U.S. In Afghanistan Firing On Pakistan (2 Viewers)

[DadsDream]

Don't look now, ya'll, but we're firing across the border of our nuclear armed ally in the region.

"Self Defense" Against Taliban Fighters Reason From Cross-Border Artillery
BAGRAM AIR BASE, Afghanistan, Feb. 11, 2007

(AP) Asserting a right to self-defense, American forces in eastern Afghanistan launched artillery rounds into Pakistan to strike Taliban fighters who attack remote U.S. outposts, the commander of U.S. forces in the region said Sunday.

The skirmishes are politically sensitive because Pakistan's government, regarded by the Bush administration as an important ally against Islamic extremists, has denied that it allows U.S. forces to strike inside its territory.

The use of the largely ungoverned Waziristan area of Pakistan as a haven for Taliban and al Qaeda fighters has become a greater irritant between Washington and Islamabad since Pakistan put in place a peace agreement there in September that was intended to stop cross-border incursions.

READ MORE
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/02/11/world/main2458459.shtml

 

[SaintMeaux]

Unfortunately, Pakistan cannot have it's cake and eat it too. They are either our ally, or they stand with the majority of the Middle East. I believe they are mutually exclusive.

 

[DadsDream]

I was shocked to read some of the reader comments under that CBS article. The first one was roughly "Is this legal? Can we impeach?!!!!"

Is this legal to fire into Pakistan without their consent (assuming they haven't granted consent)? I'm salivating at the thought that if it isn't perhaps this will be sufficient grounds to finally start impeachment proceedings on Bush and Cheney! I agree it sounds like they're trying to get people okay with this step of firing into other countries so that they can do the same with Iran. Crazy!
Posted by SamTheTVCat at 12:47 AM : Feb 12, 2007

 

[SaintMeaux]

I was shocked to read some of the reader comments under that CBS article. The first one was roughly "Is this legal? Can we impeach?!!!!"

Is this legal to fire into Pakistan without their consent (assuming they haven't granted consent)? I'm salivating at the thought that if it isn't perhaps this will be sufficient grounds to finally start impeachment proceedings on Bush and Cheney! I agree it sounds like they're trying to get people okay with this step of firing into other countries so that they can do the same with Iran. Crazy!
Posted by SamTheTVCat at 12:47 AM : Feb 12, 2007

Crazy is right...

Musharaff will publicly state he is sticking to his guns, but you have to believe that he has given the U.S. free reign knowing that the Taliban is one of the groups that would like to see him exterminated. How many near misses has he had in the last 5 years?:dunno:

 

[DadsDream]

They've been trying to kill him off for years, but now they're stirring up the population against him. That he cannot allow.

They've infiltrated his armed forces, so he's got to get some help.

I agree, Musharraf will probably make a public show of protest, but you've got to believe he knew and consented about our guys firing across the border.

 

[blackadder]

They've been trying to kill him off for years, but now they're stirring up the population against him. That he cannot allow.

They've infiltrated his armed forces, so he's got to get some help.

I agree, Musharraf will probably make a public show of protest, but you've got to believe he knew and consented about our guys firing across the border.

This is a much bigger issue than Iran. Pakistan has nukes and the means to deliver them. And certain elements in Pakistan are positively looney.

Even the Iranian mullahs were enemies of the Taleban.

If Mushareff gets offed and you have chaos in Pakistan, who's minding the nukes? This is a much more realistic scenario than Iran building a bomb and launching it just for the heck of it.

And here we are obsessed with Iran...

 

[dapperdan]

This action is directly tied to the Waziristan Accord signed late last summer and the Pakistani governement hoisting the white flag. Since then, the Taliban, predictably, has failed to live up to any of their sides of the bargain, and have gradually taken over control of the region.

http://billroggio.com/archives/2006/09/the_fall_of_wazirist.php

http://billroggio.com/archives/2007/02/pakistan_peace_in_ou.php

 

[dapperdan]

This is a much bigger issue than Iran. Pakistan has nukes and the means to deliver them. And certain elements in Pakistan are positively looney.

Even the Iranian mullahs were enemies of the Taleban.

If Mushareff gets offed and you have chaos in Pakistan, who's minding the nukes? This is a much more realistic scenario than Iran building.

And here we are obsessed with Iran...

It's tough to rank. Both are major problems for different reasons. For sheer terror, allowing terrorists the capabilities to get their hands on nukes, no question that Pakistan is a greater immediate threat.

But as far as using nuclear force to project power in the region and control the free flow of oil, then Iran is a much more looming threat. I would hardly dismiss the Iranian problem.

 

[BullDawg]

Is anyone still surprised we signed a mutual defense pact with India?

/hedgingbets

 

[blackadder]

It's tough to rank. Both are major problems for different reasons. For sheer terror, allowing terrorists the capabilities to get their hands on nukes, no question that Pakistan is a greater immediate threat.

But as far as using nuclear force to project power in the region and control the free flow of oil, then Iran is a much more looming threat. I would hardly dismiss the Iranian problem.

Containing it is not dismissing it.

They may be religious zealots, but I don't believe the Iranian leadership is that irrational. The Shiite religion and this "hidden Imam" are supposed to triumph and rule in justness and wisdom, on Earth in the here and now.

That can't happen if Iran is turned to nuclear wasteland and they know it.

If Iran, if they had a nuclear weapon and a missile capable of delivering it (which they don't), decided to launch just for kicks, Tehran would probably burn before their missile hit its target.

The launch would be detected and Israel's submarines in the Indian Ocean, armed with nuclear tipped cruise missiles, would retaliate in minutes.

I agree that it would be better that none of these countries have nuclear weapons. But until you get everyone in the region to give them up and submit to inspections, and I mean everyone, then you are going to have to rely on the M.A.D. doctrine.

In the meantime, its Pakistan that gives me the willies, not Iran.

 

[CCL36]

This is a much bigger issue than Iran. Pakistan has nukes and the means to deliver them. And certain elements in Pakistan are positively looney.

Even the Iranian mullahs were enemies of the Taleban.

If Mushareff gets offed and you have chaos in Pakistan, who's minding the nukes? This is a much more realistic scenario than Iran building a bomb and launching it just for the heck of it.

And here we are obsessed with Iran...

They are both real problems...by your observations you see how hard it is to contain the nuclear threat of Pakistan how much more difficult would it be to contain Iran if they had nuclear capability.

Honestly things are out of control and no person or group of people will solve things, not in terms of any enduring peace. The momentum of this world is inevitible at this stage: climate and environmental problems abound, new and more deadly diseases, and not to mention the hatred and murder that is displayed througout the world which will only be acentuated with the disimination of our technolgocial advances in regards to killing one another.

From a Christian perspective: I wonder how anti-christ is going to put a bandaid on this worlds situation -appearing to solve the worlds problems to the extent that the world will follow him. (only to see the false peace he will establish disintigrate into the final war of this age.)

 

[varanook]

They are both real problems...by your observations you see how hard it is to contain the nuclear threat of Pakistan how much more difficult would it be to contain Iran if they had nuclear capability.

Honestly things are out of control and no person or group of people will solve things, not in terms of any enduring peace. The momentum of this world is inevitible at this stage: climate and environmental problems abound, new and more deadly diseases, and not to mention the hatred and murder that is displayed througout the world which will only be acentuated with the disimination of our technolgocial advances in regards to killing one another.

From a Christian perspective: I wonder how anti-christ is going to put a bandaid on this worlds situation -appearing to solve the worlds problems to the extent that the world will follow him. (only to see the false peace he will establish disintigrate into the final war of this age.)

No peace in Israel yet.

It will be worse when the Anti-Christ comes.

 

[blackadder]

No peace in Israel yet.

It will be worse when the Anti-Christ comes.

Well that is part of the problem. Most of the people in Bush's ear are too Israel-centric in their world view.

As a result they have taken our eyes off the ball in terms of America's core best interests.

Bin Laden is still running free and in Pakistan you have exisiting nukes within fathomable reach of Taleban sympathizers. If there is any place that some rouge will get its hands on nukes, Pakistan has to be close to the top of the list RIGHT NOW.

But our policy is try to maneuver into a war with Iran???

Iran borders Pakistan. When the war spreads to yet another Muslim country it can not be predicted how this will effect internal politics in Pakistan. The law of unintended consequences might lead to a chain of events that results in Mushareffs assasination, delivering the nukes to the Taleban.

These things have a way of spiraling out of control and we have arrogant SOBs running the show right now who refuse to consider that they are not masters of every detail.

Clearly they are not.

 

[varanook]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,251450,00.html

 

[rob021275]

This whole house of cards we call "relative" Middle East peace (and I use that term very lightly considering what is happening in Iraq, Lebanon, and the usual Israeli/Palestinian eye-for-an-eye mentality) is built on the premise that, given their historical dominance over their vastly more populated enemies, no one wants to engage Israel alone. But if Iran somehow gets the means to deliver a nuclear weapon to Israel (which isn't that ridiculous at the rate we're headed -- everybody remember the Scuds Saddam fired into Israel during the first Gulf War?), then all hell will break loose.

Iran needs to be stopped, and I hope we do it rather than Israel. The Muslim world will think twice against taking on the U.S. rather than their scriptural and historical (and decidedly smaller, closer, and less populated) enemy.