaborated on later.

[dead0man]

The problem has to do with the Pakistani military’s inability or unwillingness to take action against militants within its border.

Now, one may ask: Was it a violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty to conduct this raid? The answer is: Yes. The next question is: Were The United States justified? The answer is: Yes.

When elements within one country are conducting attacking against another state or its interests, the attacked state has the right to respond, by force if necessary. If, after so many years of threatening and cajoling and persuading Pakistani forces to take action against militants to end their incursions into Afghanistan, the state that has sovereignty does not cease and desist such acts (or cause them to stop), the attacking state may be attacked as retaliation, to take out offending elements, or as an invasion. This occurred, I hope people will remember, between Turkey and Iraq where the offending elements were Kurdish terrorists and the offended party was the state of Turkey. Although a violation of Iraq’s sovereignty, Turkey was within its rights to respond as it did.

I totally agree.  If nation A can not stop the asshats in their own country from attacking nation B, then nation B has EVERY RIGHT IN THE WORLD to "invade" nation A and take care of business.

Like here

[JSojourner]

Pakistan should have been given the same choice the "government" of Afghanistan was given after 9/11:  Surrender the terrorists to us or stand aside as we capture or kill them.  Unfortunately, we are much less able to fight an expanded war on terror in Pakistan because of the tens of billions of dollars we are pouring every month into a Mesopotamian craphole called Iraq. 

Had we never taken our eye off the ball and dramatically diverted our forces and resources, I'd be surprised to see Pakistan so emboldened.

Even so, the Decider is to be commended for trying to do the right thing here. 

Yep attacking a nominal ally with nuclear arms is going to be really smooth, especially one with arch-rival terms with its nearest neighbor.

The ideal thing would have been for former President Bill Clinton to pressure Musharraf to keep the plan that him and former Pakistani PM Sharif had kept that Musharraf had scrapped. Which was to send 50,000 Pakistani soldiers and some US special ops forces to Afghanistan to destroy capture OBL, destroy Al-Qaeda and damage the Taliban.

An invasion of Pakistan would pretty much turn messy and quickly. Probably worse than the USSR's plan to invade Afghanistan and salvage it as a USSR satellite state.

Perhaps I wasn't clear.  I don't advocate a U.S. invasion of Pakistan from stem to stern.  I advocate using diplomacy and giving the Pakistanis every opportunity to do the right thing with regard to bin Laden and the terrorists.  If they don't mount an earnest effort -- then we propose joint NATO/Pakistani operations in the border areas being used by the Taliban and AQ.  If they refuse to cooperate, then we take matters into our own hands and do it ourselves.

Border incursions do not constitute an invasion, per se.  The Pakistani government can do what in response?  Well, they can "fight the invaders" with conventional weapons and be defeated.  They can ignore the incursions, throw up their hands and tell their people, it's suicide for our military to resist. Or they can go the truly lunatic route and use their (very small) arsenal of nuclear weapons on a U.S. base in the region.  In which case, I pity Pakistan.

The point is -- George W. Bush started the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time.  It's wrong for loads of reasons. But the war in Afghanistan is the right war.  And if the terrorists and bin Laden are being sheltered or abetted by Pakistani civilians or government agents -- then I'm sorry, but "it's on". 

In another thread, someone called me a "dove".  I thank them.  I like to think I am dovish where war is concerned. War is repugnant to me.  But thousands of dead Americans in piles of smoking rubble here on our shores is also repugnant.  This liberal hasn't forgotten and won't.  I am sick and tired of our military (brave and honorable as they are, individually) "punishing" the wrong people.  Now, we are finally going after the right ones.  And Pakistan had best lead, follow or get the hell out of the way. 

[dead0man]

I am sick and tired of our military (brave and honorable as they are, individually) "punishing" the wrong people.  Now, we are finally going after the right ones.

Don't forget the military doesn't pick where we go fight, we let the American people do that by electing idiots.  We just do a DAMNED good job of it when we're allowed to.  Just stop asking us to do things we aren't designed to do like policing Mesopotamia.  If we are going to continue playing world police we need to establish a new branch of the military that is designed from the ground up as a police force.  The Army and Marines are not designed to do that and giving them that mission has proven to be a horrible idea.

[JSojourner]

I am sick and tired of our military (brave and honorable as they are, individually) "punishing" the wrong people.  Now, we are finally going after the right ones.

Don't forget the military doesn't pick where we go fight, we let the American people do that by electing idiots.  We just do a DAMNED good job of it when we're allowed to.  Just stop asking us to do things we aren't designed to do like policing Mesopotamia.  If we are going to continue playing world police we need to establish a new branch of the military that is designed from the ground up as a police force.  The Army and Marines are not designed to do that and giving them that mission has proven to be a horrible idea.

Couldn't have said it better Dead.

[dead0man]

link

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Like I said earlier:
I totally agree.  If nation A can not stop the asshats in their own country from attacking nation B, then nation B has EVERY RIGHT IN THE WORLD to "invade" nation A and take care of business.

Like here