NATO Supply Not Suspended, Stopped Permanently
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Scarface-Don
But what would happen if US-Pakistani relations deteriorate even further and the USA cuts all of its aid to Pakistan? Surely Pakistan itself would become more vulnerable to attacks by the Pakistani Taliban and other extremist groups?
At that point Pak has no incentive to participate in the US's war in Afghanistan at all, which means that the Pak Taliban have no reason to attack Pakistan. Remember that the TTP only formed years after the US-Afghan war had been going on and one of the primary grievances is that of drone attacks on Pashtunistan.
Original post by Scarface-Don
But what would happen if US-Pakistani relations deteriorate even further and the USA cuts all of its aid to Pakistan? Surely Pakistan itself would become more vulnerable to attacks by the Pakistani Taliban and other extremist groups?
If Pakistan is completely abandoned then who knows what will happen between pak and India and assuming the worst i.e. war eventually Pakistan becomes nuclear-armed jihadist state where its weapons aren't secure from terrorist groups. And that's not good news for America.
Original post by B-Man.
In addition, Pakistan is to boycott a global conference on Afghanistan in Bon, amid mass protests of Pakistanis demanding that US-Pakistani ties be cut. Also Russia and China have said that violation of Pakistan's sovereignty and territorial integrity was unacceptable.
Thoughts? Is the breakdown of ties between the two nations good?, bad? What would a permanent halt to 50% of NATO's supplies mean for their operations in Afghanistan?
Thoughts? Is the breakdown of ties between the two nations good?, bad? What would a permanent halt to 50% of NATO's supplies mean for their operations in Afghanistan?
Russia and China say a lot of things, without ever actually doing anything.
if NATO cant continue ground operations, its obvious they will just step up air strikes along with US. It would make sense for pakistans army to stop letting terrorists fire over their shoulders at the americans if they want to avoid further strikes
Original post by Indo-Chinese Food
Russia and China say a lot of things, without ever actually doing anything.
I don't expect them to do anything, except maybe China and even then there is a limit.
Original post by Indo-Chinese Food
if NATO cant continue ground operations, its obvious they will just step up air strikes along with US.
You recognise that NATO cannot carry out airstrikes unilaterally. Pakistan Air Force interceptors have the ability to stop NATO airstrikes in their tracks.
Original post by Indo-Chinese Food
It would make sense for pakistans army to stop letting terrorists fire over their shoulders at the americans if they want to avoid further strikes
The US will not be in a rush to continue these strikes with the nonchalance you seem to be implying here. They are already pleading with Pak to return to talks and undo the closure of the border.
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by ak137
Foreign aid to Pakistan was stopped in July i believe (or at least was halted). Please correct me if i am wrong.
Foreign aid to Pakistan was stopped in July i believe (or at least was halted). Please correct me if i am wrong.
ONly military aid (weapons, tech etc) which was orignally suppossed tobe quite significant, Aid from US has been one of pakistans biggest earners in terms of its overall gdp. i doubt it can afford to tell the us to piss off. US has done plenty to piss off pakistan over the years and they are still co-perating - i doubt they really want to become usa;s out and out enemy, look whats happened to the other regiemes that pissed america off.
Original post by B-Man.
You recognise that NATO cannot carry out airstrikes unilaterally. Pakistan Air Force interceptors have the ability to stop NATO airstrikes in their tracks. .
You recognise that NATO cannot carry out airstrikes unilaterally. Pakistan Air Force interceptors have the ability to stop NATO airstrikes in their tracks. .
Like they way they stopped the last one you mean
? I doubt pak would get into a dog fight with nato fighters, despite the fact they are inferior in terms of tech, it wouldnt be a wise decision politically- they are more likely just to bitch about it afterwards.
Against US fighters it would just be carnage- even if the pak fighters were quick enough to engage them in the first place, or actually realised US were in their airspace (ala the bin laden mission)
.
Original post by B-Man.
The US will not be in a rush to continue these strikes with the nonchalance you seem to be implying here. They are already pleading with Pak to return to talks and remove the closure of the border.
The US will not be in a rush to continue these strikes with the nonchalance you seem to be implying here. They are already pleading with Pak to return to talks and remove the closure of the border.
US fly into pakistan with unmanned air strikes on a regualr basis, not all are santioned by pakistan. Re-opening the border makes a lot of other issues easier for them, particualrly policing the border effectively, which pakistan is unable or unwilling to do itself.
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by B-Man.
Fair enough, I want to go back to your other point though. Do you think that the US have to withdraw now, if relations aren't restored? Tell me if I'm wrong, but I thought you supported the war in Afghanistan, early withdrawal will probably lead to the revival of the Taliban. Is that something that you think the US and NATO have to accept in the potential scenario of Pak living up to it's promise?
It was not stopped, it was cut, by £500m I believe.
It was not stopped, it was cut, by £500m I believe.
I support it but I don' t think we can achieve anything there, and without Pakistan support it will only get worse. God only knows what will Pakistan will do though, once America has gone they are likely going ot have a civil war next door and it will o doubt continue to spill into their country
Maybe if Pakistan got its own damn house in order, NATO wouldn't be flying missions, doing their interior policing for them.
I don't know about the specifics of this attack, but most of the attacks in Pakistan are pre-emptive, because so many fighters spill across the border.mwhat should NATO do, wait until they cross the border to whack them? That's a luxury that, I dare say, they can rarely afford. When Pakistan sorts its **** out, starts being an actual ally and stops the flood of foreign fighters (half of who, are helped by the Pakistani intelligence services anyway) I to Afghanistan, I'll be the first one to criticise any further raids. But until such a time, I think it's fair game.
Rain upon me neg rep, oh wise ones.
I don't know about the specifics of this attack, but most of the attacks in Pakistan are pre-emptive, because so many fighters spill across the border.mwhat should NATO do, wait until they cross the border to whack them? That's a luxury that, I dare say, they can rarely afford. When Pakistan sorts its **** out, starts being an actual ally and stops the flood of foreign fighters (half of who, are helped by the Pakistani intelligence services anyway) I to Afghanistan, I'll be the first one to criticise any further raids. But until such a time, I think it's fair game.
Rain upon me neg rep, oh wise ones.
Original post by CyclopsRock
Maybe if Pakistan got its own damn house in order, NATO wouldn't be flying missions, doing their interior policing for them.
I don't know about the specifics of this attack, but most of the attacks in Pakistan are pre-emptive, because so many fighters spill across the border.mwhat should NATO do, wait until they cross the border to whack them? That's a luxury that, I dare say, they can rarely afford. When Pakistan sorts its **** out, starts being an actual ally and stops the flood of foreign fighters (half of who, are helped by the Pakistani intelligence services anyway) I to Afghanistan, I'll be the first one to criticise any further raids. But until such a time, I think it's fair game.
Rain upon me neg rep, oh wise ones.
I don't know about the specifics of this attack, but most of the attacks in Pakistan are pre-emptive, because so many fighters spill across the border.mwhat should NATO do, wait until they cross the border to whack them? That's a luxury that, I dare say, they can rarely afford. When Pakistan sorts its **** out, starts being an actual ally and stops the flood of foreign fighters (half of who, are helped by the Pakistani intelligence services anyway) I to Afghanistan, I'll be the first one to criticise any further raids. But until such a time, I think it's fair game.
Rain upon me neg rep, oh wise ones.
excuse me how does that justify killing 25 soldiers.
If this was done by pakistani soldiers on british or american soldiers everyone would be like oh they killed our heroes who are fighting for this country.
What i find funny is that Nato, and the british american alliacne have been there for 10 years and still havent beaten some cavemen.
Excuse me america are the worst allies with there own soverignty and interests at heart.
Where we gonna start a war next, Iran.
Then we blame muslims when they hate the west.
Immigration is really high in this countries and the people coming in aernt armed and everyones getting pissed off, what would you do if armed forces came in and tried to take over your countries.
Iraq war= FAIL
Afghan war= Fail
Take their nuclear weapons off them and just leave the region. Simples.
Removing American dependancy on themselves is a colossal error by the Pakistanis. Part of the reason for the success of their two-faced policies is that bombing British troops in Afghanistan could be overlooked if we saved twice as many British troops through improved supply routes.
Without those supply routes, Pakistan has lost a major tool of influence on the allies and Afghan state.
Personally I suspect that the permanently isn't so permanent, unless they really are that stupid. Other states will be happy to have the supply routes and consequent influence, even the Russians. Imagine how happy Putin would be if he could say to the Americans "don't base those missiles in Europe or I'll cut off your routes to Afghanistan". Pakistan just declared away a source of influence that is vital for its survival. It is increasingly becoming just a terrorist state without anything positive to offer the west. Those are very dangerous waters.
Without those supply routes, Pakistan has lost a major tool of influence on the allies and Afghan state.
Personally I suspect that the permanently isn't so permanent, unless they really are that stupid. Other states will be happy to have the supply routes and consequent influence, even the Russians. Imagine how happy Putin would be if he could say to the Americans "don't base those missiles in Europe or I'll cut off your routes to Afghanistan". Pakistan just declared away a source of influence that is vital for its survival. It is increasingly becoming just a terrorist state without anything positive to offer the west. Those are very dangerous waters.
Original post by B-Man.
Nato were aware of Pakistan's border check posts in the area and to fire on them still and murder 24 of it's soldiers is unacceptable. Not to mention that the base is in Pakistani territory where US soldiers have no business operating in.
If the territory is Pakistani then they are responsible for the terrorists that operate out of it as well.
States can be forgiven for one terrorist cell performing a surprise attack, that cannot be stopped.
Pakistan has an entire army operating out of its terroritary. An army it is known to shelter (Osama Bin Laden) and supply with weapons, money and intelligence (ISI).
Pakistan has so much control over the Taliban it is really Pakistans "Second Army". If you host an army, feed it, supply it and support it...you really cannot complain if the soldiers in your "official army" start getting killed when they're involved in joint operations with the unofficial army of Pakistan (which likes to attack NATO from positions very close to the offical army's military posts).
Original post by B-Man.
In addition, Pakistan is to boycott a global conference on Afghanistan in Bon, amid mass protests of Pakistanis demanding that US-Pakistani ties be cut. Also Russia and China have said that violation of Pakistan's sovereignty and territorial integrity was unacceptable.
Thoughts? Is the breakdown of ties between the two nations good?, bad? What would a permanent halt to 50% of NATO's supplies mean for their operations in Afghanistan?
Thoughts? Is the breakdown of ties between the two nations good?, bad? What would a permanent halt to 50% of NATO's supplies mean for their operations in Afghanistan?
I really don't care about the breakdown in relationships, but at least the USA will get told off at last and they should know that they aren't the world police, and the fact they must stop their own hypocrisy, they complain about every other country in the world, but when they do it, its all good.
Though it could also be bad, but the USA already suspended their military aid, so they go nothing to lose. At most USA, NATO forces will become even more vulnerable as they don't have a strong supply source.
Original post by ijaz
excuse me how does that justify killing 25 soldiers.
If this was done by pakistani soldiers on british or american soldiers everyone would be like oh they killed our heroes who are fighting for this country.
What i find funny is that Nato, and the british american alliacne have been there for 10 years and still havent beaten some cavemen.
Excuse me america are the worst allies with there own soverignty and interests at heart.
Where we gonna start a war next, Iran.
Then we blame muslims when they hate the west.
Immigration is really high in this countries and the people coming in aernt armed and everyones getting pissed off, what would you do if armed forces came in and tried to take over your countries.
Iraq war= FAIL
Afghan war= Fail
If this was done by pakistani soldiers on british or american soldiers everyone would be like oh they killed our heroes who are fighting for this country.
What i find funny is that Nato, and the british american alliacne have been there for 10 years and still havent beaten some cavemen.
Excuse me america are the worst allies with there own soverignty and interests at heart.
Where we gonna start a war next, Iran.
Then we blame muslims when they hate the west.
Immigration is really high in this countries and the people coming in aernt armed and everyones getting pissed off, what would you do if armed forces came in and tried to take over your countries.
Iraq war= FAIL
Afghan war= Fail
Well that's a whole lot of irrelevant stuff. I was referring to the repeated suggestions in this thread that Pakistan has been letting this slide for too long. I don't think it's true - they have no choice, because if they can't stop the militants pouring out of their country, they shouldn't expect to have their borders respected.
I don't know much about this case, and nor do you. Nor do any of us. Maybe it was an accident, and if so, that's a tremendous shame. We shouldn't tolerate mistakes, but not should be make the miscalculation of attributing a mistake of implementation with a mistake of policy - by this I mean that if it turns out to be a horrible mistake, that isn't a reason against the NATO not violating Pakistani borders, that's a reason for them to sort their **** out when choosing targets - in the same way that a referee in football giving away a free kick for someone being offside when they weren't offside isn't a reason to get rid of the offside rule.
But it might not have been an accident. It might have been entirely intentional, based on intelligence that these soldiers were part of a splinter group. It wouldn't be the first time - the military in Pakistan is not known for its pious lack of corruption. There has been some pretty damning evidence that, along with the security services, they've been doing more to help the militants than stop them.
If Pakistan did that to Britain, yes, it would be an act of war. But we actually control our borders. We control what goes on inside them. If the IRA (for some reason) started shelling a Pakistani outpost in Calais, then I don't think anyone would object to them striking these people. But they don't because we can control the flow of people coming out of our country (and, of course, Pakistan don't have a military base in France.)
Of course the US has their own interests at heart. What country doesn't. Alliances form when the interests of multiple countries align.
The rest of your post is irrelevant to the thread.
Original post by Medican
Interesting. Is there a source for that?
Is there a source to say different?
The taliban have been over thrown and a goverment established, army and police trained. The taliban are a minority that people in Afganistan don't want.
However, there are now more insurgents.
I dont see how you can really dispute this.
Original post by ijaz
excuse me how does that justify killing 25 soldiers.
If this was done by pakistani soldiers on british or american soldiers everyone would be like oh they killed our heroes who are fighting for this country.
What i find funny is that Nato, and the british american alliacne have been there for 10 years and still havent beaten some cavemen.
Excuse me america are the worst allies with there own soverignty and interests at heart.
Where we gonna start a war next, Iran.
Then we blame muslims when they hate the west.
Immigration is really high in this countries and the people coming in aernt armed and everyones getting pissed off, what would you do if armed forces came in and tried to take over your countries.
Iraq war= FAIL
Afghan war= Fail
If this was done by pakistani soldiers on british or american soldiers everyone would be like oh they killed our heroes who are fighting for this country.
What i find funny is that Nato, and the british american alliacne have been there for 10 years and still havent beaten some cavemen.
Excuse me america are the worst allies with there own soverignty and interests at heart.
Where we gonna start a war next, Iran.
Then we blame muslims when they hate the west.
Immigration is really high in this countries and the people coming in aernt armed and everyones getting pissed off, what would you do if armed forces came in and tried to take over your countries.
Iraq war= FAIL
Afghan war= Fail
Afganistan hasn't been conquered once in history (even after many attempts by many nations) due to it being so mountainous.
And Muslims who hate the west tend to be radical, facist Muslims who despise democracy.
Original post by B-Man.
Nato were aware of Pakistan's border check posts in the area and to fire on them still and murder 24 of it's soldiers is unacceptable. Not to mention that the base is in Pakistani territory where US soldiers have no business operating in.
Use of murder here isn't correct
Original post by RyanT
If the territory is Pakistani then they are responsible for the terrorists that operate out of it as well.
That's fair, but it was Mohmand Agency that was attacked. An area that Pakistan's Security forces cleared of militants back in September. There is also no evidence that there were militants in that area and The Pakistan Army maintains an 8,200 man presence in Mohmand Agency following military operations to clear the region of militants.
Original post by RyanT
Pakistan has an entire army operating out of its terroritary. An army it is known to shelter (Osama Bin Laden) and supply with weapons, money and intelligence (ISI).
Who are you referring to here?
Original post by RyanT
Pakistan has so much control over the Taliban it is really Pakistans "Second Army". If you host an army, feed it, supply it and support it...you really cannot complain if the soldiers in your "official army" start getting killed when they're involved in joint operations with the unofficial army of Pakistan (which likes to attack NATO from positions very close to the offical army's military posts).
Wait, what? Are you saying that those soldiers where fighting alongside the Taliban when US aircrafts attacked?
Original post by DdotT
Afganistan hasn't been conquered once in history (even after many attempts by many nations) due to it being so mountainous.
And Muslims who hate the west tend to be radical, facist Muslims who despise democracy.
And Muslims who hate the west tend to be radical, facist Muslims who despise democracy.
I think it was conquered by Alexander the Great.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Suspended studies queries
- [Official Thread] Russian invasion of Ukraine
- Which 2024 election will be most significant for the world?
- I got excluded for this, is this right?
- Muslim grouping OIC says measures needed to prevent Quran desecration
- Vaping in College
- year 11 expelsion
- 60 day funding
- can someone help me with gcse physics
- does a two day suspension affect my chances of getting into a good college/university
- Fees and Payments
- I got expelled in the middle of year 10
- Affect of secondary school behaviour Sixth Form Application
- Fixed term role or permanent?
- Suspending my postgraduate Master’s course
- I have no friends, no relationship, nothing, I'm rejected for my Nationality
- Intermission
- Disabled Receiving PIP Suspend Course
- Will World War 3 happen soon?
- What did I do wrong?
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
