It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

US Defense Secretary Panetta threatens ground intervention into Pakistan

page: 2
10
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 08:47 PM
link   
Thats not a threat thats a condition. BIG difference. Geez what is up with ATS and all the 14 year olds?

Its acalled a Cause and Effect possibility or an "if", "then" scenario if you will. Not a threat.
edit on 9-6-2012 by princeofpeace because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 08:51 PM
link   
All i know is folks on here take every news statement to indicate imminent war or WWIII while at the same time, the same folks on here cristicize the news as inaccurate. LMAO!!!!! Cant have it both ways bo!!! You want one article to serve your paranoid agenda yet another article that opposes your view is met with "well its the news they always lie".




posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 09:03 PM
link   
Yall aint got nothing for that one. Shut the thread down.


Originally posted by princeofpeace
All i know is folks on here take every news statement to indicate imminent war or WWIII while at the same time, the same folks on here cristicize the news as inaccurate. LMAO!!!!! Cant have it both ways bo!!! You want one article to serve your paranoid agenda yet another article that opposes your view is met with "well its the news they always lie".




posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 07:21 AM
link   
The Haqqani network is supported and funded by the Pakistani ISI.
You could even go as far as to call it a militia for Pakistan, especially for its dispute with India.
Some countries have certain benefits from keeping the area 'unstable' and away from NATO influence.



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 08:36 AM
link   
It's not as easy as you'd think to cross the Pakistani/Afghan border, the Hindu Kush mountain range is quite remote, steep and extremely rugged mountainous terrain full of cave networks and assorted hidey holes.

Its not a matter of walking through a few fields with support vehicles there for support, regions like this are probably one of the biggest reasons America's still fighting a war there and hasn't returned home victorious.

They should really stop withe whole invading thing though, it's getting old.



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
reply to post by princeofpeace
 

First two sentences in the OPs source:


Speaking in Kabul yesterday, US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta threatened Pakistan with a ground intervention


Panetta did NOT threaten a ground intervention.
What you quoted is the interpretation of the news article.
Panetta's exact quote said nothing of the sort.

That being said ... we are already bombing it so sending ground troops across the border wouldn't be that much of a step up. Wonder how Mr. Nobel Peace Prize (Obama) plans on doing it. Guess we'll see when the sheeple reelect him in November.



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 08:51 AM
link   
Pakistan is no longer a sovereign country. America does whatever it wants to in Pakistan.

Pakistan lacks a military capable of keeping others out. They can't patrol their own air space.

I don't think we'd waste a massive ground invasion into Pakistan...ain't no big oil for us.

So we'll keep killing them with UAV's and strike the guys controlling their money. Easy win.



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 09:20 AM
link   
Get it from the horse's mouth.

Panetta is going to be in "60 Minutes" tonight.



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by princeofpeace
All i know is folks on here take every news statement to indicate imminent war or WWIII while at the same time, the same folks on here cristicize the news as inaccurate. LMAO!!!!! Cant have it both ways bo!!! You want one article to serve your paranoid agenda yet another article that opposes your view is met with "well its the news they always lie".



Really? I asked you in a previous reply"


If its not a ground war, what do you think the US action would be if Pakistan continues to not follow orders from their ally?


Yet you side step it.. ATS if for relaying info, and discussion. If you don't think he is threatening ground forces, fine. you have your opinion... But don;t come into threads posting that its all bs, and then don't answer legit questions. So I ask you again,

If its not a ground war, what do you think the US action would be if Pakistan continues to not follow orders from their ally?


Yes, he didn;t say he would send in ground forces but he said they are fed up with Pakistan, when asked he didn't rule out ground forces as a method of response to Pakistan.. SO, what is going on then? Is it an empty threat? Does this mean a hardened continuation of drone attacks with civilian casulaties until Pakistan gives in?

I like that you say close the thread, because you don't agree with what was said or the interpretation of what was said. Thats your problem dude..

*Added* Your 'solid' repsonse to this thread was posted at

posted on 6/9/2012 @ 07:51 PM
And then at

posted on 6/9/2012 @ 08:03 PM
you say that the thread should be shut down cause,

Yall aint got nothing for that one
.. seriously? Cause noone repsonded to your crap post that basically bashes people instead of putting some sort of quality opinion out there within 12 Minutes, that the thread should be shut down??

If anyone wants to see the quality of this guys opinions and threads, take a look at his last posted thread, complete waste of time, and space on the server, and he is complaining about this thread?! This thread has potential for discussion and speculation, your last thread.. well check it out for yourself:

Holly Springs intersection closed after chase, wreck

Maybe you should ask them to close that very informative thread? BTW, you you have 12 minutes to respond, since thats what you feel is acceptable amount of time to give people before asking to close the thread.. GO


edit on 6/10/2012 by Nspekta because: added



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Nspekta
 


Its like being a drug dealer while yer brothers addicted to drugs. You cant get p*ssed at him for stealing your drugs if your gonna deal them.

bad analogy I know, but it makes the point for the US. If Pakistan is gonna let it happen, they deserve what they get. You don't boink yer neighbors wife and not expect your neighbors husband to go after you.

Thats just kinda......dumb on Pakistan's part, they want their goat, and they want to molest it too. They can't have it both ways.

What?



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Nspekta
 


Two words sir,
Air Strikes..................................................................



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 11:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Nspekta
 
I called this one a while back ,when Iran was hot, it is all part of preplanned plan of the mid east, your with us of your against us Syria next then Iran, after Egypt



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by GrandHeretic
reply to post by Nspekta
 


Two words sir,
Air Strikes..................................................................


Most likely.. I mean thats what they've been doing, and a lot of it already this year, 22 strikes. BUT, Panetta said that he is getting frustrated, and I see it as they are doing drone strikes, but its not 'effective' enough for the US. I know they could contrinue to drone this area till there is nothing left but considering the flack and grief they;ve been receiving lately over the civiilan casualties, I think the states is maybe trying to get away from doing so many strikes, at least limiting them... Although they do love their little remote controlled toys! They want and have asked Pakistan repeatedly to move in on that area and clean house. Pakistan doesn;t want to, I mean a lot of those people are Pakistani's, let alone civilians and Pakistan already has a lot of domestic pressure to stand up to the US over encroachment on their sovereignty. Im also not saying that Pakistan should.. Considering how well the US has treated them as 'allies', I wonder how long Pakistan will/can stand for the US bullying them around.



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 12:55 PM
link   
Your answer: No ground war.Air strikes AT THE MOST. But even that wont happen. Now you can shut it dow.





Originally posted by Nspekta

Originally posted by princeofpeace
All i know is folks on here take every news statement to indicate imminent war or WWIII while at the same time, the same folks on here cristicize the news as inaccurate. LMAO!!!!! Cant have it both ways bo!!! You want one article to serve your paranoid agenda yet another article that opposes your view is met with "well its the news they always lie".



Really? I asked you in a previous reply"


If its not a ground war, what do you think the US action would be if Pakistan continues to not follow orders from their ally?


Yet you side step it.. ATS if for relaying info, and discussion. If you don't think he is threatening ground forces, fine. you have your opinion... But don;t come into threads posting that its all bs, and then don't answer legit questions. So I ask you again,

If its not a ground war, what do you think the US action would be if Pakistan continues to not follow orders from their ally?


Yes, he didn;t say he would send in ground forces but he said they are fed up with Pakistan, when asked he didn't rule out ground forces as a method of response to Pakistan.. SO, what is going on then? Is it an empty threat? Does this mean a hardened continuation of drone attacks with civilian casulaties until Pakistan gives in?

I like that you say close the thread, because you don't agree with what was said or the interpretation of what was said. Thats your problem dude..

*Added* Your 'solid' repsonse to this thread was posted at

posted on 6/9/2012 @ 07:51 PM
And then at

posted on 6/9/2012 @ 08:03 PM
you say that the thread should be shut down cause,

Yall aint got nothing for that one
.. seriously? Cause noone repsonded to your crap post that basically bashes people instead of putting some sort of quality opinion out there within 12 Minutes, that the thread should be shut down??

If anyone wants to see the quality of this guys opinions and threads, take a look at his last posted thread, complete waste of time, and space on the server, and he is complaining about this thread?! This thread has potential for discussion and speculation, your last thread.. well check it out for yourself:

Holly Springs intersection closed after chase, wreck

Maybe you should ask them to close that very informative thread? BTW, you you have 12 minutes to respond, since thats what you feel is acceptable amount of time to give people before asking to close the thread.. GO


edit on 6/10/2012 by Nspekta because: added

edit on 10-6-2012 by princeofpeace because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 01:07 PM
link   
Panetta's frustration is probably more about supply routes through Pakistan than anything. As I understand it, we keep droning their people to death so they keep shutting down the routes that supply our troops in Afghanistan. If troops were sent in, it would probably be to keep the roads open.

Being friends/allies with the US is always a precarious position to be in.



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by princeofpeace
 


You have no authority to call for a thread to be shut down. The fact that you don't seem to realise that means your capacity to engage in meaningful debate must be in some way compromised.

Long live the thread - this is the first I've heard of an escalation of the events in Pakistan. Oh, and let's not forget that Pakistan is a nuclear state with a range of 2,500km.



Stockpile

Estimates of Pakistan's stockpile of nuclear warheads vary. The most recent analysis, published in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists in 2010, estimates that Pakistan has 70-90 nuclear warheads.[60] In 2001, the U.S.-based Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) estimated that Pakistan had built 24–48 HEU-based nuclear warheads with HEU reserves for 30-52 additional warheads.[61][62] In 2003, the U.S. Navy Center for Contemporary Conflict estimated that Pakistan possessed between 35 and 95 nuclear warheads, with a median of 60.[63] In 2003, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace estimated a stockpile of approximately 50 weapons. By contrast, in 2000, U.S. military and intelligence sources estimated that Pakistan's nuclear arsenal may be as large as 100 warheads.[64]

The actual size of Pakistan's nuclear stockpile is hard for experts to gauge owing to the extreme secrecy which surrounds the program in Pakistan. However, in 2007, retired Pakistan Army's Brigadier-General Feroz Khan, previously second in command at the Strategic Arms Division of Pakistans' Military told a Pakistani newspaper that Pakistan had "about 80 to 120 genuine warheads."

*** *** ***

Second strike capability

According to a US congressional report, Pakistan has addressed issues of survivability in a possible nuclear conflict through second strike capability. Pakistan has been dealing with efforts to develop new weapons and at the same time, have a strategy for surviving a nuclear war. Pakistan has built hard and deeply buried storage and launch facilities to retain a second strike capability in a nuclear war.[68]
It was confirmed that Pakistan has built Soviet-style road-mobile missiles, state-of-the-art air defences around strategic sites, and other concealment measures. In 1998, Pakistan had 'at least six secret locations' and since then it is believed Pakistan may have many more such secret sites. In 2008, the United States admitted that it did not know where all of Pakistan’s nuclear sites are located. Pakistani defence officials have continued to rebuff and deflect American requests for more details about the location and security of the country’s nuclear sites.


Pakistan and Weapons of Mass Destruction



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by princeofpeace
 


Oh I'm sorry, you exceeded your '12 minute' time limit.. sorry your opinion is null and void... As per your OWN WORDS!



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 04:08 PM
link   
LOL-i have nothing to say. I think what this thread has evolved into discussion-wise says it all. The thread may open, but its shut down.




Originally posted by Nspekta
reply to post by princeofpeace
 


Oh I'm sorry, you exceeded your '12 minute' time limit.. sorry your opinion is null and void... As per your OWN WORDS!



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by princeofpeace
 


Of course you have nothing to say because you risk looking like an idiot again!


Text Your answer: No ground war.Air strikes AT THE MOST. But even that wont happen. Now you can shut it down


Btw genius, they ALREADY do airstrikes (drones) all the time in Pakistan so, you saying airstrikes at most, but even that wont happen, just proves that you have no knowledge of this topic. Please troll somewhere else.



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 04:43 PM
link   
Ok idiot-this is not alluding to the ongoing drone attacks in Pakistans tribal regions on non-Pakistani militants. I see i must SPELL IT OUT FOR YOU since context clues obviously isnt one of your strengths. Up your intelligience quotient or quit playing. Soft boo, soft.





Originally posted by Nspekta
reply to post by princeofpeace
 


Of course you have nothing to say because you risk looking like an idiot again!


Text Your answer: No ground war.Air strikes AT THE MOST. But even that wont happen. Now you can shut it down


Btw genius, they ALREADY do airstrikes (drones) all the time in Pakistan so, you saying airstrikes at most, but even that wont happen, just proves that you have no knowledge of this topic. Please troll somewhere else.

edit on 10-6-2012 by princeofpeace because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-6-2012 by princeofpeace because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join