It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


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

page: 7
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 12:19 AM
If Pakistan were to send drones over the US, should we just stand idly by and let it happen? Pakistan is just trying to protect it's citizens. We shouldn't send Pakistan any more money, they're not our friends.

posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 12:42 AM

Originally posted by gimme_some_truth

Originally posted by milkyway12
reply to post by lambros56

Drones wouldnt be there if Pakistan would not let an Armed Military Force Occupy their country that kills their people , American People , British People , Russians , Chinese.

What's odd about this statement is this is exactly what Pakistan is attempting to do, by giving the US a hard time, seeing as how the US has killed many innocent people on their soil.

So..What you are saying is that Pakistan should not allow armed military forces to occupy their land that kill people..... But the US Military should be allowed to occupy their land and kill people.

So which is it? Is it okay for Pakistan to defend it's soil against occupying forces that kill people, or is it wrong?

You can't have it both ways.

Anyway,just pointing out the odd double speak ( read hypocritical and ironic statement).

Peace and love.

See you around the boards.
edit on 10-12-2011 by gimme_some_truth because: (no reason given)

Just wanted to resurface Gimme's great point here, because I think it got buried.

So which is better? Defending your soil against occupying forces that kill people or removing from your soil occupying forces that kill people?

oh, and BTW.. regarding the word terrorist...

posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 12:51 AM
Oh this is going to go over real well in short... Pakistan says "If your a terrorist we will protect you" and secondly saying to the US "If you try to get terrorist in our land you will fired up on"
Just think if S 1867 HR1540 goes in to law ,where does that put the leaders of Pakistan ,? can you say Fair Game. in the Cross hairs , under the thumb er gun.

posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 01:08 AM

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)

Or maybe we ( the US) should just pack our bags and retreat to our own borders, and let them kill them selves in the ever present religious conflict they have created.

PROTECT OUR BORDERS, and stay out of their business. If they bring war to our doorstep, then we should deal with it decisively and quickly, screw this long drawn out war effort.

posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 01:15 AM

Originally posted by mayabong

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
If enemy is their desire...fine. Just be MEN, not cowards about saying so. Stop taking billions in our military and foreign aid while telling us our aircraft will be shot down.

P.S.... The next time they have devastating floods or a catastrophic Earthquake, call someone else for sea and airlift of immediate aid and expertise in assisting the population. We ought to just hang up after reminding them of this moment in time. We quite recently made enormous efforts to help their nation after historic flooding... This is the thanks? Yeah... That won't be forgotten.
edit on 10-12-2011 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)

We'll help you with your flood victims if you will let us bomb weddings of suspected militants with the possibility of killing random civilians in the process. What do you say Pakistan?

You're not considering what I said immediately prior. The United States has been known to offer and give aid even to those nations that are hostile. It's hard to name another nation on Earth that gives more in equipment, logistics and private sector charity effort when something goes wrong in the world.

However, if they can't pick a side, and do it real quick...I don't care what happens to them any more than I do about the people in Somalia. It's not mean spirited as much as it is a lack of respect for the conduct of a nation that has been happily hoovering America's money in the billions since 2001.

They can be pissed...they can even throw us out of their country. They have the right to do those things. No Question. What I don't appreciate though, is their doing none of the above, in a direct and mature way, while threatening to shoot down our mega-dollar aircraft to the world public and media forum.

There are ways to send messages and warnings...and then there are ways to just kick another nation in the teeth. We got drop kicked...and it's real uncool given the source and their greed when there is cash involved.

edit on 11-12-2011 by Wrabbit2000 because: spacing change

posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 01:20 AM
reply to post by rogerstigers
It depends on the context , for ones freedom fighter is an other mans terrorist or a terrorist is an other mans freedom fighter or a terrorist is a terrorist what I call a terrorist in my book is one who kill's for his own justification , not carrying if it is against the Mil or civilian man or woman, nor of age, at will, with no remorse, and with no laws governing him or her, doing it in such a manner as to be unseen or undetected and unknown until it is to late, using innocents as cover and protection.
The argument could be said the USA Mil is just this.
I will say yes, only in extreme cases and when the fog of war is so thick , friend nor foe can not be determined but then heads will still roll. that is to say it became FUBAR so some must answer for it.

posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 01:33 AM
I see Neoconservatism is alive and well and flourishing on ATS.

posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 02:11 AM
GOOD.. As should any country. What would we do if it were vice versa? Sick of this "empire".


posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 02:13 AM
I got my flag back but I want my star too... I sheepishly gave you one without reading your stance.


posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 02:19 AM

Originally posted by iamconcerned
reply to post by nenothtu

Hi, i said 'as the op suggests'. That would mean original poster if i'm not mistaken. That would not be you.

Then why did you address it to me?

Edit: Oh right I forgot the OP said he was going to nuke China " 'send a crap ton of ICBMs and destroy their infrastructure and bases.' ", hence no need for an occupying force. Silly me. And of course there would be no retaliation. Silly me.
edit on 10-12-2011 by iamconcerned because: .

edit on 10-12-2011 by iamconcerned because: .

Actually what he said was :

Why would we nuke them? Its called Land Locked. We destroy their navies lock down coasto air space with aircraft , send a crap ton of ICBMs and destroy their infrastructure and bases.

Sounds like he would try to button them down in landlocked areas then bomb the crap out of them but not send in any troops that they could fight back against. It struck me as odd to say "why would we nuke them?" and mention ICBM's all in the same breath, but it's his war, not mine. I'm not sure what good an ICBM is without a nuclear payload.

There probably wouldn't be much in the way of retaliation - from China, anyhow. They've got more nukes than they initially admitted to, true, but their delivery systems leave something to be desired. Not much to mention in the way of a blue-water navy, either. They're already all but landlocked, although they seem to be trying to fix that problem for purposes of power projection.

I don't see the necessity for war with China, and am not quite sure why you all are even throwing China around like that. Last time China went to war, they got drubbed inside of 30 days by Vietnam. I believe the initial contention was that China has Pakistan's back, but how far do you think they'd really push that? China is smarter than that. They only claim to have Pakistan's back because they and Pakistan have a common foe in India. You really think they'd go balls to the wall against the US over Pakistan while India sat back and laughed at the whole situation?

As far as "occupation" goes, it would be as stupid for the US to try to occupy China as it would for China to try to occupy the US.

Ain't nobody going to occupy nobody over Pakistan.

edit on 2011/12/11 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 02:23 AM

Originally posted by againuntodust
America has no place in Pakistan, we are not at war with them. And you cannot be at war with an idea, like terrorism. A faceless, nationless, amorphous idea that applies to anyone you wish it to when you want it to. Give me break.

Nope, but you can be at war with people who are shooting at you.

At least the people shooting at you seem to think so.

Let Pakistan shoot a few drones down and see how long it takes for the US to FIND a place in Pakistan.

posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 02:34 AM

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by nenothtu

Yeah, it IS called "invasion of airspace", but not really "invading", although I suppose one could see it as that if one were so inclined.

It IS invading a sovereign nation. I don't care if it's by land, sea or air.


Fly in, fly over, fly out. Not quite in the same league with a ground invasion. These folks are talking occupations and the like. A drone can't "occupy" any where for more than about 6 or 12 hours. It runs out of juice.

It is what happens when one harbors the enemies of another, and that "other" takes exception to that.

Yah, allies are highly overrated. Can't hardly tell them apart anyway. Especially form altitude, at night, by remote control. (Cowards, backstabbers)

You're right - allies ARE overrated. Who the hell needs "allies" who give aid and comfort to the enemy?

What was that you were saying about "backstabbers"?

Been going on since the dawn of history.

So, that makes it alright then.

No. That was an observation, not a justification. Anyone beyond the third grade should be able to figure out the difference between the two. What makes it alright is that there's nothing wrong with it. You close with and destroy your enemy. It matters nary a bit where they are, you go to them to close with them. If folks don't want their countries invaded, don't harbor someone's enemies.

We'll just further enhance our image as frenemy and make it clear to all where we stand. (Alone)

Suits me. Image is for PR firms and rich folks like Wall Street bankers. I could care less about image.

Standing alone beats the hell out of not being able to stand at all.

posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 02:41 AM
reply to post by Logman
Why thank you!!!!
I like to think of my self as Neo Neoconservative for I am for the USA like it was in the days of" yes we kicked a$$" had saying like" we like Ike", or "FDR has not gone to far," the best one"ask not what your country can do for you, but ask, what you can do for your country." yes we have had our sad moments, " I will not run for a second term" thank god for that or "I'm not a crook" , oh yes you were you just did no time,RWR "Mr Gorbachev... bring down that wall" so he did, how did you make him do that? SDI is it real? GB Sr. "No new taxes" yea just not for the rich Clinton " it depends on what is... is" it is the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and I do not mean wearing short sleeves

In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two Second Amendment decisions. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia[1][2] and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Additionally, the Court enumerated several longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession that it found were consistent with the Second Amendment.[3] In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.
just so there is no "I can bear arms too... see my tan line" too Bush Jr, "P" Act and
Dick/ Rumsfeld, love this

There are known knowns; there are things we know we know.
We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know. ”

—Former United States Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld
this is the best of Cheney . note extreme sarcasm

He directed the United States invasion of Panama and Operation Desert Storm in the Middle East. In 1991 he was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by Bush.
do you not the the ironic? oh I left out Bush Jr.

The most significant event of President Bush’s tenure came on September 11, 2001, when terrorists killed nearly 3,000 people on American soil. President Bush responded with a comprehensive strategy to protect the American people. He led the most dramatic reorganization of the federal government since the beginning of the Cold War, reforming the intelligence community and establishing new institutions like the Department of Homeland Security. He built global coalitions to remove violent regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq that threatened America; liberating more than 50 million people from tyranny. He recognized that freedom and hope are the best alternative to the extremist ideology of the terrorists, so he provided unprecedented American support for young democracies and dissidents in the Middle East and beyond. In the more than seven years after September 11, 2001, the United States was not attacked again.
ok 10 years, but then whose counting?

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

edit on 11-12-2011 by bekod because: editting

edit on 11-12-2011 by bekod because: editting

edit on 11-12-2011 by bekod because: editting

posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 02:44 AM
No offense to OP, but it seems like you are just a chicken-hawk.. Unless you've served. I don't think throwing around the word terrorist makes the US' own terrorist-like acts any more justifiable, much less carpet bombing an entire country for disagreeing. IMO that is very immature to say, so I don't know if this is a troll or not.

posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 02:45 AM
Fundamentalist Christian warmonger from Mississippi. Enough said? Enough said.

posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 03:03 AM
America needs to be very careful, if they continue to push too far the the rest of the world will get fed up with them, it's already started.

I can see that it will get to a point were America will go too far and they will be attacked again but by a much more powerful country that can equal them, America will crap their pants then. From what i see America seems to attack and invade countries that are weaker than them but i would guess they will never do this to a country who is on equal footing as them, makes you wonder doesn't it?

Seriously now, if America does go to far and is attacked they may find themselves standing alone with no-one at their side to help them, America is only ONE country in a world of many and we are watching and paying attention to how America behaves on the world stage.

It's the innocent american people i feel pity for because they have lost control of their government and the people will ultimately pay the price of their government's actions.
edit on 11/12/2011 by Traydor because: (no reason given)

edit on 11/12/2011 by Traydor because: (no reason given)

edit on 11/12/2011 by Traydor because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 03:07 AM
reply to post by milkyway12

its people like u...
who are war hungry!

posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 03:42 AM
It's about time nations started standing up to america.

Most likely Pakistan got the backing of their closest allies China, nevertheless this sets a precedent for other nations.

The world does not want your interference, america. Your time has come to an end in Asia. You had best keep Turkey happy because they're your only hope now for any future influence in the Middle East.

It's getting easier to see the hyposcrisy of america, a nation that talks about freedoms but enslaves it's own people and attempts to enslave the world.

Shortest empire in history or what?
edit on 11-12-2011 by Babbleman because: grammar

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

posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 03:43 AM
reply to post by milkyway12

US Drones to be shot down (Pakistan)

Good! They should! We have no business being the NAZIs on the planet anyway. And we have been since WWII. Ask anyone from America del Sud.

It is finally time we started acting like the good guys we have been claiming to be. It's all been lies all along, and now it is impossible to miss the fact.

posted on Dec, 11 2011 @ 03:49 AM
Wow, this is one intense thread. The comments from milkyway12 scare me, he quite clearly is very uneducated, can't spell, can't make a reasonable argument and keeps using the same tired metaphor of protecting your family and attacking someone if they attack you.

If Pakistan attacked the US and killed "innocent" US civilians as you seem to be saying (hence your distorted logic on why the US should be allowed to send in drones) the US would be doing more than just sending in drones to Pakistan, let me tell you that right now.

What the US is doing is deliberately starting a heated discussion with Pakistan without any solid evidence whatsoever that Pakistan is a place that provides a safe harbour for terrorists. Every country has "terrorists" whatever that means to you, rapists, serial killers, lunatics, people who drink while driving are terrorists too.

Pakistan has every right to shoot down the drones, it's Pakistani air space - if Pakistan reversed the logic the US would be making bigger threats and doing more than shooting down the drones.

top topics

<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in