What's new

US attacks 5th time in a week! | PAF patrols Pak skies

The best bet for Pakistan is to kill or capture Osama.

This will put an end to WoT.

WoT has nothing to do with Osama.
Its 11 trillion dollar Caspian base oil to be transported via Trans-Afghan pipeline which Taliban regime didnt agree with uncol company. and Kamid Karzai was an employee for uncol.
 
.
That chaprasi of uncoal.
What a pitty Afghnistan is having a peon as President and we are having thug as president.
 
.
WoT has nothing to do with Osama.
Its 11 trillion dollar Caspian base oil to be transported via Trans-Afghan pipeline which Taliban regime didnt agree with uncol company. and Kamid Karzai was an employee for uncol.

sir now also same like before who they make this pipeline without taliban help karzai gov is nothing without kabul:cheesy:
 
.
I think its time to involve Russia into all this. It would be great if we sign some sort of a defense agreement with them and assure them our support for some issues that we have common vision or Pakistan has nothing to do with, that will create pressure on US.

hit the iron when the iron is hot and i believe salman has a point here china can help in this regard it has to be a give and take relationship those pipeline's that we might end up giving it to the u.s with (transit etc) why not make an honest approach while in the mean time also protecting Pakistans interest give it to Russia and China .
 
Last edited:
.
WoT has nothing to do with Osama.
Its 11 trillion dollar Caspian base oil to be transported via Trans-Afghan pipeline which Taliban regime didnt agree with uncol company. and Kamid Karzai was an employee for uncol.

washingtonpost.com
Venezuela Joins Bolivia in Expelling U.S. Ambassador

By Juan Forero
Washington Post Foreign Service
Friday, September 12, 2008

BOGOTA, Colombia, Sept. 11 -- Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez told a throng of supporters Thursday that he is giving U.S. Ambassador Patrick Duddy 72 hours to leave the oil-rich country.

The populist leader said he issued the order in solidarity with his close ally in Bolivia, President Evo Morales, who on Wednesday ordered the expulsion of the U.S. ambassador in La Paz after accusing him of fomenting unrest. The United States said it has nothing to do with a rising tide of violent anti-government protests in Bolivia, which led to the deaths of at least eight demonstrators on Thursday.

Spicing his speech with expletives, Chávez said he was also recalling Venezuela's ambassador, Bernardo Álvarez, from Washington. The decision, announced before thousands of supporters in the city of Puerto Cabello, signals that Chávez is willing to escalate his long confrontation with the United States to solidify support before mayoral and gubernatorial elections in November.

"Go to hell, Yankees," he said as the crowd hollered in support.

Chávez said that "when there's a new government in the United States, we will send an ambassador, a government that respects the people of Latin America, the America of Simón Bolívar."


Relations have been particularly strained in recent days as U.S. officials have accused Venezuela of falling far short in the war on drugs in the Andes. U.S. and Colombian authorities say an increasing amount of cocaine is funneled through Venezuela, often with Venezuelan officials participating in the trafficking. Venezuelan officials angrily deny the charges.

Chávez on Thursday also said that the United States was behind a plot to assassinate him, and his government announced a reduction in flights from the United States on American carriers. That decision was made in retaliation after U.S. officials issued warnings about the safety of Venezuelan airports.

This week, Chávez also relished the arrival of two Russian strategic bombers in Venezuela. The Tu-160 bombers, which Russian officials said are not carrying live weapons, are flying training missions over the Caribbean until Monday, when they will return to Russia.

Although NATO fighters escorted the bombers on their long flight to Venezuela, U.S. officials have said they are closely monitoring the exercises.

Chávez said the arrival of the bombers counters Washington's influence in the region and puts the United States "on notice." The training exercises come after Moscow showed its displeasure with the Bush administration for sending warships to provide assistance to Georgia, which last month lost a short war with Russia.

On Wednesday, Chávez said he wanted to fly "one of those beasts" past Cuba and greet his friend and mentor, former Cuban president Fidel Castro. Pavel Androsov, the head of the Russian air force's long-distance command, told Interfax that Chávez's request would be considered.

"If they ask us, then fine, if they give us such an order, we will safely transport him and show him the Caribbean from above," Androsov said.


washingtonpost.com

Pakistan Did Not Agree to New Rules, Officials Say

By Karen DeYoung
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, September 12, 2008;


New rules of engagement authorizing U.S. ground attacks inside Pakistan, signed by President Bush in July, were not agreed to by that country's civilian government or its military, according to U.S. and Pakistani officials.
Gen. Ashfaq Kiyani, the Pakistani army's chief of staff, was informed last month by senior U.S. defense officials that if Pakistan failed to stem the flow of Taliban and other militant fighters into Afghanistan, the United States would adopt a new strategy, one allowing ground strikes on targeted insurgent encampments. A senior Pakistani official said that Kiyani believed the strategy was still under discussion and that Pakistan's counterinsurgency performance was improving.
News of Bush's order, following a strike last week by helicopter-borne U.S. commandos on a village about 20 miles inside Pakistan, brought denunciation yesterday from Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gillani, who echoed Kiyani's earlier charge that the attack had violated Pakistani sovereignty.

Meanwhile, Afghan President Hamid Karzai said at a news conference in Kabul that he approved of the new U.S. strategy, citing the need to "remove and destroy" insurgent sanctuaries in Pakistan. But NATO said it had no intention of sending any of the 48,000 troops under its command in Afghanistan across the border. NATO's U.N. mandate does not include "ground or air incursions . . . into Pakistani territory," said spokesman James Appathurai.



Nearly 31,000 U.S. troops are in Afghanistan, divided between the NATO command and a separate force under the U.S. Central Command.

A senior European official said that the NATO allies shared U.S. concern over the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan and were aware new U.S. rules were under consideration, but that they were unaware the rules had been approved. Bush's July order, first reported yesterday by the New York Times, was confirmed by several U.S. officials.

Husain Haqqani, Pakistan's ambassador to Washington, said U.S. officials assured him yesterday that "no such order had been given." The United States, he said, "respects Pakistan's sovereignty."

The senior European official called the implementation of the new strategy "peculiar," since its timing coincided with this week's inauguration of Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari.

"If you're going to invade another country . . . without their permission, after you've just spent eight years trying to get a democratic government in place, it strikes me as kind of confused politics," the official said.

Zardari plans to meet with Bush this month, either in Washington or in New York at the U.N. General Assembly, U.S. officials said.

Adm. Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Wednesday that he had called for an overhaul of U.S. strategy, including greater U.S. military involvement in Pakistan's tribal areas, but gave no indication that orders had already been given.

"I'm not convinced that we're winning it in Afghanistan," Mullen told the House Armed Services Committee. But, he added, "I'm convinced we can."

"That is why I intend to commission and have looked -- are looking -- I'm looking at a new, more comprehensive military strategy for the region that covers both sides of that border," Mullen said. "That is why I pressed hard on my counterparts in Pakistan to do more against extremists and to let us do more to help them."

Mullen and other senior U.S. military officials have met repeatedly with Kiyani to urge a more robust offensive to roust Taliban, al-Qaeda and other militant fighters from safe havens in the rugged Pakistani border region.

Gillani, who heads Pakistan's first democratic government since 1999, told Bush during a Washington visit in July that he needed more time to implement an economic development strategy to pacify the border region.
But with rising troop deaths in Afghanistan, U.S. patience has run thin. On Tuesday, Bush announced he would send an additional Army combat brigade to Afghanistan early next year.

Previous military rules of engagement, agreed to by Pakistan, allowed U.S. forces to travel up to six miles across the border if they were in "hot pursuit" of fighters chased from inside Afghanistan. The senior Pakistani official said that Kiyani was told last month that failure to increase the tempo of Pakistani military operations and provide better intelligence for American cross-border air attacks could result in new rules.


"There was a conditionality," the Pakistani official said. "If we take care of certain things on our side, then the rules don't change." Improvements were "already being put into place," he said, attributing several recent U.S. strikes with Predator unmanned aircraft to Pakistani intelligence, and citing an attack this week by Pakistani security forces in the tribal region of Bajaur that reportedly left 100 fighters dead.

But a U.S. official, one of several who discussed the sensitive situation on the condition of anonymity, said that as far as the United States was concerned, "most things have been settled in terms of how we're going to proceed."
:lol:

September 12, 2008 Friday Ramazan 11, 1429
Welcome to DAWN,
Move to defuse tension in Pakistan-US ties
By Anwar Iqbal

WASHINGTON, Sept 11: On the seventh anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, talks of US raids into Fata seem to have strained America’s relations with Pakistan, which has so far been a key US ally in the war against terror.

Pakistan’s Ambassador in Washington Husain Haqqani spent part of his day at the White House meeting National Security and the rest on Capitol Hill trying to assure US lawmakers that his country remained a key partner in this war.

Mr Haqqani’s consultations with officials at the White House and the State Department focussed on a New York Times report that President George Bush had given secret orders in July authorising US armed forces to carry out ground assaults in Pakistan without seeking approval from Pakistan’s government.

Under this new policy, the US military will notify Pakistan’s government when it conducts raids, but will not seek its permission.

US official who spoke to other US media outlets after the NYT report was published said the orders were part of a broader push to assert US control over the Afghan-Pakistan border.

On Wednesday, US Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen said that the US military would revise its strategy for Afghanistan to include militant ‘safe havens’ in Pakistan in its area of operation.

The proposed measures followed a policy speech by President George W. Bush on Tuesday in which he said that more than half of the US troops released from Iraq would be sent to Afghanistan.

In Thursday’s Washington Post, columnist Dan Froomkin observed that the new US approach was “all about (for better or for worse) trying to take care of some outstanding business before Bush leaves office”.

The prestigious US Council on Foreign Relations noted that “new statements from high-level military officials in both the United States and Pakistan have brought debate over US cross-border raids into the country to a boil”.

The council said that these new developments had led analysts to wonder if “the United States will be able to work as smoothly with the country’s new government as they did with former President Pervez Musharraf”.

Ambassador Haqqani, however, rejected all such speculations as unfounded.

“It is our understanding that the kind of authorisation for US military actions in Pakistan (that The New York Times reported) has not been given,” said Mr Haqqani after his talks with officials at the White House.

“The US respects Pakistan’s sovereignty and looks at us as partners.”

The ambassador noted that last week’s US raid into South Waziristan did not bear fruit and did not advance the cause of the war against terror.

“The US wants to work in cooperation with us as we intend to do with them.”

He said that officials at the White House and the State Department had assured him that the US had “no aggressive designs or postures” towards Pakistan. “They appreciate the stance of President Zardari, PM Gilani and Army Chief Kayani on this issue,” he said.

On the Hill, the ambassador met members of the Armed Services Committee as part of the embassy’s efforts to remove “the negative impression created by irresponsible reports in the US and Pakistani media”.

Such reports, he said, were also having a negative impact on Pakistan’s efforts to get congressional approval for financing F-16 fighter jets Islamabad was buying from Washington.

“Overall, I find a lot of sympathy and understanding for Pakistan both on the Hill and in the administration,” he said.

“Media reports about authorisation for US raids into Pakistan are incorrect.”

The issue was also discussed at the White House where spokesman Sean McCormack, when asked to comment on the NYT report said: “We don’t control the stories … the only thing I will say about this that the US, Afghan, Pakistan and the rest of the world should have a real interest in the security situation along that border region, including in Fata.”

The State Department spokesman, however, did not say that the NYT story was incorrect or that President Bush had or had not authorised US military raids into Pakistan.

The United States, he said, had a clear interest as do the Pakistanis in combating violence and extremism in Fata and how it affected their country and the world.

Mr McCormack said that the US respected Pakistan sovereignty and had a good working relationship with the country led by President Zardari.

“We have a good channel of communication with Gen Kayani as well as with those who have an interest in fighting terrorism.”

Mr McCormack described President Zardari as “somebody who has been known to us and has been on the Pakistani political scene for some time”.The US, he said, looked forward to a good working relationship with him as he performed his duties as president.
:tsk::disagree::lol:



I guss , ASIF (ghadari) is affraid of his plans getting failed, and trying his best to difuse situation. i had put different posts in 1 because of recnt situations in the world & declining US power on the world stage. its the best time to face US in the ground, but our GOP still living in dreams. like a bird which sees a cat comming but just keep closing its eyes thinking, no danger!
USA's crunt govt. and its adminstration had became crazy and unwise therefore they had to lose everything right now:agree::tup:
 
.
sir now also same like before who they make this pipeline without taliban help karzai gov is nothing without kabul:cheesy:

they did ask Taliban for Trans-Afghan pipe line. Taliban didnt agree on term and conditions and some details r available on internet u can google them out.
IMO If Taliban grow very powerful to holdoff they will try to have deal with them, they are dead desperate for this pipe line.
 
.
they did ask Taliban for Trans-Afghan pipe line. Taliban didnt agree on term and conditions and some details r available on internet u can google them out.
IMO If Taliban grow very powerful to holdoff they will try to have deal with them, they are dead desperate for this pipe line.

Till the time Taliban were agreeing to US over that pipeline well US was dealing with the same Taliban but afterwards suddenly they became bad boys.

It realy make me feel pitty for those who support US in its stance that Taliban are the only bad boys.

What pitty on such people who dont have guts to accept that US was onboard with same Taliban for uncoal project in Afghanistan.
 
.
washingtonpost.com
Venezuela Joins Bolivia in Expelling U.S. Ambassador

By Juan Forero
Washington Post Foreign Service
Friday, September 12, 2008

BOGOTA, Colombia, Sept. 11 -- Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez told a throng of supporters Thursday that he is giving U.S. Ambassador Patrick Duddy 72 hours to leave the oil-rich country.

The populist leader said he issued the order in solidarity with his close ally in Bolivia, President Evo Morales, who on Wednesday ordered the expulsion of the U.S. ambassador in La Paz after accusing him of fomenting unrest. The United States said it has nothing to do with a rising tide of violent anti-government protests in Bolivia, which led to the deaths of at least eight demonstrators on Thursday.

Spicing his speech with expletives, Chávez said he was also recalling Venezuela's ambassador, Bernardo Álvarez, from Washington. The decision, announced before thousands of supporters in the city of Puerto Cabello, signals that Chávez is willing to escalate his long confrontation with the United States to solidify support before mayoral and gubernatorial elections in November.

"Go to hell, Yankees," he said as the crowd hollered in support.

Chávez said that "when there's a new government in the United States, we will send an ambassador, a government that respects the people of Latin America, the America of Simón Bolívar."


Relations have been particularly strained in recent days as U.S. officials have accused Venezuela of falling far short in the war on drugs in the Andes. U.S. and Colombian authorities say an increasing amount of cocaine is funneled through Venezuela, often with Venezuelan officials participating in the trafficking. Venezuelan officials angrily deny the charges.

Chávez on Thursday also said that the United States was behind a plot to assassinate him, and his government announced a reduction in flights from the United States on American carriers. That decision was made in retaliation after U.S. officials issued warnings about the safety of Venezuelan airports.

This week, Chávez also relished the arrival of two Russian strategic bombers in Venezuela. The Tu-160 bombers, which Russian officials said are not carrying live weapons, are flying training missions over the Caribbean until Monday, when they will return to Russia.

Although NATO fighters escorted the bombers on their long flight to Venezuela, U.S. officials have said they are closely monitoring the exercises.

Chávez said the arrival of the bombers counters Washington's influence in the region and puts the United States "on notice." The training exercises come after Moscow showed its displeasure with the Bush administration for sending warships to provide assistance to Georgia, which last month lost a short war with Russia.

On Wednesday, Chávez said he wanted to fly "one of those beasts" past Cuba and greet his friend and mentor, former Cuban president Fidel Castro. Pavel Androsov, the head of the Russian air force's long-distance command, told Interfax that Chávez's request would be considered.

"If they ask us, then fine, if they give us such an order, we will safely transport him and show him the Caribbean from above," Androsov said.


washingtonpost.com

One of these days i seriously wish we do the same as well, specially if these unilateral strikes are not put on hold. But thats not going to happen as long as Mr.10% is there to keep things in line with the US demands.:tsk:
 
.
In the wake of fresh attacks by US, GOP needs to evolve a strategy that would stop US from territorial violations of Pakistan. If GOP stops all fuel supplies and support to collation forces than US would be forced to beg her enemies Iran and Russia for fuel and logistic supplies through their territories.

We need not to be afraid of full scale war with US as she is not in a position to stage another conflict. But with global situation on our side with respect to Russia and Iran, we are safe to play this card.

Having said all that still I think Mr. Zardari has 10% chances of getting it right.
 
.
One of these days i seriously wish we do the same as well, specially if these unilateral strikes are not put on hold. But thats not going to happen as long as Mr.10% is there to keep things in line with the US demands.:tsk:

Dear hounrable ice cold,sir
the world is changing very sharply, & its aleady predicted that, US is going to lose its un justify powers. from RUSSIA to VENEZUELA , & from IRAN to CHINA + NORTH KOREA , international cummunity is getting united against the bulling of US. its a time to form a joint movement against this MADNESS, i guss there are a lot of examples....about resisting USA's imprlistic march.
 
.

By Syed Irfan Raza and Iftikhar A. Khan

ISLAMABAD, Sept 11: The government expressed its determination on Thursday to defend the country’s borders in the wake of increasing air attacks by US-led forces on tribal areas and American and British demands that international security forces be allowed to target what they call Al Qaeda ‘sanctuaries’ in areas bordering Afghanistan.

“We would take all possible steps to safeguard the country’s borders,” Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza

Gilani told reporters after laying the foundation of the Zero Point interchange here on Thursday.

“The nation should not be upset by the statement of US Admiral Mike Mullen who threatened more strikes inside Pakistan,” he said, adding that the government was capable of protecting the country’s borders.

Commenting on Chief of the Army Staff Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani’s statement that the country’s borders would be defended at all cost and no external force would be allowed to conduct operations inside Pakistan, the prime minister said the statement of the army chief reflected the government policy. The government had the same views as expressed by the army chief on defending the country’s sovereignty and integrity, he added.

COMMANDERS ENDORSE stand: Top army commanders on Thursday discussed the national security situation with reference to threats of US incursions in the tribal areas and endorsed the army chief’s statement about defending the country’s sovereignty.

A meeting of corps commanders was held against the backdrop of a change in the US strategy in the region and US Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen’s remarks indicating possibility of more air strikes inside Pakistan “to prevent more attacks on the American people”.

Although, no official statement was released by the ISPR after the first day of the conference, sources told Dawn that the corps commanders had fully endorsed the policy statement given by Army Chief Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani that no foreign country was allowed to conduct military operations inside Pakistan.

The meeting discussed the situation in areas bordering Afghanistan, the statement by the Nato spokesman that it would not become part of the new US strategy involving more raids inside Pakistan and matters pertaining to relations with the US in the context of war on terror.

This was the first meeting of corps commanders after the resignation of Gen (retd) Pervez Musharraf.

The sources said that Gen Kayani briefed the commanders on his meeting with President Asif Ali Zardari.
 
.

By Saeed Shah, McClatchy Newspapers

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — Pakistan's army chief, responding to a series of U.S. military strikes into Pakistan's tribal areas, pledged Friday to safeguard the country's territorial integrity and claimed the full backing of Pakistan's elected civilian government.

Gen. Ashfaq Kayani issued the statement after U.S. forces Friday apparently launched yet another missile attack against a house in Pakistan's tribal area, killing at least 12 people.

Kayani spoke at the end of a two-day meeting of top commanders to consider how to respond to the U.S. incursions when the latest attack occurred. Before the meeting began, Kayani described a U.S. ground assault into Pakistani territory as "reckless." His statement at the end of the meeting appeared to warn of a possible direct confrontation with U.S. forces if the incursions continue.

"All elements of the National Power under the new democratic leadership will safeguard the territorial integrity of Pakistan with full support and backing of the people of Pakistan ," the army chief of staff said. He said there was a "complete unanimity of views" between the elected government and the Pakistan army.

In Washington , Defense Secretary Robert Gates indicated there would be no change in U.S. operations, but he didn't confirm the incursions into Pakistan . "Our commanders have the authorities they need to protect our troops in Afghanistan ," he told reporters. Other U.S. officials discounted Kayani's statement as aimed at Pakistan's domestic audience.

The Pakistani rhetoric, suggesting a possible rupture between the two countries, comes as U.S.-led NATO forces are losing ground in Afghanistan and insurgent forces there are making use of their sanctuaries in Pakistan's tribal areas. Meanwhile, the U.S. military leadership disclosed this week that the United States has yet to develop a strategy that will focus on Pakistan as well as Afghanistan .

Pakistani public opinion was already incensed by the U.S. airstrikes into its territory, which have intensified over the last few weeks and have killed civilians as well as militants. That turned to uproar after the first ground assault by U.S. commandos onto its soil earlier this month, in South Waziristan, another part of the tribal territory that runs along the Afghan border. The country was stunned over a New York Times report this week President Bush had secretly authorized the new policy of incursions into Pakistan in July.

Asif Ali Zardari, head of the ruling Pakistan People's Party who last week became the first democratically elected president of Pakistan in nine years, has tried to challenge public opinion by declaring the U.S.-led fight against terror as " Pakistan's own war."

But his aides privately admitted that the task of selling the alliance with Washington had become much harder as a result of the American incursion. The biggest opposition group, Nawaz Sharif's party, demanded Friday that Zardari call a special session of parliament as "the nation is under threat of war" from the United States .

"The democratic government is caught between a proverbial rock and a hard place," said Tariq Fatemi , a former Pakistani ambassador to Washington . "Mr. Zardari and the People's Party wants to be tough with the militants but they do not have support in the country, where there is growing anti-American sentiment largely fueled by the indiscriminate missile attacks and cross-border incursions."

But Washington may have been equally disturbed by evidence this week of the links between notorious Taliban commander Jalaluddin Haqqani and al Qaida. When a U.S. missile, fired from an unmanned aircraft, hit Haqqani's compound in North Waziristan, four al Qaida operatives were reported to be among the dead. Haqqani is also close to Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence military spy agency, putting the country's security establishment in an indirect relationship with the terror group.

A further domestic danger for Islamabad is a schism in the army. Military analysts believe Kayani may have given tacit consent for limited ground raids, but it is unlikely that a majority of the corps commanders, each of whom controls thousands of men and from whom the army chief derives his authority, are on board.

"What would probably endanger him (Kayani) most is if he continued to support, or be viewed as supporting, incursions, and they appeared ineffective and corps commanders were increasingly unhappy," said Seth Jones , an analyst at RAND Corp , a private U.S. research organization. "If this split widens, then I think you'll get a very serious problem."

U.S. and NATO commanders have made clear that the war against the Taliban cannot be won in Afghanistan if militants continue to enjoy sanctuary in Pakistan's tribal belt. But U.S. hit-and-withdraw raids like the operation seen in North Waziristan last week can only eliminate a few Taliban or al Qaida leaders. They cannot clear the territory of militants or hold it. That would require the Pakistan army to act, which may be the response the Americans are trying to provoke.

"Why are the Americans coming to Pakistan ? Because they are being threatened, because of missiles being fired against them from Pakistani territory," said Farrukh Saleem , executive director of the Center for Research and Security Studies , an independent think tank in Islamabad . "Either we take care of them (the militants) or they will have to."
 
.
World News Bulletin: Pakistan Forces 'Kill Up To100 Militants' - International - redOrbit

SECURITY officials in Pakistan said last night their forces had killed up to 100 militants on the Afghan border.

An official said that "80 to 100 militants were killed in Bajaur; most of them are foreigners". There was no independent confirmation last night.

The announcement came as it emerged President George W Bush had secretly approved US military raids inside Pakistan against the militants.

US counter-terror operations along the border are highly unpopular in Pakistan, whose new leadership is trying hard to show independence from Washington. Pakistan has said it will not allow foreign forces onto its territory.
 
.
Does anyone know if the defence forces of Pakistan have so far taken any concrete steps to defend the sovereignty of Pakistan from the US aggression ? It's the moment of truth for Pakistan, the time to dump its fake (the US) friend and find a new friend in Russia, Venezuela and Cuba and consolidate its traditional friendship with China abd Iran..
 
.
US Congressman slams Bush on Pakistan incursion

Saturday, 13 Sep, 2008 | 02:50 PM PKT |



WASHINGTON: Democratic Congressman Dennis Kucinich has denounced a reported US move to conduct raids into Pakistani territory, saying such incursions from across the Afghan border flout international law and endanger world security.
Instead, the former presidential candidate advocated the ‘situation requires intense diplomacy,’ and urged Congress to intervene legislatively to block pursuance of the dangerous path.
‘The President is once again violating international law by invading yet another nation which has not attacked the United States. Once again, he places our troops and our reputation at risk. Once again, he creates more enemies for America,’ Kucinich said in a statement.
‘Pakistan’s objections to the illegal US Predator strikes inside the country’s border should be a clear indication of how Pakistan would respond to another illegal attack upon their sovereign nation,’ he added.
The lawmaker added by resorting to such moves in the nuclearised region, the US is ‘playing with fire, creating more instability, killing innocent Pakistanis and imperiling our troops in the region.’
The congressman from Ohio said the US Administration ‘not only ignores the will of an ally, but risks expanding the failed war in Afghanistan into Pakistan. This is unnecessary and it is illegal. Congress must intervene legislatively and legally to block (President) Bush from continuing down this dangerous path,’ he stated.
Pakistan has reacted strongly to the reported suggestions, saying only Pakistani forces have the right to take anti-terror actions on its soil.
The White House on Friday refused to comment on reports claiming President Bush had authorised raids into Pakistan by US troops deployed in Afghanistan on anti-terrorism mission.
DAWN.COM | World | US Congressman slams Bush on Pakistan
 
Last edited:
.

Latest posts

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom