American attack aftermath: Pakistan declares attack a 'plot'

[American Pakistani]

[video]"http://player.ooyala.com/player.js?autoplay=1&width=560&playerBrandingId=7dfd98005dba40baacc82277f292e522&height=315&embedCode=9uYzMyMzojCzlQeZocf85Jo-EOPmIVtI&video_pcode=RvbGU6Z74XE_a3bj4QwRGByhq9h2&deepLinkEmbedCode=9uYzMyMzojCzlQeZocf85Jo-EOPmIVtI"[/video]

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

It's a shame, such an event would normally lead to war, but Pakistan is stopped by the fact that they would be destroyed.
A very difficult situation to be in.

Wrong buddy.

What happened when the USSR invaded Georgia in 2008? Or when North Korea sunk a South Korean battleship, and then bombarded a South Korean island? Why didn't America stand up for their allies?

The answer is nukes. America keeps huffing and puffing at North Korea but eventually they had to let North Korea get nukes, and couldn't stop them. They also warned Russia against invading Georgia (who was a close friend of the US), but Russia invaded anyway and America said nothing.

Pakistan has far more nukes than North Korea. America doesn't attack countries with nukes, we have seen this proven time and time again.

And even if we were to talk about purely "conventional" warfare, then look at what happened in Vietnam or Afghanistan. America still cannot control Afghanistan after ten years, now imagine how long it will take to bring down a regional nuclear power like Pakistan.

 

[American Pakistani]

Soldiers of the Pakistani militia force stand guard at the Pakistani border post of Torkham as it is closed for NATO trucks carrying supplies to neighboring Afghanistan, on Saturday, Nov 26, 2011. Pakistan on Saturday accused NATO helicopters of firing ontwo army checkpoints in the northwest and killing 25 soldiers, then retaliated by closing a key border crossing used by the coalition to supply its troops in neighboring Afghanistan.

---------- Post added at 08:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:21 PM ----------

Trucks carrying supplies for NATO forces in Afghanistan are parked at the Pakistan's Torkham border crossing after Pakistani authorities suspended NATO supplies on November 26, 2011. Pakistan accused NATO of killing 26 soldiers in a blistering air strike, protesting in the strongest terms to the US and closing the main border for NATO supplies into Afghanistan. It was the deadliest NATO strike reported by Pakistan during the 10-year war in Afghanistan and looked set to inflame already extremely difficultUS-Pakistani relations still reeling from the May killing of Osama bin Laden.

Pakistani security personnel stop truck carrying supplies for NATO forces in neighboring Afghanistan at Takhtabeg check post in Pakistani tribal area of Khyber, Pakistan, on their way to Torkham border post on Saturday, Nov 26, 2011. Pakistan on Saturdayaccused NATO helicopters of firing on two army checkpoints in the northwest and killing 25 soldiers, then retaliated by closing a key border crossing used by the coalition to supply its troops in neighboring Afghanistan.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Please let me explain: I agree with Asim that the present lack of justice, equality and freedom is a problem. I also recognize that unless those changes are implemented inhouse in Pakistan FIRST, these realities on the ground will continue to reign. Unless Paksitan has those measures in place to win the respect of its own people, others will not respect it either.

I hope I am clear in conveying the consistency in my position.

In a society largely cut off from international affairs and foreign policy, perhaps your argument might have some merit - however, given the prevalence and reach of the media in today's Pakistan, and the attention given to foreign policy and international affairs in the Pakistani media, it is not possible for a government to feign ignorance and not pay a price in its approval ratings and potentially at the ballot box come election time.

A discredited government becomes a weak government, and weak institutions then can find themselves incapable of pursuing much needed 'painful' domestic reforms, even if they wanted to. You cannot therefore, in today's Pakistan, disconnect Pakistan's foreign policy from domestic politics and its impact on domestic policies.

So your position is not 'consistent' when you advocate in favor of 'injustice and inequality' on the international stage, while arguing that the same 'injustice and inequality' on the domestic stage perpetuates a 'negative and destructive status quo' - the same 'negative and destructive status quo' is also being perpetuated on the international stage through GoP capitulation to 'ground realities'.

 

[American Pakistani]

Trucks are parked at a road as authorities closed the Torkham border for NATO supply trucks at Pakistani border town of Torkham on Saturday, Nov 26, 2011. Pakistan on Saturday accused NATO helicopters of firing on two army checkpoints in the northwest andkilling 25 soldiers, then retaliated by closing a key border crossing used by the coalition to supply its troops in neighboring Afghanistan.

Afghanistan-bound NATO trucks park up at the southwest Chaman border post in Pakistan on Saturday, Nov. 26, 2011. Pakistan on Saturday accused NATO helicopters of firing on two army checkpoints in the northwest and killing 25 soldiers, then retaliated byclosing a key border crossing used by the coalition to supply its troops in neighboring Afghanistan.

 

[Pakistanisage]

1 Well Yes military officers have been invokved in corruption. Admiral Mansoor ul Haq was a part of military I guess.

2 Drones are conducted in total consensus of Pakistani military. In fact it was a military govt that allowed USA to bomb it's territory.

3 Why not??? $$$ are more important than soldiers buddy.

4 These are all drama they always do after every such incident. If they can't retaliate to an aggressor whether it is America or NATO then they also don't deserve all the military budget they get to protect the sovereignty of Pakistan. They don't deserve to wear that uniform.

5 All three were involved and played their respective role.

for your kind information, admiral Mansur ul Haque was dragged back to Pakistan from the US and made to repay every dime of the bribe he took. Has Zardari been given the same treatment. Would Mr. 10% return the ill gotten wealth back to Pakistani treasury ?

 

[888jamie888]

Wrong buddy.

What happened when the USSR invaded Georgia in 2008? Or when North Korea sunk a South Korean battleship, and then bombarded a South Korean island? Why didn't America stand up for their allies?

The answer is nukes. America keeps huffing and puffing at North Korea but eventually they had to let North Korea get nukes, and couldn't stop them. They also warned Russia against invading Georgia (who was a close friend of the US), but Russia invaded anyway and America said nothing.

Pakistan has far more nukes than North Korea. America doesn't attack countries with nukes, we have seen this proven time and time again.

And even if we were to talk about purely "conventional" warfare, then look at what happened in Vietnam or Afghanistan. America still cannot control Afghanistan after ten years, now imagine how long it will take to bring down a regional nuclear power like Pakistan.

I think a direct attack against the US would be quite different. They would have no problem destroying Pakistans conventional army, I think they have learnt from their mistakes.
Surely the fact that both countries have nukes means that they would not use them due to mutual destruction? If anything does Pakistan have enough to wipe out the US?

 

[President Camacho]

The apology is for the loss of Pakistani personnel; that is only appropriate, but should be followed by more more steps on both sides.

Where did you hear about the apology?

Apology concludes acceptance to the mistake committed. I searched the news section but didn't find the apology part. Only heard about Muter's condolences, that he feels sorry about the loss.

 

[888jamie888]

You stupid British bastard, Pakistan isn't going to be destroyed by NATO. Pakistan can attack and strike NATO killing NATO troops especially British troops, and there would be nothing conventional NATO could do about it. The only problem is weak traitorous government.

Ermmm, yes if you went to attack NATO I think you would be destroyed. Is that such a stupid think to say?
On the contrary, NATO has global power projection, I'm sure it could attack you.

 

[Roybot]

Pakistan shut down NATO supply routes into Afghanistan - used for sending in nearly half of the alliance's land shipments - in retaliation for the worst such incident since Islamabad uneasily allied itself with Washington following the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States.

Islamabad also said it had ordered the United States to vacate a drone base in the country, but a senior U.S. official said Washington had received no such request and noted that Pakistan had made similar eviction threats in the past, without following through.

Pakistan stops NATO supplies after deadly raid | Reuters

Americans work differently. Apparently demanding it through media is not enough. They need to be given specific orders to vacate the base.

 

[888jamie888]

Where did you hear about the apology?

Apology concludes acceptance to the mistake committed. I searched the news section but didn't find the apology part. Only heard about Muter's condolences, that he feels sorry about the loss.

Not necessarily, people say 'I'm sorry for your loss.' But further investigation is required.

 

[Roybot]

I think a direct attack against the US would be quite different. They would have no problem destroying Pakistans conventional army, I think they have learnt from their mistakes.
Surely the fact that both countries have nukes means that they would not use them due to mutual destruction? If anything does Pakistan have enough to wipe out the US?

Pakistan doesn't have the means to launch a nuke attack on American mainland.

 

[American Pakistani]

[video]http://video.heraldsun.com.au/2171023032/NATO-accused-of-killing-Pakistani-troops[/video]

 

[888jamie888]

Pakistan doesn't have the means to launch a nuke attack on American mainland.

So that backs up my point? Pakistan wouldn't be able to respond to an american attack.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

I think a direct attack against the US would be quite different. They would have no problem destroying Pakistans conventional army, I think they have learnt from their mistakes.
Surely the fact that both countries have nukes means that they would not use them due to mutual destruction? If anything does Pakistan have enough to wipe out the US?

If America wants to fight a nuclear-armed nation, then they would fight North Korea first. North Korea already made several lethal and repeated attacks on an American ally (South Korea), with no response from America.

North Korea also has only a few fission bombs, and no means to provide such bombs to anti-US networks who might target the American mainland.

Pakistan on the other hand, has hundreds of nuclear weapons and missiles. Not only would they use them against regional US bases, but would most certainly provide some to anti-US groups to use against the American mainland.

But the fact remains, America has never once directly attacked a nuclear-armed nation. Even the threat of one loose nuke is too much for them. They are free to prove me wrong... by finally retaliating against North Korea. I'll believe it when I see it.