Pakistan says U.S. drones in its air space will be shot down

page: 14
41
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by inivux
 


Personally I've been very distrustful of government.

But I also don't believe that Pakistan's government is innocent, nor are they friendly to US interests.

They have actively worked against US troops and personnel in Afghanistan. That makes them enemies, not friends.
edit on 11-12-2011 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Vitchilo
 





That China couldn't supply 10 million troops if they tried long range war... but they could supply them, and more, if they were invaded...


Yes they would be able to support their troops if they engaged in a domestic war. Its not a rule that every nation has to bring supplies from their own country. You can also occupy the resources of another country.



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 03:32 PM
link   
Drones comitted airstrikes on Pakistani soil. If they dont like it...



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by projectvxn
 
Well of course not. The world is not black and white. There is no such thing is good guys and bad guys, at least not on this scale. On this scale, it is all a matter of perspective.

The line by ol Dubya summed it up great. "You're either with us or against us", is one of the most totalitarian, sickening things the "leader of the 'free' World" has ever said. That line also seem to be the mantra behind milkyway12's laughingly misguided opinion.

"We are the US. We are fighting the 'war on terror', a war we ourselves viciously perpetuate every day, under the guise of forced liberation. You don't want your drones in your airspace? Stop allowing 'terrorists' to be trained in your country. Or else. All your base are belong to us."

Remember that time one of the US' alphabet agencies tried to get Sweden to take down a website hosting illegally pirated movies, and Sweden rightfully responded with "this lies outside of your jurisdiction, you arrogant imbeciles"?

Yea.

Both great examples of the US' over-reaching lust for "liberty". A disgustingly hypocritical stance to take, considering the actions of certain municipal police forces in the last few months.

Wake up and smell the coffee.
edit on 11-12-2011 by inivux because: (no reason given)
edit on 11-12-2011 by inivux because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by inivux
 





Well of course not. The world is not black and white. There is no such thing is good guys and bad guys, at least not on this. On this scale, it is all a matter of perspective.Well of course not. The world is not black and white. There is no such thing is good guys and bad guys, at least not on this. On this scale, it is all a matter of perspective.


The world DOES have bad guys. The notion that it is all grey area is simply a matter of not wanting to deal with the fact that there are people, organizations, and governments out there that, given the chance, would do things far more sinister than anything one could accuse the US of doing.




The line by ol Dubya summed it up great. "You're either with us or against us", is one of the most totalitarian, sickening things the "leader of the 'free' World" has ever said. That line also seem to be the mantra behind milkyway12's laughingly misguided opinion.


Pakistan does certainly have the right to refuse access to airspace to the US. But let's get one thing clear, if Pakistan is arming, training, funding, and providing intelligence to forces engaged in open hostilities toward the US, what does that make them?




We are the US. We are fighting the 'war on terror', a war we ourselves viciously perpetuate every day, under the guise of forced liberation. You don't want your drones in your airspace? Stop allowing 'terrorist' to be trained in your country. Or else. All your base are belong to us."


I don't quite see it that way. But that's neither here nor there. What I will say is that if Pakistan does continue to actively engage US personnel in Afghanistan then Pakistan can expect retaliation in kind.




Remember that time one of the US' alphabet agencies tried to get Sweden to take down a website hosting illegally pirated movies, and Sweden rightfully responded with "this lies outside of your jurisdiction, you arrogant imbeciles"?


What does this have to do with military engagements between the US and Pakistan? This issue is entirely different.




Yea. Both great examples of the US' over-reaching lust for "liberty". A disgustingly hypocritical stance to take, considering the actions of certain municipal police forces in the last few months.


My only issue with what is happening in Afghanistan is the mobilization of our war machine to deal with the likes of the Taliban and AQ. It has, in fact, been a colossal waste of money when you consider that we could have achieved a more favorable outcome using SF, minimal air power, and international law enforcement agencies.




Wake up and smell the coffee.


I'm wide awake. I just don't see things from your perspective.
edit on 11-12-2011 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 03:48 PM
link   
Very good.



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by milkyway12
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
 


The US should also have the Ability to attack any entity that posses a threat to the Civilian population which that threat has killed a few thousand civilian Americans already. That Entity just so happens to be harbored by Pakistan. If you leave them , we will be back there in another 10 years. With a few more thousand dead .. or maybe 10s of thousands. Probably several dirty bombs next time.
edit on 04/30/2011 by milkyway12 because: (no reason given)


Really? Let's replace "US" in your statement with "Pakistan" and see if you like how that reads...how you'd feel if you were a Pakistinian civilian..maybe threatened?

"Pakistan should also have the Ability to attack any entity that posses a threat to the Civilian population which that threat has killed a few thousand civilian Pakistinians already. That Entity just so happens to be harbored by the USA. If you leave them , we will be back there in another 10 years. With a few more thousand dead .. or maybe 10s of thousands. Probably several dirty bombs next time."

Remember that the "Al-Qaeda" you think is harbored in Pakistan was created and supported by the CIA to fight against the Russians in Afghanistan, and the "Al-Qaeda" is currently in Libya fighting for us again with the Libyan opposition against the recently deposed Gaddafi government. Pakistan was already bombed several times and innocents killed, so there is no "probably next time" for them. It's happened. I wonder if your daughter, wife or son were accidently killed by Pakistan flying surveillance drones over America how you'd feel. Your argument lacks objectivity and evidence.
edit on 11-12-2011 by thepixelpusher because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by projectvxn
 

If they posed any real danger, the US government would never attack them as they never attacked Russia though we fought a proxy war in Afghanistan.

edit on 11-12-2011 by gladtobehere because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by cconn487
 


But wait a minute, then how could we possibly make money? Settle down hippy! lol

The U.S. military polices the world, thats what we do. Any country that opposes us or challenges us is either labeled terrorist or said to be harbouring terrorists. Who the hell is pakistan? They dont have a voice, they cant intelligently fight a charge from the U.S. Its beating up the weaker... Fear... Control.



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by gladtobehere
reply to post by projectvxn
 


I mean come on. How many nukes and with what delivery system?

If they posed any real danger, the US government would never attack them.

Pakistan is a very poor country with a literacy rate of about 25%? They're worried about their next meal.
edit on 11-12-2011 by gladtobehere because: (no reason given)


The US government, acting with PERMISSION from the Pakistani government, engaged in drone strikes against legitimate terrorist targets.

Unfortunately many civilians have also been killed in these strikes.

But since the US has the capability and Pakistan's government was unwilling to do it, we did. We also have to take the blame for anything bad that happens as a result of our actions. Pakistan's government gets to play both sides and the people in the streets will only be mad at the US.



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by projectvxn
 

Thats a ridiculous premise.

If I put a gun to your head, youre going to let me into your home.

No legitimate government would allow another nation to bomb them. Never. Only a puppet regime would.

And when more people are killed, as you said, the people now pose a threat to those in power. So the Pakistani government has to make a decision: risk upsetting their masters in DC or risk facing the wrath of their population.



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by projectvxn
Pakistan does certainly have the right to refuse access to airspace to the US. But let's get one thing clear, if Pakistan is arming, training, funding, and providing intelligence to forces engaged in open hostilities toward the US, what does that make them?

If the US is killing 1000s of Pakistani civilians, what does that make them?



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by gladtobehere
 





Thats a ridiculous premise.


No it isn't.

They are facts. We operated drone strikes in Pakistan with the full knowledge of Pakistani authorities and even had a base there set up for it until we were ordered out of the country.




If I put a gun to your head, youre going to let me into your home.


Or find a way to fight back. We didn't have a gun to Pakistan's head. We have money they wanted and got from us to fund their military. One of the best ways they found to keep the money flowing was to keep the US engaged in Afghanistan. How? by funding the very groups they've been funding and arming all along. AQ, the Taliban, the Haqqani network and others.




No legitimate government would allow another nation to bomb them. Never. Only a puppet regime would.


The Waziristan region of Pakistan was politically set apart by Pakistan to give the Pashto tribes and Wahhabi(Taliban) extremists their safe haven long before the US invaded. That is the region we've been bombing. Pakistan itself has been engaged in a few conflicts in that region due to attacks originating there on Pakistani civilians and it is the place where the attack on Benazir Bhutto originated as well. The Pakistani government is dealing with stability problems and has been for a long time as a result of their stupid appeasement policies in that region for a long time now. The last thing they wanted was more terrorist attacks originating from there. So Pakistan made that agreement with the US:

en.wikipedia.org...


According to secret cables leaked by Wikileaks Pakistan's Army Chief Ashfaq Parvez Kayani not only tacitly agreed to the drone flights but in 2008 requested Americans to increase them.[16] However Pakistan's Interior Minister Rehman Malik said "Drone missiles cause collateral damage. A few militants are killed, but the majority of victims are innocent citizens,"[17] The strikes are often linked to Anti-American sentiment in Pakistan and the growing questionability of the scope and extent of CIA activities in Pakistan.


It's a mixed bag. But without Pakistani approval, they would have never happened.

They even provided a base of operation WITHIN Pakistan for the use of drone strikes against N. Waziristan called Shamsi Airfield.

Do your homework. This isn't one sided.



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by GLaDOS

Originally posted by projectvxn
Pakistan does certainly have the right to refuse access to airspace to the US. But let's get one thing clear, if Pakistan is arming, training, funding, and providing intelligence to forces engaged in open hostilities toward the US, what does that make them?

If the US is killing 1000s of Pakistani civilians, what does that make them?


Thousands of civilians according to who?

Are you saying the US is purposefully targeting civilians?
edit on 11-12-2011 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by projectvxn

Originally posted by GLaDOS

Originally posted by projectvxn
Pakistan does certainly have the right to refuse access to airspace to the US. But let's get one thing clear, if Pakistan is arming, training, funding, and providing intelligence to forces engaged in open hostilities toward the US, what does that make them?

If the US is killing 1000s of Pakistani civilians, what does that make them?


Thousands of civilians according to who?

Are you saying the US is purposefully targeting civilians?
edit on 11-12-2011 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)

According to everyone. Since 2005, thousands of Pakistanis have died because of drone attacks.
And it's besides the point if you're purposefully targeting them or not, you still kill them, which make you the terrorists. What would you say if Pakistan attacked a school in America and kill 1 terrorist and 20 innocent civilians because of "collateral damage"?
edit on 11/12/2011 by GLaDOS because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 04:32 PM
link   
US intelligence should have recognized Pakistani sympathies for the Taliban and Al-Qaeda well before they invaded Afghanistan. The ISI was responsible for shoveling millions of dollars of equipment and aid into the hands of Islamists instead of secular militants during the Soviet-Afghan war. In-fact, Pakistan indirectly helped Islamists kill secular elements in the Taliban. US intelligence also knows that certain Taliban leaders were airliftted out of Afghanistan early in the war. If the US was seriously commiting to this war (which it was and still is) it shouldn't have left anything in the hands of Pakistan. Instead of allowing Pakistan to halt the Taliban in its borders, the US should have cut behind the Taliban on the Afghan border (but respect and maintain Pakistans sovereignty) and cut them off before they could have escaped to Pakistan. Now it is too late, but risking entering another war with Pakistan would be rediculous.

The US should now withdraw from Afghanistan. It is a given that the country would probably erupt into another civil war and could once again be taken over by Islamists. But prolonging the conflict and funelling more money into the hands of the current regime and the Northern alliance is not going to do any good. A prolonged occupation will only result in more loss of life and more hatred for the West. It will likely push people away from pro-Western Pakistani elements and into the hands of the Taliban even though most of the population despises the fundementalists.

Funeling more money into the current regime and Afghan army wont do to much good anyway. According to the Corruption Perception Index, Afghanistan is one of the most corrupt countries on earth (behind Somalia) and it is impossible to predict how much US aid is stolen by corrupt leaders and warloards, how much is sold to the Taliban and how much is actually used on the military and infastructure. The amount of money that would have to be spent in Afghanistan to see any progress would be collosall and America simply can't afford it. Scaling back America's military presence around the whole world and co-operating with other countries on intelligence and counter-terrorism would be far more helpfull in halting internaitonal terrorism than occupying Muslim countries. Also nevermind the fact that Islamic terrorism isn't as much of a threat as many Americans percieve it is, but either way, aiding in economic development and using more diplomacy instead of military force would be far more helpful and cheaper (in terms of money spent and loss of life).



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by GLaDOS
 


"According to everyone" is not a legitimate source.

I want numbers by independent sources.

Secondly the US does not target civilians. And we have even called off strikes because civilians were close by. Sometimes though, it isn't always possible to avoid all civilian casualties. They are regrettable and heart wrenching results of the ugliest act that humanity engages in, war.

Lastly, if Pakistan deliberately targeted a school to kill one terrorist and wound up destroying a school full of children knowingly, that is called a WAR CRIME. The US does NOT engage these types of targets unless left with no other choice.



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by projectvxn
The US government, acting with PERMISSION from the Pakistani government, engaged in drone strikes against legitimate terrorist targets.


Really ? It seems more like the US doesn't publicly acknowledge this campaign and that the Pakistani government "might" be in agreement. I don't think anyone can make this statement with certainty. Naturally each side will contradict the other in this situation.


Originally posted by projectvxnUnfortunately many civilians have also been killed in these strikes.


And with reckless abandon, but all in the fog of war (although war has not officially been claimed). If I witnessed people I knew, that were innocent, being bombed to pieces I'm fairly certain I would harbour as much hate and resentment as possible. These careless acts just perpetuate the hate.

Both sides stink to high hell here but the OP appears to be just baiting and trolling.

brill



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 04:41 PM
link   
reply to post by SpeachM1litant
 




Finally, somebody else who gets it.

The US/West should have just kept the fight in Afghanistan "Unconventional" the way it was in the beginning. Less Bloodshed all around with more progress by besting the Taliban {With their ISI} puppet masters at their game.



posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by brill
Really ? It seems more like the US doesn't publicly acknowledge this campaign and that the Pakistani government "might" be in agreement. I don't think anyone can make this statement with certainty. Naturally each side will contradict the other in this situation.


YES Really....

How many years now have these strikes been going on? The Pakistanis have been silent the whole time. Why? Because we were fighting the same enemy. That's why. The problem here is that the Pakistani right hand doesn't know what it's left hand has been up to.




Both sides stink to high hell here but the OP appears to be just baiting and trolling.


He reeled you in apparently





top topics
 
41
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join