NationStates Jolt Archive

KABUL (AFP) - US-led and Afghan troops struck Taliban posts inside Pakistan, which denied giving permission, as new clashes left more than 30 rebels dead and there were claims Sunday of civilian casualties.

The US-led coalition said it received the go-ahead from Pakistan to strike across the border on Saturday, but this was rejected by the chief military spokesman in Islamabad.
...
"There was no attack, no firing from our side of the border. And there was no permission asked by them or given by us," Major General Waheed Arshad said.
...
Pakistani officials have said repeatedly they would not allow any foreign troops to hunt militants on its soil, and insist they are doing what they can to hunt down the extremists.

US President George W. Bush this month refused to rule out unilateral US strikes on Pakistani soil if specific intelligence pinpointed top Al-Qaeda leaders.

Sources: Yahoo/AFP/OccNEWS
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070826/wl_sthasia_afp/afghanistanusunrest_070826193341
This is a follow up of a POLL-thread I posted a while ago..

I wonder what will be the long term consequences of this strike on an ally.
Most likely Musharaf (sp?) will suck it up.. suck it and swallow it with a smile.

I guess that is what allies are supposed to do.. rite? (xept Israel of course)

Its not an opinion about Pakistan is a bad or good country.

It is about sovereignty. Other countries should respect the borders of any another country which is something very difficult for US of A.

I would not like it either that US of A is messing in MY country (oh and I am sure they do)

What would happen if Russia would use some rockets to a building IN Us of A. Just cause they say some ‘terrorists’ are seeking shelter…

And suppose that one single American would lose his life…

That could be a start of World War III

more likely if pakistan gets a truely representative government instead of a military leader whose puppet strings can be pulled by the international corporatocracy. with all this al-CIA-da as an excuse and a smoke screen to hide the real agenda.

about the only thing that's more then half likely to be true, is that somebody somewhere is shooting at someone else, or someone who is supposedly someone else or something. any explanations as to who or how or why, that come from the corporate media, as sam clemins rightly saw it, need to be taken with a very large grain of salt.

i'm not saying there can't be SOME truth in anything we hear, only that we can never count on there being very much of it, nor of being able to tell which is which.

if american troops, or other support, are involved in asualting someplace, well, where aren't they? but other then that, who knows? i damd sure don't.

=^^=
.../\...

Americans are so pigheaded. They always strut around saying, We can invade you, and you, and you, and rebuild you. It drives me nuts, since I live in the US and see this stuff happening. No, I'm not an American citizen, or a Mexican. I came over legally.

Its not an opinion about Pakistan is a bad or good country.

It is about sovereignty. Other countries should respect the borders of any another country which is something very difficult for US of A.

I would not like it either that US of A is messing in MY country (oh and I am sure they do)

What would happen if Russia would use some rockets to a building IN Us of A. Just cause they say some ‘terrorists’ are seeking shelter…

And suppose that one single American would lose his life…

That could be a start of World War III

Well for Russia to do something that stupid, it would need reasonable cause. And I am 99.99999999999999999999999999999% That Russia couldn't even bullshit that kind of reason.

This is a follow up of a POLL-thread I posted a while ago..

I wonder what will be the long term consequences of this strike on an ally.
Most likely Musharaf (sp?) will suck it up.. suck it and swallow it with a smile.

I guess that is what allies are supposed to do.. rite? (xept Israel of course)
I really do think Canada should pull our forces out of this coaltion before this situation turns ugly.

I guess the US figures that it can invade any country they want to?

I guess that is what allies are supposed to do.. rite? (xept Israel of course)

If you can call Pakistan an ally, Occean. From everything I've seen, the only reason we're "allied" with them is we're terrified that their little nuclear weapons stockpile could wind up in the wrong hands if Musharraf destabilizes.

I think you guys are missing the point here. There has been no invasion of any land without any permission anywhere. Musharef is tapdancing on the worlds longest and highest tightrope. His grip on power in his country is tenuous at best and a vast majority of his population is anti US. He is constantly the target of assasination attempts from his own population. He can not look like he is giving permission to US soldiers entering his own country. It makes his own power look weak and makes him look like a US puppet to his people. Yet he WANTS the US to enter this area and take out Al Queda because it is Al Queda for the most part that is targeting assasination attempts on him. So what ends up happening is an under the table deal where the US goes where it needs to and when and Mush has the deniability to keep his own populace from turning on him.

Love the way people spin this.

Let's see.

1) Taliban Forces, with the at least tacit agreement of Pakistan, attack and kill Afghans, and attack and kill soldiers of the Free World there to protect those Afghans.

2) Pakistan does nothing to stop this. Pakistan is not interested in things on their borders.

3) Free World Soldiers strike back against the Taliban, the most brutally oppressive theocratic fascist organization on Earth, and NOW people are concerned over the integrity of Pakistan's borders.

Hypocrites. Where were the protests when the Taliban was crossing that border, killing schoolteachers because they dared to teach little girls?

It goes two ways. If Pakistan cannot control the borders when terrorists go OUT, they forfeit the right to complain when soldiers come IN.

And yes, if American Evangelical Preachers were leading mobs of killers out of Montana into Canada for the purpose of killing people, and the US government was unable or unwilling to stop it, the Free World would have every right to send troops to do the job. The rules apply the same everywhere.

Its not an opinion about Pakistan is a bad or good country.

It is about sovereignty. Other countries should respect the borders of any another country which is something very difficult for US of A.

I would not like it either that US of A is messing in MY country (oh and I am sure they do)

What would happen if Russia would use some rockets to a building IN Us of A. Just cause they say some ‘terrorists’ are seeking shelter…

And suppose that one single American would lose his life…

That could be a start of World War III


I tend to agree, but I'd like to hear your opinion on Illegal Immigration into the US also. Many countries have no regard at all for US Sovereignty either. I'm not singling YOU out, but I know many people who decry this kind of behavior yet give a pass to illegal immigration because it suits a particular agenda.

I think you guys are missing the point here. There has been no invasion of any land without any permission anywhere. Musharef is tapdancing on the worlds longest and highest tightrope. His grip on power in his country is tenuous at best and a vast majority of his population is anti US. He is constantly the target of assasination attempts from his own population. He can not look like he is giving permission to US soldiers entering his own country. It makes his own power look weak and makes him look like a US puppet to his people. Yet he WANTS the US to enter this area and take out Al Queda because it is Al Queda for the most part that is targeting assasination attempts on him. So what ends up happening is an under the table deal where the US goes where it needs to and when and Mush has the deniability to keep his own populace from turning on him.

Plausible deniability...nummy nummy!

If you can call Pakistan an ally, Occean. From everything I've seen, the only reason we're "allied" with them is we're terrified that their little nuclear weapons stockpile could wind up in the wrong hands if Musharraf destabilizes.

thank god someone in General actually has a brain....and uses it

I tend to agree, but I'd like to hear your opinion on Illegal Immigration into the US also. Many countries have no regard at all for US Sovereignty either. I'm not singling YOU out, but I know many people who decry this kind of behavior yet give a pass to illegal immigration because it suits a particular agenda.
Ummmmmm......your post is totally off topic.

thank god someone in General actually has a brain....and uses it

Oh, don't worry, most of the brain I once had has been rotted away by psychosis and booze. Nowadays it just seems to be randomly firing neurons that keep me talkin'. ;)

I tend to agree, but I'd like to hear your opinion on Illegal Immigration into the US also. Many countries have no regard at all for US Sovereignty either. I'm not singling YOU out, but I know many people who decry this kind of behavior yet give a pass to illegal immigration because it suits a particular agenda.


Cause individuals trying to get across a border is the exact same thing as a nation sending soldiers across a border, right ?

Stories like this one are the reason the world thinks the US is just a bunch of cowboys, riding into town pistols blazing...

thank god someone in General actually has a brain....and uses it


Oh yes, is it?

Only the nukes?

Sure, they have no intelligence about their own area...

They don't know anything about the geographical issues as well about the actual people living on the borderline.

Sure, Pakistan has its own agenda for being an ally with us. But not at all costs.

Again, if they say 'stay away from our country', then we have to listen.

If you try to fix the windows of my house and I do not want that and you still try to do that THEN I'll hit you on the nose. Hard.

Oh btw, I don't think US (or any other country) could ever win any mountain war and I think that the CEO of the US knows that one too. Another nice reason for accepting Pakistan as an ally.

We are already losing that other mountain war in Afghanistan. We don't need to lose a new one.

I guess that is what allies are supposed to do.. rite?

No. Allies are supposed to just say that they are acting against jihadis and do nothing concrete or just target a few that you don't like and allow the ones you like to operate.

[//COLOR="White"](xept Israel of course)[/COLOR]

If you want to say it, then say it boldly. Why hide it?

Here, I am boldly saying it.

Pakistan had it coming. I knew this was going to happen sooner or later. Musharraf has displayed no will to tackle on the problem on his own. His lies and double games have caught up with him.

Let's be fair. If not for the Americans, the Indians would have gone to war with them in 2001 itself (following the Pakistani jihadis attacking the Indian parliament). Musharraf assured that Pakistan will no longer allow terrorists operating from Pakistan.

Nothing concrete has happened. Infiltration and acts of terrorism against Afghanistan and India still continues.

Even the recent blasts in Hyderabad which killed ~47 people have been traced to Harkat-ul-Jihadi-Islami group based in Pakistan.

This is a follow up of a POLL-thread I posted a while ago..

I wonder what will be the long term consequences of this strike on an ally.


They aren't exactly attacking Pakistan, but militants inside it. They have probably being doing such measures covertly for ages, without anyone realising.


Most likely Musharaf (sp?) will suck it up.. suck it and swallow it with a smile.


Agreed.

We are already losing that other mountain war in Afghanistan. We don't need to lose a new one.

That's a bold claim there, dearie, and you're going to have to prove it.

If you want to say it, then say it boldly. Why hide it?are you saying I am not bold enough when I speak-up about Israel?

I really do think Canada should pull our forces out of this coaltion before this situation turns ugly.

I guess the US figures that it can invade any country they want to?

Then thank God you are not incharge. Canada is doing wonderful things in Afghanistan and for you wanting your forces to pull shows you do not care about the Afghani people.

Now the question is...why was that part of Pakistan attacked. I will be looking into it.

This is a follow up of a POLL-thread I posted a while ago..

I wonder what will be the long term consequences of this strike on an ally.
Most likely Musharaf (sp?) will suck it up.. suck it and swallow it with a smile.

I guess that is what allies are supposed to do.. rite? (xept Israel of course)

So they were shooting at taliban positions inside Pakistan? Thanks. Now I am glad that we attacked them. Who gives a shit what Pakistani government says. They claim they denied us permission but yet, they have little control over that region anyway. If they truly cared about stopping attacks then they would take care of it themselves and they are not.

Its not an opinion about Pakistan is a bad or good country.

It is about sovereignty. Other countries should respect the borders of any another country which is something very difficult for US of A.

I would not like it either that US of A is messing in MY country (oh and I am sure they do)

What would happen if Russia would use some rockets to a building IN Us of A. Just cause they say some ‘terrorists’ are seeking shelter…

And suppose that one single American would lose his life…

That could be a start of World War III

El Presidente and Dick Cheney should wear oversized signs that say "I have not learned to respect the boundaries of others and keep my army to myself."

Oh yes, is it?

Only the nukes?
There are loads of reasons, which I've listed below. I've probably missed some that others will point out, mind.
Sure, they have no intelligence about their own area...

They don't know anything about the geographical issues as well about the actual people living on the borderline.
Can you rephrase this so I can the beginnings of understand it?
Sure, Pakistan has its own agenda for being an ally with us. But not at all costs.
It gets billions upon billions of dollars every year to prop the regime up - I'd say that such a large amount of money is, in itself, a good enough reason for them to stay as an ally of the US.
Again, if they say 'stay away from our country', then we have to listen.

If you try to fix the windows of my house and I do not want that and you still try to do that THEN I'll hit you on the nose. Hard.
Seemingly the US does not have to listen.

It'd be nice if they did, but due to having the world's largest military and all that, the whole thing is a bit of a moot point, to say the very least. See also the incursions into Iran and Syria.
Oh btw, I don't think US (or any other country) could ever win any mountain war and I think that the CEO of the US knows that one too.
The CEO of the US?

Do you mean the Chief of Staff (as in 'commanding officer', or CO), or do you actually mean the CEO in some odd, odd way?
Another nice reason for accepting Pakistan as an ally.

We are already losing that other mountain war in Afghanistan. We don't need to lose a new one.
Reasons the US and its allies have Pakistan as an ally :

- If we didn't, they'd be funding the tribals in the areas next to Afghanistan to go and help out the Taliban, instead of vaguely-ish condemning them, perhaps, on a good day, which would mean much higher casualty levels for our own troops in the area, lowering morale of both the troops and also of the voting public back home.

- As if anyone actually cared any more, but the whole "utterly hopeless search for the leadership of Al-Qaeda" thing somewhat relies on Pakistan as an ally, to at least give the impression that it's a feasible endeavour. If the US was seen as losing Pakistan as an ally, then it'd be even more simple to say "well he might have just buggered off by plane to the middle of nowhere, never to be seen again".

- Having both them and India as allies means that we get more control over what's going on in Kashmir, which would otherwise be a nuclear-tipped warzone, which is something that isn't really desired by anyone outside of those without any idea of the possible consequences.

- We don't want a civil war in Pakistan, which is exactly the kind of thing that would require an enormous effort in terms of the amount of peacekeeping troops being sent over, and also in the amount of refugees we'd be taking in. If we keep Musharraf at the top, we can keep a degree of stability in a country which would otherwise turn into another mini-Afghanistan, after a long civil war between those who'd want a fully Islamic state and others who'd want a modern, secular country.

At least everyone hates Musharraf, and is fixated in trying to polish him off. When he goes, then various groups start turning against each other.

- Quite possibly, giving Pakistan money towards its military leads to more spending on the Indian side, which is being used as a way to keep the Indian economy down by the US and its allies, none of whom really want another huge contender, in the style of China, who might take away their own profits - but then maybe I'm thinking too much about that.

They claim they denied us permission...Are you saying they (Pakistan Gov) Lied?

Are you saying they Lied? Its been said before but noone seems to read things from 2 pages ago ever so ill say it again. Plausible deniability. I mean come on its only a 2 page post for crying out loud :P

Are you saying they Lied?

From your own article:

Afghan and coalition forces used mortars and artillery fire to destroy insurgent attacking positions on both sides of the border after a military post in Afghanistan came under attack, the coalition said in a statement.

"The Pakistani military gave permission for the Afghan National Security Forces to fire on the targets located within Pakistan," it said

followed by:

A Pakistani military spokesman denied any permission was given.

Now the question is, who is lying or is no lie being told? Maybe permission was given and this spokesman did not know or, it was given and the Pakistanis are trying to cut a better deal by denying they gave it. Or no permission was actually given at all meaning that we should not have. Not enough info here to say one way or the other on any of the options.

From your own article:The article says

#1 the US Gov says they asked permission to Pakistan AND Pakistan gave permission.

#2 Pakistan Gov says Permission was never Given AND never asked for.

When I ask "are you saying they lied?" ... -they- is the Pakistan Gov.

The article says

#1 the US Gov says they asked permission to Pakistan AND Pakistan gave permission.

#2 Pakistan Gov says Permission was never Given AND never asked for.

When I ask "are you saying they lied?" ... -they- is the Pakistan Gov.

WRONG! It says that the coalition asked and was granted permission and Pakistan is saying the opposite. Please try to get the facts straight before trying an argument.

WRONG! It says that the coalition asked and was granted permission and Pakistan is saying the opposite. Please try to get the facts straight before trying an argument.I stand by my statement:


the article says:


#1 the US Gov says they asked permission to Pakistan Gov. AND permission was granted by Pakistan Gov.

#2 Pakistan Gov says Permission was never Given AND never asked for.

I stand by my statement:


the article says:


#1 the US Gov says they asked permission to Pakistan AND Pakistan gave permission.

Show me the line that says that the US Gov. asked permission please. I see the line that the coalition says they were granted permission but not the line that says the US Gov. asked for and received permission.

#2 Pakistan Gov says Permission was never Given AND never asked for.

This is your only true statement.

This goes down as a "he said he said" argument. We will never know the true story unless documents can be produced to prove one of the stories being told.

Then thank God you are not incharge. Canada is doing wonderful things in Afghanistan and for you wanting your forces to pull shows you do not care about the Afghani people.
Canada should have withdrawn as soon as the US pulled the majority of troops out of Afghanistan to engage Iraq in the never ending war.

Canada should not get drawn into a conflict with Pakistan because the US deems it has the right to invade other nations.

You of all people should not be judging me on whether I care about people in those countries. :p

Canada should have withdrawn as soon as the US pulled the majority of troops out of Afghanistan to engage Iraq in the never ending war.

Canada should not get drawn into a conflict with Pakistan because the US deems it has the right to invade other nations.

You of all people should not be judging me on whether I care about people in those countries. :p

If ya did...then you would not want your troops to be withdrawn from Aghanistan. Canadian troops are doing great things for the people. do you honestly want them to stop?

Who gives a shit what Pakistani government says.
Spoken like a true Bushevik!!

Spoken like a true Bushevik!!

We are fighting a war and we will go where the enemy flees to. IF that means Pakistan, we will attack the tribal regions where they are at.

We are fighting a war and we will go where the enemy flees to. IF that means Pakistan, we will attack the tribal regions where they are at.
It is clearly a violation of the UN Charter and international law. How can you possibly support such an action?

Who gives a shit what Pakistani government says.

Nice attitude. Just about somes up the views of the Bush administration about foreign governments in general.:rolleyes:

We are fighting a war and we will go where the enemy flees to. IF that means Pakistan, we will attack the tribal regions where they are at.

That would be a clear violation of another nations sovereignty and blatant aggression. What if they fled across the other border to Iran?

It is clearly a violation of the UN Charter and international law. How can you possibly support such an action?

As is numerous other things that most countries do. I do not see you protesting that.

As is numerous other things that most countries do. I do not see you protesting that.
Other countries don't claim to be the moral authority of the world, though.

As is numerous other things that most countries do. I do not see you protesting that.

Well I do.

Other countries don't claim to be the moral authority of the world, though.

Ah touche!

bold added by ## We are fighting a war and we will go where the enemy flees to. IF that means Geneva/Seoul/London/Shanghai , we will attack where they are at. ...

really?

Other countries don't claim to be the moral authority of the world, though.

Most countries claim violation of Charter by other nations without admitting they do it as well. It is a failing that all nations have. Not just the united states.

As is numerous other things that most countries do. I do not see you protesting that.
We are not talking about other countries....we are talking about the actions of the US. Don't give us that it is ok for us to do it if others do it BS. That is just pure nonsense.

There really is no sense debating this issue with you when you talk out of both sides of your mouth.

bold added by ## ...

really?

I am still waiting on your proof that the US government was the one that asked for permission.

As to other nations, most people are combating it on their home soil so we do not need to. Pakistan has failed in that regard.

We are not talking about other countries....we are talking about the actions of the US. Don't give us that it is ok for us to do it if others do it BS. That is just pure nonsense.

There really is no sense debating this issue with you when you talk out of both sides of your mouth.

Tell me...was France's unilateral intervention in Africa violated the UN Charter?

Most countries claim violation of Charter by other nations without admitting they do it as well. It is a failing that all nations have. Not just the united states.
My point still stands.

Every country does it, but not every countries tries to export its own moral values onto client states, whilst claiming to be a source of guidance to the world, in the same way as the US does.

Nice attitude. Just about somes up the views of the Bush administration about foreign governments in general.:rolleyes:

In the words of Jon Stewart, "Oh, snap!"

As to other nations, most people are combating it on their home soil so we do not need to. The article says the Gov of Pakistan think they are doing more than enough..

You and the US Gov may feel they are not doing enough..

My question here would be: what if someone else feels the US gov is not doing the right thing, or not doing enough of the right thing, are they justified in striking US?

Tell me...was France's unilateral intervention in Africa violated the UN Charter?probably.

The article says the Gov of Pakistan think they are doing more than enough..

And you do not believe for a second that they are saying that beccause they have to say that?

You and the US Gov may feel they are not doing enough..

You are damn straight I think they are not doing enough.

My question here would be: what if someone else feels the US gov is not doing the right thing, or not doing enough of the right thing, are they justified in striking US?

If they want to try to handle not just the political fallout but being hammered by the US Military, let them try it. Remember the last time someone launched a direct assault against the U.S.? Japan was thoroughly trashed and the Taliban fled instead of standing up and fighting. We do not take to kindly to being bombed.

Tell me...was France's unilateral intervention in Africa violated the UN Charter?
Irrelevant and immaterial to this discussion.

Irrelevant and immaterial to this discussion.

Actually it is very relevent. It is relevent to a whole host of arguments you have made in the past. Anyways...I have paperwork to fill out for grad school. I will be back later.

The article says the Gov of Pakistan think they are doing more than enough..

You and the US Gov may feel they are not doing enough..

My question here would be: what if someone else feels the US gov is not doing the right thing, or not doing enough of the right thing, are they justified in striking US?


Feeling is irrelevant. It is a fact that armed, fanatical religious extremists have crossed into Afghanistan from Pakistan and murdered people. It is therefore a fact that Pakistan has not done enough- enough, by definition, would eliminate the use of Pakistan as a staging area for the Taliban.

Therefore fact, and not feeling or opinion, supports this action. If the US ignored religious extremists who crossed into Canada to conduct murder sprees, or was demonstrably unable to do so, then fact would support a foreign operation against those extremists, even onto US soil, in the defense of innocent life. Given a situation in which the US was actually unable/unwilling to contain a mob of religiously motivated murderers, most Americans would probably approve of a NATO action, as Americans were grateful for NATO help after 9-11.

Evidence?

Recall: NATO AWACS aircraft operated over the US- flown by NATO crews. This marked the first foreign military operation in the US (other than training) since some very limited events in WWII, and it was wholeheartedly supported by Americans. If NATO troops encountered terrorists in the US and killed them, I doubt there would be a harsh reaction by Americans.

Tell me...was France's unilateral intervention in Africa violated the UN Charter?
Tell me...did they stop?

Yes, yes they did.

Now tell me - did the US go into Iraq with no international support in violation of countless treaties, regardless of being pulled up for this in the UN?

Tell me...did they stop?

Yes, yes they did.

Now tell me - did the US go into Iraq with no international support in violation of countless treaties, regardless of being pulled up for this in the UN?


No they did not. They were supported by the UK, Australia, Italy, Spain, Poland, Denmark, the Netherlands, Japan, South Korea, Mongolia, Togo, El Salvador, Honduras, Georgia, and other nations.

Treaties? There was no peace treaty between the US and Iraq. There was a Ceasefire agreement. As Iraq chose to terminate that agreement, the status reverted to the status prior to that agreement- war.

Saddam Hussein, 1996, indicating a rejection of the 1991 Ceasefire and a resumption of war on the United States and United Kingdom:

"Oh, men of our air defenses and our air hawks, from now on consider as non-existent their damned imaginary no-fly zones above 36 parallel and below 32 parallel. Strike with efficiency and competence, in the name of God, any of the aggressors' planes which violate the air space of your great country and everywhere in Iraq, now and in the future."

This is key! The end of the allied (Mostly US/UK) war effort in 91 was CONDITIONAL on the acceptance of the means of monitoring/ensuring compliance by Iraq: The No Fly Zones. Ergo, rejection of that meant a rejection of the conditional end of the war, ergo, war.

Further means by which the war can be shown to be legal:

Iraq openly maintained a state of war with Israel, and demonstrated this by firing SCUD missiles at Israel's civilian population. It is legitimate to declare war on a nation already engaged in a war: an example would be the declaration of war on Germany by Brazil in WWII, with no attacks on Brazil by the Germans.

It is also recognized that Genocide is a legitimate cause for foreign military intervention, and in fact Saddam was engaged in the genocide of the Marsh Arabs- not only the people but the entire ecosystem was threatened with extinction. The Marsh Arab culture would be gone today if Iraq had not been invaded. That is genocide, and is not acceptable.

So, on many counts, the idea that it was somehow "illegal" to invade Iraq simply doesn't hold up.

No they did not. They were supported by the UK, Australia, Italy, Spain, Poland, Denmark, the Netherlands, Japan, South Korea, Mongolia, Togo, El Salvador, Honduras, Georgia, and other nations.

Treaties? There was no peace treaty between the US and Iraq. There was a Ceasefire agreement. As Iraq chose to terminate that agreement, the status reverted to the status prior to that agreement- war.

Saddam Hussein, 1996, indicating a rejection of the 1991 Ceasefire and a resumption of war on the United States and United Kingdom:

"Oh, men of our air defenses and our air hawks, from now on consider as non-existent their damned imaginary no-fly zones above 36 parallel and below 32 parallel. Strike with efficiency and competence, in the name of God, any of the aggressors' planes which violate the air space of your great country and everywhere in Iraq, now and in the future."

This is key! The end of the allied (Mostly US/UK) war effort in 91 was CONDITIONAL on the acceptance of the means of monitoring/ensuring compliance by Iraq: The No Fly Zones. Ergo, rejection of that meant a rejection of the conditional end of the war, ergo, war.

Further means by which the war can be shown to be legal:

Iraq openly maintained a state of war with Israel, and demonstrated this by firing SCUD missiles at Israel's civilian population. It is legitimate to declare war on a nation already engaged in a war: an example would be the declaration of war on Germany by Brazil in WWII, with no attacks on Brazil by the Germans.

It is also recognized that Genocide is a legitimate cause for foreign military intervention, and in fact Saddam was engaged in the genocide of the Marsh Arabs- not only the people but the entire ecosystem was threatened with extinction. The Marsh Arab culture would be gone today if Iraq had not been invaded. That is genocide, and is not acceptable.

So, on many counts, the idea that it was somehow "illegal" to invade Iraq simply doesn't hold up.

*hands over 3 dozen cookies to Mott Haven*

Well said my friend. Well said indeed.

Now tell me - did the US go into Iraq with no international support in violation of countless treaties, regardless of being pulled up for this in the UN?

We did not have UN support but by god we had support of several nations in a coalition against Saddam Hussein. To say we had no international support is ludicrous.

No they did not. They were supported by the UK, Australia, Italy, Spain, Poland, Denmark, the Netherlands, Japan, South Korea, Mongolia, Togo, El Salvador, Honduras, Georgia, and other nations.

Treaties? There was no peace treaty between the US and Iraq. There was a Ceasefire agreement. As Iraq chose to terminate that agreement, the status reverted to the status prior to that agreement- war.

Saddam Hussein, 1996, indicating a rejection of the 1991 Ceasefire and a resumption of war on the United States and United Kingdom:

"Oh, men of our air defenses and our air hawks, from now on consider as non-existent their damned imaginary no-fly zones above 36 parallel and below 32 parallel. Strike with efficiency and competence, in the name of God, any of the aggressors' planes which violate the air space of your great country and everywhere in Iraq, now and in the future."

This is key! The end of the allied (Mostly US/UK) war effort in 91 was CONDITIONAL on the acceptance of the means of monitoring/ensuring compliance by Iraq: The No Fly Zones. Ergo, rejection of that meant a rejection of the conditional end of the war, ergo, war.

Further means by which the war can be shown to be legal:

Iraq openly maintained a state of war with Israel, and demonstrated this by firing SCUD missiles at Israel's civilian population. It is legitimate to declare war on a nation already engaged in a war: an example would be the declaration of war on Germany by Brazil in WWII, with no attacks on Brazil by the Germans.

It is also recognized that Genocide is a legitimate cause for foreign military intervention, and in fact Saddam was engaged in the genocide of the Marsh Arabs- not only the people but the entire ecosystem was threatened with extinction. The Marsh Arab culture would be gone today if Iraq had not been invaded. That is genocide, and is not acceptable.

So, on many counts, the idea that it was somehow "illegal" to invade Iraq simply doesn't hold up.

How about, you know, international law and such? Not having a UN resolution to do what you did? Whether you believe it was justified or not, you broke international law. There is no denying this, it happened.

How about, you know, international law and such? Not having a UN resolution to do what you did? Whether you believe it was justified or not, you broke international law. There is no denying this, it happened.

France did not have a UN resolution to intervene in West Africa. NATO did not have a UN Resolution for their actions in Bosnia. The list goes on and on Ollieland.

France did not have a UN resolution to intervene in West Africa. NATO did not have a UN Resolution for their actions in Bosnia. The list goes on and on Ollieland.

It certainly does, the difference being I don't deny it or claim some moral superiority, you and the US government do.

I think you guys are missing the point here. There has been no invasion of any land without any permission anywhere.

Looks like someone failed to read the article.

I tend to agree, but I'd like to hear your opinion on Illegal Immigration into the US also. Many countries have no regard at all for US Sovereignty either. I'm not singling YOU out, but I know many people who decry this kind of behavior yet give a pass to illegal immigration because it suits a particular agenda.

Only a fucking bigot would compare an armed attack by a national government against another country with illegal immigration. Furthermore, even if we accept this ludicrous comparison, "other countries have no regard for US sovereignty" doesn't give carte blanche to go attacking other countries! It doesn't work, it's illogical, and stupid, and criminal to boot.

Nice try though.

They aren't exactly attacking Pakistan, but militants inside it. They have probably being doing such measures covertly for ages, without anyone realising.

Yeah OK. So if Canada one day sends troops to attack "militants" inside the US, you'd be OK with it?

Now I am glad that we attacked them.

That's because you revel in bloodshed and death. Especially when you're sitting pretty with neither at hand.

Who gives a shit what Pakistani government says.

This is a stupid attitude that probably speaks of bigotry, i.e "they're just Pakistanis."

They claim they denied us permission but yet, they have little control over that region anyway

The amount of control they allegedly have in that region has fuck-all to do with whether they denied US permission.

If they truly cared about stopping attacks then they would take care of it themselves and they are not.

Yeah they should have opened fire on US forces. Oh wait, you didn't mean *that* attack...

As is numerous other things that most countries do. I do not see you protesting that.

Psst, I am a voting, taxpaying citizen of the *US*, not "most countries."

Now, when *my* so-called representatives are doing something I disapprove of, when *my* tax dollars are paying for things I think are wrong, why should I be fucking protesting the actions of the Federation of Saint Christopher and Nevis?

And again, it doesn't matter if I don't protest X wrong from Y country. It has no bearing whatsoever on how X wrong is wrong in US country. Try again. Better yet, STFU.

How about, you know, international law and such? Not having a UN resolution to do what you did? Whether you believe it was justified or not, you broke international law. There is no denying this, it happened.

Ollieland, did you not read my post? Our actions were all legal, all part of a war that ALREADY EXISTED. It would only be illegal in the total absence of Casus Belli, which I have absolutely shown is not the case!

One does not need anything further.

It is legal to invade a nation as part of a war that was begun by the other nation!

Or are all the Allied nations guilty for having invaded Germany?

Legal?

Illegal?

Again, how about the Brazilians. They fought in Italy. So did New Zealand. But Germany (let alone Italy!) never attacked Brazil or New Zealand, so were these actions illegal?

And there is the Genocide question: Isn't it illegal to allow a campaign of genocide to continue?

Marsh Arabs. REAL genocide- a whole population, a whole culture, thousands of years old being eliminated, this was the real thing.

Would it be legal or illegal to intervene in Darfur today?

That's because you revel in bloodshed and death. Especially when you're sitting pretty with neither at hand.

I have no sympathy for terrorists or those who support them.

Looks like someone failed to read the article.


It looks like someone snipped out my first sentence then completly ignored the content of the entire rest of my post. What part of the article did i fail to read? The part where the Paki government has to lie to its people about giving permission or not in order to maintain political control? My ENTIRE point is that just cause a representative of the Paki government gets his name in the paper saying hey we didnt authorize this DOESNT mean that it wasnt actually authorized. I accept your apology for your incorrect assumption that i didnt read the article.

Ollieland, did you not read my post? Our actions were all legal, all part of a war that ALREADY EXISTED. It would only be illegal in the total absence of Casus Belli, which I have absolutely shown is not the case!

One does not need anything further.

It is legal to invade a nation as part of a war that was begun by the other nation!

Or are all the Allied nations guilty for having invaded Germany?

Legal?

Illegal?

Again, how about the Brazilians. They fought in Italy. So did New Zealand. But Germany (let alone Italy!) never attacked Brazil or New Zealand, so were these actions illegal?

And there is the Genocide question: Isn't it illegal to allow a campaign of genocide to continue?

Marsh Arabs. REAL genocide- a whole population, a whole culture, thousands of years old being eliminated, this was the real thing.

Would it be legal or illegal to intervene in Darfur today?

Legal because the first war was not yet signed off?

OK, so it would have been legal for you to invade Germany in the eighties as the war was not officially signed off until after the fall of the wall.

It would have been legal for the Soviet Ubion to invade Berwick upon Tweed, as technically they were not included in the treaty that ended the Crimean war.

Your talking out of your ass and you know it. If it was perfectly legal and acceptable, the US wouldn't have tabled a UN motion to invade in the first place would they?

Would it be legal or illegal to intervene in Darfur today? If you didn't have a UN resolution to violate Sudanese soveriegnty then it certainly would be.

Yeah OK. So if Canada one day sends troops to attack "militants" inside the US, you'd be OK with it?


I didn't say I was ok with it, i'm just saying that you can't equate it with attacking Pakistan. It is no way near as bad as that.

I have no sympathy for terrorists or those who support them.

The founding fathers could be described as terrorists. You need to start thionking for yourself instead of beleiving what your government tell you.

It looks like someone snipped out my first sentence then completly ignored the content of the entire rest of my post.

The rest of your post did not change the sheer ridiculousness of your opening thesis, which was essentially "nothing happened, there's nothing to see here, la la la."

http://www.nigelhaversalliance.com/pics/infominister.jpeg


What part of the article did i fail to read? The part where the Paki government has to lie to its people about giving permission or not in order to maintain political control?

The part where US forces DID make an incursion ("invasion") into Pakistan ("any land") and the Pakistani government did NOT give permission ("without any permission whatsoever.") Now, I realize you disagree with the facts of the article and would like to believe that simply making assertions to the contrary constitutes a valid argument. Sadly for you, it doesn't.

I have no sympathy for terrorists or those who support them.

And you assume anyone killed by US action is one or the other, of course. Because otherwise you wouldn't be able to, in good conscience, sit here and masturbate to the idea of dead people making you feel safer.

Looks like someone failed to read the article.
Yeah OK. So if Canada one day sends troops to attack "militants" inside the US, you'd be OK with it?




If US based "militants" were a mob of terrorists crossing the "border" into "Canada" and "killing" innocent "Canadians", and the US government was unwilling/unable to stop it, I would not only think it OK, I would support them fully.

Part of the responsibility of being a nation is controlling the use of force. If you cannot control such things as terrorists using your nation as a base to attack your neighbors, launching rockets, raids, killing school teachers because they dared to instruct little girls, etc, you lose your right to bitch when other nations do your work for you.

Psst: Allowing an armed force to use your territory as a staging ground in war is an ACT OF WAR. This is why Switzerland, in WWII, had to capture and detain any combatant, allied or axis, who crossed into their territory.*

Pakistan had best figure out which side it wants to be on- because the rules of neutrality demand they eject or capture the Taliban.

*Yes, this means that technically, Germany supports the US in the Iraq war, because otherwise they would have to order US troops, being belligerents to the conflict- out of Germany. Providing staging area is enough to be considered a party to a war. But part of diplomacy in the world today is the art of carefully avoiding conclusions you don't want to deal with.

My ENTIRE point is that just cause a representative of the Paki government gets his name in the paper saying hey we didnt authorize this DOESNT mean that it wasnt actually authorized. I accept your apology for your incorrect assumption that i didnt read the article.

Your ENTIRE point is that "he's lying, it's untrue!" I accept your apology for being a dumbass.

If US based "militants" were a mob of terrorists crossing the "border" into "Canada" and "killing" innocent "Canadians", and the US government was unwilling/unable to stop it, I would not only think it OK, I would support them fully.

Yeah, I'm sure you would. Especially if you happened to be one of the "militants." You'd sit there and cheer as your family became "collateral damage" to an "allied" nation's unjustified, unauthorized attack.

[QUOTE=Ollieland;13002226]Legal because the first war was not yet signed off?

OK, so it would have been legal for you to invade Germany in the eighties as the war was not officially signed off until after the fall of the wall.QUOTE]


For me to answer that question, you will have to show me the violations of the agreements ending the fighting, on the part of East Germany. Please include instances of East German attacks on Allied forces after WWII, and declarations that Allied forces in Berlin and along the access corridor would be attacked as the Allied occupation was now to be considered "imaginary" ,and other events you think would provide for an equivalent comparison of circumstances. And no, the East German Women's Olympic swim team does not count.

I know you can do it, because you're a really smart fellow. Good luck. When you have completed your search, we can then draw rational comparisons.


Now, bear in mind again, that although Casus Belli gives a nation a right to military recourse, it does not require it.

Your ENTIRE point is that "he's lying, it's untrue!" I accept your apology for being a dumbass.

I did not say he was lying and it was untrue in a vacuum. I made several legitimate points to show why he was lying. I gave several legitimate reasons why a Paki military spokeman might have reason to not report the truth in this matter. I will repost in case you missed them.


"Musharef is tapdancing on the worlds longest and highest tightrope. His grip on power in his country is tenuous at best and a vast majority of his population is anti US. He is constantly the target of assasination attempts from his own population. He can not look like he is giving permission to US soldiers entering his own country. It makes his own power look weak and makes him look like a US puppet to his people. Yet he WANTS the US to enter this area and take out Al Queda because it is Al Queda for the most part that is targeting assasination attempts on him. So what ends up happening is an under the table deal where the US goes where it needs to and when and Mush has the deniability to keep his own populace from turning on him."

With the exception of the last sentence which is simply a conclusion drawn from the body of evidence what i said was 100% accurate.

Agree with my opinions or not, but you were WRONG about me not reading the article and instead of admitting this and conceding you were wrong, you procede to personally insult and attack me. Nice form for debate and not really good for your credibility.

Yeah, I'm sure you would. Especially if you happened to be one of the "militants." You'd sit there and cheer as your family became "collateral damage" to an "allied" nation's unjustified, unauthorized attack.

No, I would cheer the justified, authorized attack.

I would help, if I could.

Why would I want someone like the Taliban in my nation? Who would? And if my nation was so weak that another nation came to the rescue, good.

Bear in mind, French Civilian casualties on D-Day exceeded Allied and German military losses combined. And yet the French think, overall, it was a good thing.

The US government needs to learn what Sovreignty is. It needs to learn that it can't send troops into another nation without permission to capture terrorists.

Who gives a shit what Pakistani government says.

Erm Pakistans people for a start. You do not send a group of soldiers into a nations sovereign borders without permission to hunt terrorists. The actions of the US is close to n invasion an if it is found hat th US soliders did kill innocent civilians then the US would have committed an act of war. I'm ure if these claims are true then the Pakistani people would view the US troops as terrorists as well.

No, I would cheer the justified, authorized attack.

So you and your family are "militants" and "terrorists?" Because you're making the same naive assumption that dead by US forces = militant terrorist. You start with the presumption of guilt so that no matter what, all attacks are justified and authorized.

Bear in mind, French Civilian casualties on D-Day exceeded Allied and German military losses combined. And yet the French think, overall, it was a good thing.

Oh ho, so it's D-Day now is it. I love how the delusion unfolds.

I did not say he was lying and it was untrue in a vacuum. I made several legitimate points to show why he was lying. I will repost in case you missed them.

Sorry, your incoherent rambling hypothetical motivations for a lie do not at all prove or show that it was a lie. My point stands.

Agree with my opinions or not, but you were WRONG about me not reading the article

Very well - you read the article and ignored it.

and instead of admitting this and conceding you were wrong, you procede to personally insult and attack me. Nice form for debate and not really good for your credibility.

I could care less about my "credibility," especially with little rats like you.

*sigh* Another one of these threads. *cracks knuckles*

I could care less about my "credibility," especially with little rats like you.

This little rat probably has underwear older then you are and the underwear is probably wiser too. I also have a degree in Political Science so i do in fact have some form of formal education on the issue. But since its clear your not interested in debate but would rather personally insult i will no longer engage in this or any other topic with you. Toodles.

This little rat probably has underwear older then you are and the underwear is probably wiser too. I also have a degree in Political Science so i do in fact have some form of formal education on the issue. But since its clear your not interested in debate but would rather personally insult i will no longer engage in this or any other topic with you. Toodles.

Alright, no offense, but that was phail. I just came in this thread and I find something like this! Come on...Actually try to discuss something instead of complaining about what Greater Trostia thinks...

On to the point, Bush's idea's are phail...

This little rat probably has underwear older then you are and the underwear is probably wiser too. I also have a degree in Political Science so i do in fact have some form of formal education on the issue. But since its clear your not interested in debate but would rather personally insult i will no longer engage in this or any other topic with you. Toodles.

What's wrong with debating AND personally attacking? I think you just want to pretend to be so offended so you can use it as an excuse to avoid conceding your point. Alas.

There are two things we need to look at here

1) Who are the more likely liars, Pakistan or the USA?

2) If the USA are lying, does the benefits of attacking these militants outweigh the minor diplomatic losses and weakening of friendship between the allies?

Alright, no offense, but that was phail. I just came in this thread and I find something like this! Come on...Actually try to discuss something instead of complaining about what Greater Trostia thinks...


Sorry to dissapoint. I like to debate in a gentlemans manner. When insults get thrown around it usually means that the person has run out of actual intelligent things to say and at that point its time for my exit.

There are two things we need to look at here

1) Who are the more likely liars, Pakistan or the USA?

2) If the USA are lying, does the benefits of attacking these militants outweigh the minor diplomatic losses and weakening of friendship between the allies?

Well given both nation track records each are likely to lie as each other. And attacking he militants does not outweigh the weakening of diplomatic ties. The US claoms to be about freedom n such but the US is not free to send its troops to any nation it feels like.

Well given both nation track records each are likely to lie as each other.

Ok, so we should just wait and see and not assert anything like "the USA are lying!" right?


And attacking he militants does not outweigh the weakening of diplomatic ties.

Doesn't it depend on who the millitants are? What if they were the heads of Al Qaida?

There are two things we need to look at here

1) Who are the more likely liars, Pakistan or the USA?

2) If the USA are lying, does the benefits of attacking these militants outweigh the minor diplomatic losses and weakening of friendship between the allies?

1) Have you been to Pakistan? Have you talked to Pakistanis? How would you know that they are liars? Every nation has liars, USA included.

2) Well, Pakistan is more friendly with China so if something were to happen with the US and Pakistan, Pakistan still has a superpower at their backs...

So you and your family are "militants" and "terrorists?" Because you're making the same naive assumption that dead by US forces = militant terrorist. You start with the presumption of guilt so that no matter what, all attacks are justified and authorized.



Oh ho, so it's D-Day now is it. I love how the delusion unfolds.


Right. D-Day was a delusion. We assumed that anyone shot dead was a Nazi soldier.

Alrighty, if that's how you want to play it, try how gaming it out would work in nationstates. Assume there is a fanatical band of murderers in Mott Haven. Periodically, they cross the rugged border with Greater Trostia and cause a lot of killing. In fact, they want to subjugate your entire nation. They are particularly offended by the fact that your nation allows women to attend school. Our fanatics don't like school for girls, and so they torture the teachers to death. They prefer slow, gruesome executions when they capture a Greater Trostian teacher.

Now, you complained to me, the government of Mott Haven, and I tell you this: don't complain to me. Not my problem. I have reached an accord with these people.

But, the killings persist. Safe in their Mott Haven... um... haven, they organize ever larger, more brutal raids. Your teachers are frightened. In your border regions, education is threatened. And more and more die. The fanatics don't give up. Last time, the brave mujahadeen gutted some teachers and strung up their intestines as decorative party festoons.

But still, not my problem. I have an understanding with the killers.

So the million token (currency unit of Mott Haven) question: You will never EVER get my permission. How many Greater Trostian deaths does it take to make you take action?

We can make a game out of it. We can assume every time I post, another school in your border province is raided, more teachers and children slain. Let me know when you've had so much you are willing to cross my border.

In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate- another dozen Trostian defilers have been executed. But don't worry, it's not my fault, and I have an "accord" with the killers.

1) Have you been to Pakistan? Have you talked to Pakistanis? How would you know that they are liars? Every nation has liars, USA included.


I never said they were liars, but it doesn't matter what Pakistani cvilians are like, it's what their government is like.


2) Well, Pakistan is more friendly with China so if something were to happen with the US and Pakistan, Pakistan still has a superpower at their backs...

I'm not sure whether this is a yes or a no.

Ok, so we should just wait and see and not assert anything like "the USA are lying!" right?

Exactly. For all we know this could've been some covert operation one wrong so Pakistans Government needed to blame someone or the USA could've gone in illegally.

Doesn't it depend on who the millitants are? What if they were the heads of Al Qaida?

Al Qaeda have had so many heads that they may as well be called Al Hydra. If these heads were taken out then others would replace them.

Al Qaeda have had so many heads that they may as well be called Al Hydra. If these heads were taken out then others would replace them.

Ya nailed it right on the head...It's kinda like a corporation, when the CEO dies someone is...elected...to take the spot and become the CEO...

Al Qaeda have had so many heads that they may as well be called Al Hydra. If these heads were taken out then others would replace them.

Are you sure about this?

Are you sure about this?

Yes

Right. D-Day was a delusion.

No. Comparing this attack with D-Day is a delusion.


Alrighty, if that's how you want to play it, try how gaming it out would work in nationstates. Assume there is a fanatical band of murderers in Mott Haven. Periodically, they cross the rugged border with Greater Trostia and cause a lot of killing. In fact, they want to subjugate your entire nation. They are particularly offended by the fact that your nation allows women to attend school. Our fanatics don't like school for girls, and so they torture the teachers to death. They prefer slow, gruesome executions when they capture a Greater Trostian teacher.

Now, you complained to me, the government of Mott Haven, and I tell you this: don't complain to me. Not my problem. I have reached an accord with these people.

But, the killings persist. Safe in their Mott Haven... um... haven, they organize ever larger, more brutal raids. Your teachers are frightened. In your border regions, education is threatened. And more and more die. The fanatics don't give up. Last time, the brave mujahadeen gutted some teachers and strung up their intestines as decorative party festoons.

But still, not my problem. I have an understanding with the killers.

So the million token (currency unit of Mott Haven) question: You will never EVER get my permission. How many Greater Trostian deaths does it take to make you take action?

Well, this doesn't really apply, since Trostia would have already conquered your nation at the first sign of trouble. Or even before then, just to pave the way for Trostian corporations to set up lucrative quasi-state-run enterprises using cheap Mott Haven labor. Trostia is not a good example to be using as a model of appropriate national policy.

Of course, the analogy doesn't really make sense. Pakistan DOES give permission sometimes. Someone here is even arguing that they DID in this case as well. Furthermore, the USA isn't under attack by terrorists from/in Pakistan so this wouldn't justify a US incursion.

Yes

I'm not, Osama and his buddies still haven't been taken out (despite countless opportunities).

I thought this might be interesting and relevant:

Pro-Taleban militants in Pakistan's tribal areas have released a video of 16 kidnapped soldiers.

The footage shows one of them being beheaded.

The abductions coincided with a sharp rise in violence over the past month as peace deals between the government and the tribesmen unravelled.

More than 60 soldiers and 250 militants have died in a growing insurgency in the border regions near Afghanistan as troops have redeployed heavily.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/6965776.stm

The tightrope only gets narrower, it seems.

I'm not, Osama and his buddies still haven't been taken out (despite countless opportunities).

...I already put an example with a corporation. Let me try medieval times...

Osama is the king. His right-hand men are the princes/generals etc...What happens when the king dies? The whole castle asplodes? No. Someone *prince, etc* rises up and takes the spot...

Are you sure about this?
It wouldn't surprise me at all, for what it's worth.

Are you sure about this?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5073092.stm

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2007-07-18-al-qaeda_N.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1560834.stm

Three different 'Heads' right there. The Heads are always succeeded by somone else in Al Qaeda.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5073092.stm

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2007-07-18-al-qaeda_N.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1560834.stm

Three different 'Heads' right there. The Heads are always succeeded by somone else in Al Qaeda.

But these are individual heads, what if you took out Osama's inner circle in one strike? The administration of AQ would disappear, and there would be a crisis. Even if temporary, it could possibly have devastating effects on AQ.

But these are individual heads, what if you took out Osama's inner circle in one strike? The administration of AQ would disappear, and there would be a crisis. Even if temporary, it could possibly have devastating effects on AQ.

There are AQ cells everywhere. Usually, a someone is in charge of each cell. They are part not part of the 'inner circle' but are still in the upper-ranks. They wouldn't get hit in the strike, due to the fact that they weren't near where the 'inner circle' was...

Comparing this attack with D-Day is a delusion..

Ah, but I'm not the one who brought that up. It was one of those complaining, who called the US/Afghan operation an invasion of another nation. Which, of course, D-Day was. OK, so let's assume then it was not. I don't see where that gets us.


Well, this doesn't really apply, since Trostia would have already conquered your nation at the first sign of trouble. Or even before then, just to pave the way for Trostian corporations to set up lucrative quasi-state-run enterprises using cheap Mott Haven labor. Trostia is not a good example to be using as a model of appropriate national policy...

Aha. And can we then find a model of appropriate policy somewhere? Say, a nation that has found itself under attack by brutal thugs using a neighbor as a haven? Even Turkey reserves the right to cross into Iraq if necessary to attack the PKK! This is a universal right asserted by EVERY real world nation in this situation, so who is to say that a model is or isn't appropriate? Are you saying, in effect, that a model is only appropriate if it gives the answer you wish for? Kind of destroys the concept of a model, doesn't it?


Of course, the analogy doesn't really make sense. Pakistan DOES give permission sometimes. .

Obviuously, then, if the Taliban attacks continue, not enough.


Someone here is even arguing that they DID in this case as well. .

Plausible. Who knows? Well, one person does and he's not in this forum.



, the USA isn't under attack by terrorists from/in Pakistan so this wouldn't justify a US incursion.

But an ally IS under attack, and they have the right to call on our aid.

There are AQ cells everywhere. Usually, a someone is in charge of each cell. They are part not part of the 'inner circle' but are still in the upper-ranks. They wouldn't get hit in the strike, due to the fact that they weren't near where the 'inner circle' was...

But all these cells take orders from the circle and are administered from the circle. If you take away the administration, you just leave a bunch of scattered cells with no organisation and means of getting support quickly.

Pakistan implicitly agrees but does not explicitly agree to US chasing down Al Queda in Paki territory if push comes to shove. If you accept this nessesarily unwritten and informal agreement exists, then you will have a greater understanding as to why situations such as presented in the OP exist. Noone is lying here. Each country is playing the role that they agreed to. Paki can be the injured victim and the US "gets thier man" so to speak and its a win/win.

In fact, Pakistan has such little concern for its borders and its integrity that some of the territorial border lines between them and Afghanistan havnt had Pakistani guards anywhere near them for literally generations.

But all these cells take orders from the circle and are administered from the circle. If you take away the administration, you just leave a bunch of scattered cells with no organisation and means of getting support quickly.

The thing is...time is not a problem for those cells. We can't find the cells. They have all the time in the world to reorganize themselves until they find a new head.

are you saying I am not bold enough when I speak-up about Israel?

No, he's saying you're an anti-Semitic piece of crap.

But all these cells take orders from the circle and are administered from the circle. If you take away the administration, you just leave a bunch of scattered cells with no organisation and means of getting support quickly.

Not exactly. The cells have become to a large degree self networking. This is both an advantage and disadvantage. On the one hand, the network is harder to destroy. On the other hand, the lack of direct personal heirarchy means the network is easier to infiltrate and disrupt- it's harder to authenticate the identity of a fellow mujahadeen if your communications are by internet chatroom!

With this kind of dispersed network structure, individual cells become targets whenever the network can be infiltrated- and thanks to the war in Iraq, this is frequent. For example, by stealing the identity of a respected leader, the Good Guys can set up a terror cell with an informant, or give them faulty advice, causing a terror attack to fail through what appears to be nothing more than Bad Luck.

The founding fathers could be described as terrorists. You need to start thionking for yourself instead of beleiving what your government tell you.

You are right that they would but they went after things that were runned by the government. The whole Revolutionary War can be looked at in two ways. The First being an insurrection against constituted authority and the second one being a tax revolt.

Today, terrorsts are those who attack civilians intentionally. This includes bombing mosques, shopping centers, markets, etc. It is these people I have zero sympathy for. As to insurgents, they are people who go after legitament targets. These people are doing things legally and thus I have more respect for.

And you assume anyone killed by US action is one or the other, of course.

Actually no that would be incorrect. Unlike most people, I recognize what war is going to do to a civilian population. I also know the fact that civilians will die in war and in the aftermath of war. I also know the fact that what constitutes a civilian is highly subjective in a war of attrition that is waging now.

Because otherwise you wouldn't be able to, in good conscience, sit here and masturbate to the idea of dead people making you feel safer.

Oh boy are you way the hell off your rocker. That's ok. I know leftists can not understand what war is like.

This little rat probably has underwear older then you are and the underwear is probably wiser too. I also have a degree in Political Science so i do in fact have some form of formal education on the issue. But since its clear your not interested in debate but would rather personally insult i will no longer engage in this or any other topic with you. Toodles.

Yahoo... Another Poli Sci Major. Well said Intest. :)

What's wrong with debating AND personally attacking? I think you just want to pretend to be so offended so you can use it as an excuse to avoid conceding your point. Alas.

Because Personal attacks degrades your point

*note* I know I know I have done personal attacks with my points and yes. It degrades my points to.

Well given both nation track records each are likely to lie as each other. And attacking he militants does not outweigh the weakening of diplomatic ties. The US claoms to be about freedom n such but the US is not free to send its troops to any nation it feels like.

Last time I checked, our forces did not cross into Pakistan.

Last time I checked, our forces did not cross into Pakistan.

Phail...

Even more phail (http://www.kansas.com/entertainment/music/story/156580.html)

[QUOTE=Ollieland;13002226]Legal because the first war was not yet signed off?

OK, so it would have been legal for you to invade Germany in the eighties as the war was not officially signed off until after the fall of the wall.QUOTE]


For me to answer that question, you will have to show me the violations of the agreements ending the fighting, on the part of East Germany. Please include instances of East German attacks on Allied forces after WWII, and declarations that Allied forces in Berlin and along the access corridor would be attacked as the Allied occupation was now to be considered "imaginary" ,and other events you think would provide for an equivalent comparison of circumstances. And no, the East German Women's Olympic swim team does not count.

I know you can do it, because you're a really smart fellow. Good luck. When you have completed your search, we can then draw rational comparisons.


Now, bear in mind again, that although Casus Belli gives a nation a right to military recourse, it does not require it.

I asked about legalities, not justification. Try some reading comprehension, you'll get it eventually, because your a really smart fellow.

1) Who are the more likely liars, Pakistan or the USA?
1) Have you been to Pakistan? Have you talked to Pakistanis? How would you know that they are liars? Every nation has liars, USA included.Hydesland has not called them Liars.. not yet anyways.

Hydesland has not called them Liars.. not yet anyways.

I am saying that Pakistanis don't lie...>.>

... what if you took out Osama's inner circle in one strike? The administration of AQ would disappear, and there would be a crisis. Even if temporary, it could possibly have devastating effects on AQ.dude..

It works like that in Hollywood... Not in real life.


Its like: *they have a hikacked Airliner wired with dynamite.. >> you send the commandos inside >> bam bam bam :sniper::mp5::mp5::mp5::sniper: >> the 5 baddies are killed and all 60 passengers + 10 commandos make it alive*

Your brain has to tell you that is not a logical outcome.

I mean yes.. its fun and all.. but its not real.

No, he's saying you're an anti-Semitic piece of crap.I think he is telling me to speak up my mind about Israel. To say it boldly.

here IDF, read it again.. read it s-l-o-w-l-y ;)

If you want to say it, then say it boldly.

I am saying that Pakistanis don't lie...>.>hmm...

maybe what you meant to say is "Pakistanis are not liars"
and I can tell you Americans are not liars either.

but most politicians are big Liars.. Pakistanis too.
For this specific question (was permission -to strike Pakistan- asked and given?)... one Gov lied.

My logic tells me its the US gov.

No they did not. They were supported by the UK, Australia, Italy, Spain, Poland, Denmark, the Netherlands, Japan, South Korea, Mongolia, Togo, El Salvador, Honduras, Georgia, and other nations.

Treaties? There was no peace treaty between the US and Iraq. There was a Ceasefire agreement. As Iraq chose to terminate that agreement, the status reverted to the status prior to that agreement- war.

Saddam Hussein, 1996, indicating a rejection of the 1991 Ceasefire and a resumption of war on the United States and United Kingdom:

"Oh, men of our air defenses and our air hawks, from now on consider as non-existent their damned imaginary no-fly zones above 36 parallel and below 32 parallel. Strike with efficiency and competence, in the name of God, any of the aggressors' planes which violate the air space of your great country and everywhere in Iraq, now and in the future."

This is key! The end of the allied (Mostly US/UK) war effort in 91 was CONDITIONAL on the acceptance of the means of monitoring/ensuring compliance by Iraq: The No Fly Zones. Ergo, rejection of that meant a rejection of the conditional end of the war, ergo, war.

Further means by which the war can be shown to be legal:

Iraq openly maintained a state of war with Israel, and demonstrated this by firing SCUD missiles at Israel's civilian population. It is legitimate to declare war on a nation already engaged in a war: an example would be the declaration of war on Germany by Brazil in WWII, with no attacks on Brazil by the Germans.

It is also recognized that Genocide is a legitimate cause for foreign military intervention, and in fact Saddam was engaged in the genocide of the Marsh Arabs- not only the people but the entire ecosystem was threatened with extinction. The Marsh Arab culture would be gone today if Iraq had not been invaded. That is genocide, and is not acceptable.

So, on many counts, the idea that it was somehow "illegal" to invade Iraq simply doesn't hold up.
Yes it was illegal in many ways (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9928038&postcount=214). This has been hashed out many times, especially the non starters such as violation of the "ceasefire" and the non-existent "no fly zones (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,391985,00.html)".

Do some research and get back to me huh?

Americans are so pigheaded. They always strut around saying, We can invade you, and you, and you, and rebuild you. It drives me nuts, since I live in the US and see this stuff happening. No, I'm not an American citizen, or a Mexican. I came over legally.

Wait, wait, wait... Exactly how many Americans do you know to qualify a statement like "Americans are pigheaded... saying 'We can invade you, and you, and you."?

Originally Posted by Vanek Drury Brieres
Americans are so pigheaded. They always strut around saying, We can invade you, and you, and you, and rebuild you. It drives me nuts, since I live in the US and see this stuff happening. No, I'm not an American citizen, or a Mexican. I came over legally.

Basically, America does this stuff, because we've got the knowledge that no one would be dumb enough to try and fight back. It's like the bully on the playground that steals your lunch money. You wanna try and fight back? Go ahead, try. But this bully isn't dumb, he's spread roots into all other kids on the playground. And there are no teachers. There isn't a higher power that's going to teach America a lesson, oh no. And when all the kids band together to hold their talks? America's there, listening to every word they say to make sure no one steps out against him. America may not be doing anything right for the time being, and is being a bully, but there's really nothing anyone can do about it. When America's done with this mean spell, we'll probably fall back into that nice spot where economy booms and everyone's happily swinging from the monkey bars again. But that's not right now. The sad thing about this world we live in, is that it' ruled with power. If you're strong, you're right. It may not be the best way to run things, but that's how it's run.

In fact, Pakistan has such little concern for its borders and its integrity that some of the territorial border lines between them and Afghanistan havnt had Pakistani guards anywhere near them for literally generations.
Precisely. I think calling Waziristan Pakistan is stretching the truth a bit. I mean, it's not like the Pakistani government actually has any power there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federally_Administered_Tribal_Areas_%28FATA%29

Love the way people spin this.

Let's see.

1) Taliban Forces, with the at least tacit agreement of Pakistan, attack and kill Afghans, and attack and kill soldiers of the Free World there to protect those Afghans.

2) Pakistan does nothing to stop this. Pakistan is not interested in things on their borders.

3) Free World Soldiers strike back against the Taliban, the most brutally oppressive theocratic fascist organization on Earth, and NOW people are concerned over the integrity of Pakistan's borders.

ROFLROLF

US will not invade Pakistan anyway.

They don’t have the troops or the money left.

Phail...

Even more phail (http://www.kansas.com/entertainment/music/story/156580.html)

quoting a music story?

As to troops crossing the border...was there a troop crossing in this case? The article I read points to a no. And the word is Fail. Learn to spell.

Yes it was illegal in many ways (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9928038&postcount=214). This has been hashed out many times, especially the non starters such as violation of the "ceasefire" and the non-existent "no fly zones (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,391985,00.html)".

Do some research and get back to me huh?

Take your own advice. Violating a Cease-Fire is grounds for war regardless of what you may think.

No they did not. They were supported by the UK, Australia, Italy, Spain, Poland, Denmark, the Netherlands, Japan, South Korea, Mongolia, Togo, El Salvador, Honduras, Georgia, and other nations.

Also

We did not have UN support but by god we had support of several nations in a coalition against Saddam Hussein. To say we had no international support is ludicrous.
The UK, Australia and South Korea - essentially puppet states of the US, thankfully this is somewhat ending in the UK. No real surprises there.

Italy, Poland, Denmark, the Netherlands - have made such a pitiful commitment that they might as well not have bothered.

Spain - elected a new government essentially because they were against the war, which shows a complete lack of faith in the 'War on Terror'

Mongolia, El Salvador, Hunduras and Georgia - Who the fuck cares about any of their opinions?

Togo - gets a special mention for being a state so crap that it couldn't pay the salaries of its World Cup football (soccer to you) team. See above, but even more so.

Others - If they're less significant than Mongolia, they're hardly worth bothering to mention.
Treaties? There was no peace treaty between the US and Iraq. There was a Ceasefire agreement. As Iraq chose to terminate that agreement, the status reverted to the status prior to that agreement- war.
International treaties, I'm quite aware that the relationship between the US/UK and Iraq was an extremely tense ceasefire.

I chose my words poorly, sorry about that.
Saddam Hussein, 1996, indicating a rejection of the 1991 Ceasefire and a resumption of war on the United States and United Kingdom:

"Oh, men of our air defenses and our air hawks, from now on consider as non-existent their damned imaginary no-fly zones above 36 parallel and below 32 parallel. Strike with efficiency and competence, in the name of God, any of the aggressors' planes which violate the air space of your great country and everywhere in Iraq, now and in the future."

This is key! The end of the allied (Mostly US/UK) war effort in 91 was CONDITIONAL on the acceptance of the means of monitoring/ensuring compliance by Iraq: The No Fly Zones. Ergo, rejection of that meant a rejection of the conditional end of the war, ergo, war.
There was no provision whatsoever in the UN for the no-fly zones to be legal, and as shown at the bottom of my post, Article 103 states that members must take precedence of UN resolutions over their own treaties.

Hence the violations were NOT a legal cause for a war.
Further means by which the war can be shown to be legal:

Iraq openly maintained a state of war with Israel, and demonstrated this by firing SCUD missiles at Israel's civilian population.
In the middle of the Gulf War, killing an enormous two civilians. More people died in the time I took to write that one sentence.
It is legitimate to declare war on a nation already engaged in a war: an example would be the declaration of war on Germany by Brazil in WWII, with no attacks on Brazil by the Germans.
Show me proof of direct action by Iraq against Israel after 1991. Not something wooly like 'they funded baddies', actions by the state itself.

You can hardly call two states at war with each other if nobody's getting killed as a result.
It is also recognized that Genocide is a legitimate cause for foreign military intervention, and in fact Saddam was engaged in the genocide of the Marsh Arabs- not only the people but the entire ecosystem was threatened with extinction. The Marsh Arab culture would be gone today if Iraq had not been invaded. That is genocide, and is not acceptable.
Were the invasion of Iraq a peacekeeping mission, that would be absolutely correct, but seeing as this is, indeed, entirely not the case, this argument doesn't stand up.
So, on many counts, the idea that it was somehow "illegal" to invade Iraq simply doesn't hold up.
Apart from on these grounds -

All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
- Absolutely did not occur.

What happened was that after the implementation of Resolution 1441, when no weapons outside of what was reported in a document of around 10,000 pages were discovered, and no WMDs were found, was that the intelligence services of the UK and the US fabricated 'evidence' of their existance and used this to attack.

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
- Absolutely did not occur.

The invasion was essentially a manhunt for Saddam Hussein, which goes against this part of the charter, then followed by some hackneyed shite that was tired by the late 1950s about free'um and 'mocracy.

Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41* would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.

*(essentially economic and diplomatic sanctions of various kinds) - Yootopia
The invasion of Iraq did nothing to restore or maintain international peace and security, indeed nothing of the sort has occured - instead the whole of the Middle East has been destabilised, and the allies of the US are now at a greater risk of terrorist attacks, as shown by the Madrid train bombings, and the July 7th attacks on the UK.



Thus via the UN's charter, of which the US and UK, as well as most other coalition members, must conform to, the war was an illegal one, as shown in Article 103 -

In the event of a conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail.

*snip*

You also forgot to mention, which is not unusual for leftists to ignore, that all UN Resolutions were never overriden and that all of them stated that ALL Previous Resolutions were still in effect. As such, with Hussein violating UN Resolutions, including the cease-fire resolutions, that required UN Action to resume against Iraq. Ergo, the war was still legal.

I know what the UN Charter says Yootopia.

The UN found Hussein to be in violation of article 39 and other articles to justify its action to oust him from Kuwait. However, there was never a peace treaty signed that officially ended the 1st Gulf War. With that in mind, the Persian Gulf War was still legally going on. When Hussein violated the terms of the cease-fire on numerous occassions, under the Cease-Fire Resolution that was passed by the Security Council, action was supposed to have resumed. We just took all the UN Resolutions and enforced them by resuming action against Hussein as specified by UN Resolutions.

You quoted Article 3 which is a poor choice on your part as article 3 states:

The original Members of the United Nations is open to all other peace-loving state which accept the obligations contained in the present Charter and, in the judgment of the Organization, are able and willing to carry out these obligations.

Your quotation of Article 4 is also incorrect.

We are fighting a war and we will go where the enemy flees to. IF that means Pakistan, we will attack the tribal regions where they are at.
Using your logic, then it would be okay with you for the Cuban government to bomb areas where members of the Cuban American National Foundation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_American_National_Foundation)are plotting the overthrow of Fidel Castro?

The Cuban American National Foundation (CANF) is a non-profit organization dedicated to overthrowing the Cuban government of Fidel Castro

Would it also be fair to say that the Cuban government should be allowed to bomb American government people who helped finance the Cuban American National Foundation?

Between 1990 and 1992, it received a quarter million dollars from the National Endowment for Democracy, an organization financed by the US government.
That is just one small example.....there are many others.

Using your logic, then it would be okay with you for the Cuban government to bomb areas where members of the Cuban American National Foundation are plotting the overthrow of Fidel Castro?



Would it also be fair to say that the Cuban government should be allowed to bomb American government people who helped finance the Cuban American National Foundation?


That is just one small example.....there are many others.

Has this organization actually taken action inside Cuba or attacked the Cuban government directly?

Has this organization actually taken action inside Cuba or attacked the Cuban government directly?
No. Is that is a prerequisite?

That is a prerequisite?

Does that answer my question?

I edited my answer. Now I await yours.

Then the answer is no they do not have the right to do so.

Has this organization actually taken action inside Cuba or attacked the Cuban government directly?

No. Is that is a prerequisite?

Does that answer my question?
I edited my answer. Now I await yours.

Then the answer is no they do not have the right to do so.
Did Pakistan actually take action inside USA or Afghanistan or the attacked the USA or Afghanistan government directly?

Did Pakistan actually take action inside USA or Afghanistan or the attacked the USA or Afghanistan government directly?

I think you need to look at what Neu has said about the region. The tribal areas are autonomous to the Pakistani Government. It is here that the terrorists are hiding and launching attacks from. As such, as the terrorists are hiding and attacking from there and the Pakistani government is not doing much to curtail it, it is on their own.

As of right now though, the question remains! Did we or did we not have permission to launch an attack into this region where the Taliban is hiding.

I think you need to look at what Neu has said about the region. The tribal areas are autonomous to the Pakistani Government. It is here that the terrorists are hiding and launching attacks from. As such, as the terrorists are hiding and attacking from there and the Pakistani government is not doing much to curtail it, it is on their own.
Not an acceptable answer. Still part of Pakistan my friend.
:p

As of right now though, the question remains! Did we or did we not have permission to launch an attack into this region where the Taliban is hiding.
Apparently not. No surprise to me:

US blames miscommunication for Pakistan border strike (http://abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/08/28/2017833.htm?section=justin)

The US-led coalition in Afghanistan has admitted it did not have permission from Pakistan to strike Taliban positions across the border at the weekend, citing a "miscommunication" problem.

Not an acceptable answer. Still part of Pakistan my friend.
:p


Apparently not. No surprise to me:

US blames miscommunication for Pakistan border strike (http://abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/08/28/2017833.htm?section=justin)

So the truth does come out uh? Interesting. I did not expect this to come out. Thanks for the info.

So the truth does come out uh? Interesting. I did not expect this to come out. Thanks for the info.
Yet you agreed to this strike even though it was in doubt as to whether it was legal or not.

Love the way people spin this.

Let's see.

1) Taliban Forces, with the at least tacit agreement of Pakistan, attack and kill Afghans, and attack and kill soldiers of the Free World there to protect those Afghans.

2) Pakistan does nothing to stop this. Pakistan is not interested in things on their borders.

3) Free World Soldiers strike back against the Taliban, the most brutally oppressive theocratic fascist organization on Earth, and NOW people are concerned over the integrity of Pakistan's borders.

Hypocrites. Where were the protests when the Taliban was crossing that border, killing schoolteachers because they dared to teach little girls?

It goes two ways. If Pakistan cannot control the borders when terrorists go OUT, they forfeit the right to complain when soldiers come IN.

And yes, if American Evangelical Preachers were leading mobs of killers out of Montana into Canada for the purpose of killing people, and the US government was unable or unwilling to stop it, the Free World would have every right to send troops to do the job. The rules apply the same everywhere.

I'm sorry, I just had a Deus Ex-esque daydream where the US, Canada and most of west Europe were combined into one, being renamed into The Free World.

Mebbe I can find a job at UNATCO.

You also forgot to mention, which is not unusual for leftists to ignore, that all UN Resolutions were never overriden and that all of them stated that ALL Previous Resolutions were still in effect. As such, with Hussein violating UN Resolutions, including the cease-fire resolutions, that required UN Action to resume against Iraq. Ergo, the war was still legal.

The UN found Hussein to be in violation of article 39 and other articles to justify its action to oust him from Kuwait. However, there was never a peace treaty signed that officially ended the 1st Gulf War. With that in mind, the Persian Gulf War was still legally going on. When Hussein violated the terms of the cease-fire on numerous occassions, under the Cease-Fire Resolution that was passed by the Security Council, action was supposed to have resumed.
There was a ceasefire, signed on the 3rd of March, between the two sides.

The Articles of the Charter also go before anything else, including UN Resolutions, which were what was contravened.
We just took all the UN Resolutions and enforced them by resuming action against Hussein as specified by UN Resolutions.
Provide me with links to the ones that you're referring to.
You quoted Article 3 which is a poor choice on your part as article 3 states:

Your quotation of Article 4 is also incorrect.
Quotes listed as Articles 3 and 4 are actually Article 2, paragraphs 3 and 4. Cocked up on that bit, the rest is right, though, IIRC.

Has this organization actually taken action inside Cuba or attacked the Cuban government directly?
Yes.

The September 4th, 1997 attacks in Havana, which actually killed someone, were done by the organisation, and this was actually admitted by them, as was the fact that they were given money to do so, in a 1998 interview in the New York Times with the leader, Luis Posada Carriles.

I'm not entirely sure how this is relevant to the whole of the rest of the topic, mind.

No they did not. They were supported by the UK, Australia, Italy, Spain, Poland, Denmark, the Netherlands, Japan, South Korea, Mongolia, Togo, El Salvador, Honduras, Georgia, and other nations.

Treaties? There was no peace treaty between the US and Iraq. There was a Ceasefire agreement. As Iraq chose to terminate that agreement, the status reverted to the status prior to that agreement- war.

Saddam Hussein, 1996, indicating a rejection of the 1991 Ceasefire and a resumption of war on the United States and United Kingdom:

"Oh, men of our air defenses and our air hawks, from now on consider as non-existent their damned imaginary no-fly zones above 36 parallel and below 32 parallel. Strike with efficiency and competence, in the name of God, any of the aggressors' planes which violate the air space of your great country and everywhere in Iraq, now and in the future."

This is key! The end of the allied (Mostly US/UK) war effort in 91 was CONDITIONAL on the acceptance of the means of monitoring/ensuring compliance by Iraq: The No Fly Zones. Ergo, rejection of that meant a rejection of the conditional end of the war, ergo, war.

Further means by which the war can be shown to be legal:

Iraq openly maintained a state of war with Israel, and demonstrated this by firing SCUD missiles at Israel's civilian population. It is legitimate to declare war on a nation already engaged in a war: an example would be the declaration of war on Germany by Brazil in WWII, with no attacks on Brazil by the Germans.

It is also recognized that Genocide is a legitimate cause for foreign military intervention, and in fact Saddam was engaged in the genocide of the Marsh Arabs- not only the people but the entire ecosystem was threatened with extinction. The Marsh Arab culture would be gone today if Iraq had not been invaded. That is genocide, and is not acceptable.

So, on many counts, the idea that it was somehow "illegal" to invade Iraq simply doesn't hold up.


The no fly zones were a part of the U.S embargo on Iraq and was often broken by America by means of letting war planes fly over head. Saddam was totally justified in shooting down war planes flying over his country because they where not allowed to be there on account of an embargo you proposed.

Iraq only fired scud missiles on Israel during the gulf war and as far as i now never openly declared war with Israel.

As for the marsh arabs, Ken Roth of Human Rights Watch stated that the "killing in Iraq at the time was not of an exceptional nature" so "Genocide" is bit too strong.

And there is of course the undeniable fact that the UN never sanctioned it.

Yet you agreed to this strike even though it was in doubt as to whether it was legal or not.

Yep! Someone shoots at me from across the border, permission or not, I am entitled to defend my people. Even if that means firing into another person's territory. Self-Defense. Even the UN Charter recognizes self defense measures.

There was a ceasefire, signed on the 3rd of March, between the two sides.

Cease-fire =/= peace treaty.

The Articles of the Charter also go before anything else, including UN Resolutions, which were what was contravened.

UN Resolutions authorized attack if violated. That my friend is why we went into Iraq. We were, in essence, fulfilling UN Resolutions.

Provide me with links to the ones that you're referring to.

I am referring to the Resolutions that dealt with Iraq including the cease-fire one that you quoted above. The one that did not actually end the war.

Quotes listed as Articles 3 and 4 are actually Article 2, paragraphs 3 and 4. Cocked up on that bit, the rest is right, though, IIRC.

Article 2 sections 3 and 4 is right. Had to point it out to ya though :D

Yes.

The September 4th, 1997 attacks in Havana, which actually killed someone, were done by the organisation, and this was actually admitted by them, as was the fact that they were given money to do so, in a 1998 interview in the New York Times with the leader, Luis Posada Carriles.

I'm not entirely sure how this is relevant to the whole of the rest of the topic, mind.

Then CH got something wrong :eek:

That would be a clear violation of another nations sovereignty and blatant aggression. What if they fled across the other border to Iran?

It is clearly a violation of the UN Charter and international law. How can you possibly support such an action?

Pakistan is the one violating other countries's sovereignity (Afg in this case) by sending in armed men who intend to challenge the Afghan govt.

If Pakistan cannot control the NWFP areas from doing this, then it is an admission that they do not have sovereignity over NWFP (de jure maybe but not de facto).

Yep! Someone shoots at me from across the border, permission or not, I am entitled to defend my people. Even if that means firing into another person's territory. Self-Defense. Even the UN Charter recognizes self defense measures.
Ummmm......nice try Corny but you really should stick to the facts and quit making stuff up:

"There was no attack, no firing from our side of the border. And there was no permission asked by them or given by us," Major General Waheed Arshad said.
Face it, your argument is in the dumpster and you support the illegal violation of sovereignity rights. The UN Charter means nothing to you unless it is for YOUR purposes.

Cease-fire =/= peace treaty.

UN Resolutions authorized attack if violated. That my friend is why we went into Iraq. We were, in essence, fulfilling UN Resolutions.

I am referring to the Resolutions that dealt with Iraq including the cease-fire one that you quoted above. The one that did not actually end the war.

Article 2 sections 3 and 4 is right. Had to point it out to ya though :D
Click on Popping Corn in my sig and that should clarify any misconceptions that you have about ceasefires, no fly zones and violations of the UN Charter.

Pakistan is the one violating other countries's sovereignity (Afg in this case) by sending in armed men who intend to challenge the Afghan govt.
Pakistan is "sending in armed men who intend to challenge the Afghan govt."?

If Pakistan cannot control the NWFP areas from doing this, then it is an admission that they do not have sovereignity over NWFP (de jure maybe but not de facto).
Did the Pakistan government admit that they have no sovereignity in that area and that it was okay for US forces to attack? No they didn't right?

Not an acceptable answer. Still part of Pakistan my friend.


How?

The Durrant treaty has expired in 1994. The area legally should have gone back to Afghanistan.

For somebody who stresses on "international law" and "treaties" when it comes to the US invasion of Iraq, that is a strange position to take when it comes to Pakistan.

Practically speaking, Pak govt made a pact with the taliban that they will withdraw from the area. That is a clear ceding of sovereignity to taliban. How come it is sovereign Pakistani territory when it comes to US/Afg forces and it is not when it comes to taliban ?

How?

The Durrant treaty has expired in 1994. The area legally should have gone back to Afghanistan.
Anything to back up this claim?

For somebody who stresses on "international law" and "treaties" when it comes to the US invasion of Iraq, that is a strange position to take when it comes to Pakistan.
I do stress on IL and Treaties......and yeah the invasion of Iraq is illegal. Because I don't know anything you are talking about in regards to the Durrant treaty, I am somehow taking a "strange position"?

Practically speaking, Pak govt made a pact with the taliban that they will withdraw from the area. That is a clear ceding of sovereignity to taliban. How come it is sovereign Pakistani territory when it comes to US/Afg forces and it is not when it comes to taliban ?
Ceding sovereignity to the Taliban.....say what?

Cease-fire =/= peace treaty.
Erm I think you must have missed my post where I pointed out that I meant 'international treaties' (as in UN and other such thingies) instead of peace treaties.

Either that, or I didn't write it down, and just thought it, which is eminently possible as I'm extremely tired due to going to a rock festival a couple of days back.
UN Resolutions authorized attack if violated. That my friend is why we went into Iraq. We were, in essence, fulfilling UN Resolutions.
The cease-fire didn't relate to the No-Fly zones, though...
I am referring to the Resolutions that dealt with Iraq including the cease-fire one that you quoted above. The one that did not actually end the war.
I have a feeling that this whole thing is going to go in circles.
Article 2 sections 3 and 4 is right. Had to point it out to ya though :D
See statement above about being extremely tired.

And, yeah, sorry about the quite frankly appaling state of my posts on the matter.
Then CH got something wrong :eek:
Absolutely correct.

Pakistan is "sending in armed men who intend to challenge the Afghan govt."??

What do you call a taliban crossing from inside Pakistan into Afghanistan with the intent to overthrow the Afghan govt ?

I call it invasion and war. Just because it is not a declared one, does not mean that it is not one.


Did the Pakistan government admit that they have no sovereignity in that area and that it was okay for US forces to attack? No they didn't right?

If your dog keeps jumping over my fence and bites my children, and you are not doing anything about it, then I will try shooting it from inside my house or even jump the fence myself and try to kill the dog.

If you don't like it, maybe you shoud try putting down the dog yourself.

Anything to back up this claim?


I am not backing up what is common knowledge (atleast for someone debating about the issue). Please read about Durrand line. There are plenty of resources.




Ceding sovereignity to the Taliban.....say what?

Here, let me say it slowly.

One party goes to a meeting with another pary and agrees to withdraw from the area it is trying to control to another pary. That is called "Ok, I give up, you keep this area, I am outta here", in other words, I give up sovereignity.

I call it invasion and war. Just because it is not a declared one, does not mean that it is not one.wait..

are you saying Pakistan and Afghanistan are at War?

wait..

are you saying Pakistan and Afghanistan are at War?

de facto.

de facto.interesting..

If I follow your logic.. Iraq-vs-Turkey are currently at war too.

interesting..

If I follow your logic.. We also other have ongoing wars.. like Iraq-Turkey.

You are NOT following my logic. ;)

Is Turkey or Iraq sending armed people across each other countries with hostile intent?

Pakistan did and now Afghanistan is fighting back.

Taliban is a proxy of Pakistan.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB227/index.htm

Read thru that please.

There are even documents released now that regular Pakistani forces fought alongside Gulbudin Hekmatyar to assist him capture Kabul. If that is not invasion and war, I dunno what is.

...armed people across each other countries with hostile intent (from Turkey or Iraq) ?Yes.
...


dont you watch the news.. or read the newspapers?

There are even documents released now that regular Pakistani forces fought alongside Gulbudin Hekmatyar to assist him capture Kabul. If that is not invasion and war, I dunno what is.
Pakistan did and now Afghanistan is fighting back.the poster from India is always blaming Pakistan.. what else is new?

the poster from India is always blaming Pakistan.. what else is new?

Atleast I substantiate my "blamings" unlike your Israel rants which you hide in white color. :p

Yes.
...


dont you watch the news.. or read the newspapers?

Are you talking about Kurds?

Since they are not directed by Iraqi govt, the analogy fails. Pakistan has directed taliban and part of its establishment still does. Try again.

Oh and Kurds are fighting against both Iraq and Turkey for independant country....unlike Taliban which is trying to takeover whole of Afghanistan and Pakistan assisting it for "Strategic depth".

Just so you know....before making wrong analogies.

the poster from India is always blaming Pakistan.. what else is new?

does being an Indian automatically make what I say about Pakistan as false?

Why don't you address my points as it is and not based on the country of my origin or whatever?

the poster from India is always blaming Pakistan.. what else is new?
I thought you only hated Jews... seemingly you can be ridiculously intolerant of a great many peoples all at the same time. At least you're not only antisemitic, I suppose.

What do you call a taliban crossing from inside Pakistan into Afghanistan with the intent to overthrow the Afghan govt ?

I call it invasion and war. Just because it is not a declared one, does not mean that it is not one.
Are these rebels Pakistanis or Afghanis? You may call it invasion but are you correct?

If your dog keeps jumping over my fence and bites my children, and you are not doing anything about it, then I will try shooting it from inside my house or even jump the fence myself and try to kill the dog.

If you don't like it, maybe you shoud try putting down the dog yourself.
However, when you jump over the fence and kill innocent people then you are no better?

I am not backing up what is common knowledge (atleast for someone debating about the issue). Please read about Durrand line. There are plenty of resources.
First you call it the Durrant treaty, and now you are calling it the Durrand line. I asked you to back up your claim. What is common knowledge to you, may not be common knowledge for me. I live in Canada and I am not a next door neighbour to Pakistan like you.

Here, let me say it slowly.

One party goes to a meeting with another pary and agrees to withdraw from the area it is trying to control to another pary. That is called "Ok, I give up, you keep this area, I am outta here", in other words, I give up sovereignity.
I think your interpretation of the deal that was made is somewhat different from reality?

There are even documents released now that regular Pakistani forces fought alongside Gulbudin Hekmatyar to assist him capture Kabul. If that is not invasion and war, I dunno what is.
And Pakistan hasn't been trying to help track down the Taliban (http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/4778137/)over the past 6 years?

On the Pakistani side of the border, as many as 100,000 troops — including army soldiers, Ranger commandos and paramilitaries — have been steadily building hundreds of outposts along the 1,500-mile-long spine of rugged ridgelines, looking for al-Qaida fugitives and sympathizers.

Meanwhile, this isn't the first US attack against Pakistan:

Pakistan Condemns Purported CIA Air Strike (http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/47/16961)

Saturday 14 January 2006

Pakistan on Saturday condemned a purported CIA air strike on a border village that officials said unsuccessfully targeted al-Qaida's second-in-command, and said it was protesting to the US Embassy over the attack that killed at least 17 people.

Thousands of local tribesmen, chanting "God is Great," demonstrated against the attack, claiming the victims were local villagers without terrorist links and had never hosted Ayman al-Zawahri.

Two senior Pakistani officials told The Associated Press that the CIA acted on incorrect information in launching the attack early Friday in the northwestern village of Damadola, near the Afghan border.

Ah, but I'm not the one who brought that up. It was one of those complaining, who called the US/Afghan operation an invasion of another nation. Which, of course, D-Day was.

Uh, you brought up D-Day. Just because D-Day is an invasion doesn't mean anyone else was talking about it before you did. You made the comparison.

Aha. And can we then find a model of appropriate policy somewhere? Say, a nation that has found itself under attack by brutal thugs using a neighbor as a haven?

"Thugs" come across the border from US to Canada all the time. And Mexico to the US. I don't see these nations responding with armed invasions, however, do you?

Are you saying, in effect, that a model is only appropriate if it gives the answer you wish for? Kind of destroys the concept of a model, doesn't it?

No, I was saying the roleplayed and fictional nation of Greater Trostia is not an appropriate model for anything but Greater Trostia.

Obviuously, then, if the Taliban attacks continue, not enough.

How so? That assumes that hey, just letting the US pass through Pakistan enough times will defeat the Taliban. Again. I guess the real solution would be to annex Pakistan, wouldn't that eliminate the armed attacks entirely? I think it wouldn't.

Plausible. Who knows? Well, one person does and he's not in this forum.

It's possible, but without any evidence to support it it's just conjecture. Not falsifiable either.

But an ally IS under attack, and they have the right to call on our aid.

Yes, but I think the case here is that they didn't call on our aid, and in fact refused it, but we "aided" anyway.

...seemingly you can be ridiculously intolerant of a great many peoples all at the same time. At least you're not only antisemitic, I suppose. LOL.. I guess its something like equal opportunity for all, I suppose.

:D

Since they are not directed by Iraqi govt...what?

are you saying the Pakistani Gov ordered the Afghan insurgents to attack the US "coalition"?
really?

does being an Indian automatically make what I say about Pakistan as false?No.
...

does being Aryavartha automatically make what I say about Pakistan as false?No, not automatically. ;)

Are these rebels Pakistanis or Afghanis?
Most likely neither. I mean, these are pretty independent Pashtun tribes, officially within Pakistani borders but the only Pakistani presence is an official who sits down with tribal chiefs every now and again to discuss the general situation.

That's why I was saying calling an attack in Waziristan an attack on Pakistan is a bit of a stretch. The Pakistani government has no control in the area, instead there are tribes that are more often than not allied with the Taliban (there's good money to be made from Poppy, afterall).

Most likely neither. I mean, these are pretty independent Pashtun tribes, officially within Pakistani borders but the only Pakistani presence is an official who sits down with tribal chiefs every now and again to discuss the general situation.

That's why I was saying calling an attack in Waziristan an attack on Pakistan is a bit of a stretch. The Pakistani government has no control in the area, instead there are tribes that are more often than not allied with the Taliban (there's good money to be made from Poppy, afterall).
I don't think it is a bit of a stretch:

Pakistan’s New Waziristan Strategy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federally_Administered_Tribal_Areas#Pakistan.E2.80.99s_New_Waziristan_Strategy)

Still part of Pakistan.

Still part of Pakistan.
I think if anything this proves that it isn't. I mean, the government's strategy in the area consists of sending more troops in...doesn't sound like normal domestic policy to me.

Why would Pakistan want to get rid of the Taliban, they are a sure money maker while their still around.

Ummmm......nice try Corny but you really should stick to the facts and quit making stuff up:


Face it, your argument is in the dumpster and you support the illegal violation of sovereignity rights. The UN Charter means nothing to you unless it is for YOUR purposes.

They are still being held there and attacks were being launched across the border into Afghanistan. Thus...it makes it self-defense. Remember CH, Pakistan has zero control in that region.

Pakistan is the one violating other countries's sovereignity (Afg in this case) by sending in armed men who intend to challenge the Afghan govt.

If Pakistan cannot control the NWFP areas from doing this, then it is an admission that they do not have sovereignity over NWFP (de jure maybe but not de facto).

I coulld not agree more.

How?

The Durrant treaty has expired in 1994. The area legally should have gone back to Afghanistan.

For somebody who stresses on "international law" and "treaties" when it comes to the US invasion of Iraq, that is a strange position to take when it comes to Pakistan.

Practically speaking, Pak govt made a pact with the taliban that they will withdraw from the area. That is a clear ceding of sovereignity to taliban. How come it is sovereign Pakistani territory when it comes to US/Afg forces and it is not when it comes to taliban ?

Because CH knows jack shit about international law. He feels that Iraq did not violate the cease-fire accord with the UN even though anyone with a brain knows they did by failing to cooperate with the UN as specified in the Cease-Fire Resolution.

Face it. CH feels this is not a valid attack but what you are saying is spot on. ATTACK=LEGAL!!!

What do you call a taliban crossing from inside Pakistan into Afghanistan with the intent to overthrow the Afghan govt ?

I call it invasion and war. Just because it is not a declared one, does not mean that it is not one.

Which means the defenders can attack into their territory in self defense and not violate any treaties or laws or the UN Charter.

does being an Indian automatically make what I say about Pakistan as false?

Why don't you address my points as it is and not based on the country of my origin or whatever?

Because OD can't address points and never has been able to.

ATTACK=LEGAL!!!writing with Capital letters makes it true... Not ;)

Because CH knows jack shit about international law. He feels that Iraq did not violate the cease-fire accord with the UN even though anyone with a brain knows they did by failing to cooperate with the UN as specified in the Cease-Fire Resolution.
For a guy who studied political science you sure are dense.

Here ya go:

Why 'No-Fly' Zone Clashes Won't Trigger an Iraq War (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,391985,00.html)

This time Corny....read the WHOLE article. I have posted this so many times for you....perhaps it will sink in this time?

Face it. CH feels this is not a valid attack but what you are saying is spot on. ATTACK=LEGAL!!!
Wrong again Corny:

http://english.people.com.cn/90001/90777/6231786.html

http://www.paktribune.com/news/index.shtml?185767

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007%5C08%5C03%5Cstory_3-8-2007_pg7_17

Because CH knows jack shit about international law. He feels that Iraq did not violate the cease-fire accord with the UN even though anyone with a brain knows they did by failing to cooperate with the UN as specified in the Cease-Fire Resolution.


For a guy who studied political science you sure are dense.

Fixed your quote box for ya

Here ya go:

Why 'No-Fly' Zone Clashes Won't Trigger an Iraq War (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,391985,00.html)

This time Corny....read the WHOLE article. I have posted this so many times for you....perhaps it will sink in this time?

For a guy who is a canadian and a supporter of I.L. (even though its only as good as its enforcement which is never), you sure are quick with the no fly zone card.

Here's a tip. Sometimes when someone talks about Iraq breaking the cease-fire, 9 times out of 10 they are not talking about the No Fly Zones. I know I was not talking about it but you go right on ahead and continue to think that in your mind.

Are these rebels Pakistanis or Afghanis? You may call it invasion but are you correct?

Some of them don't have a concept of being a citizen. They have tribal identity or transnational-religious identity.

To see the bigger picture, it does not matter which nationality the rebels actually belong to. There are some Arabs of various nationalities in the mix...does that change the basic question of violation of Afghan sovereignty by Pakistan ?

What matters is who directed them and who is facilitating their activities and who is turning a blind eye etc.


However, when you jump over the fence and kill innocent people then you are no better?

Yes. I rather like my child to live (following the analogy).

"Innocent" - is a subjective term. Is a taliban who truly believes he is doing what he believes is right in attacking Afghan govt institutions, innocent?
Is the tribal village head who gives shelter to the taliban innocent?
Are those manning the Pak army post that does not prevent the infiltration innocent?
Is Pervez Musharraf, who pleads all sorts of excuses innocent?

Here's a tip. Sometimes when someone talks about Iraq breaking the cease-fire, 9 times out of 10 they are not talking about the No Fly Zones. I know I was not talking about it but you go right on ahead and continue to think that in your mind.
Okay, Corny......then specifically when talking about "Iraq breaking the cease-fire", just exactly what specific violation of the ceasefire are you referring to?

First you call it the Durrant treaty, and now you are calling it the Durrand line. I asked you to back up your claim. What is common knowledge to you, may not be common knowledge for me. I live in Canada and I am not a next door neighbour to Pakistan like you.

errrrr...Durrant treaty led to Durrand line, the line dividing Pakistan and Afghanistan.

It takes 2 minutes to look it up in google.

It is really simple.

Go to www.google.com. Type Durrand treaty. Go thru some of the links...there will be pro-Pakistani and pro-Afghanistani slant and by reading more you will come to some sort of understanding from both sides on the issue.


I think your interpretation of the deal that was made is somewhat different from reality?

You have to explain more than just saying I am wrong.

What is the definition of sovereignty?

The state has writ over the territory. In this case, it does not have. The state has ceded control to taliban.

It really does not matter what you think. The talibans in that area think that that area is theirs and the Pakistan govt seems to have agreed to that by withdrawing from there.

That's all that matters.

Okay, Corny......then specifically when talking about "Iraq breaking the cease-fire", just exactly what specific violation of the ceasefire are you referring to?

Failure to cooperate with the UN. Threatening Kuwait. These are just two violations.

errrrr...Durrant treaty led to Durrand line, the line dividing Pakistan and Afghanistan.

It takes 2 minutes to look it up in google.

It is really simple.

Go to www.google.com. Type Durrand treaty. Go thru some of the links...there will be pro-Pakistani and pro-Afghanistani slant and by reading more you will come to some sort of understanding from both sides on the issue.



You have to explain more than just saying I am wrong.

What is the definition of sovereignty?

The state has writ over the territory. In this case, it does not have. The state has ceded control to taliban.

It really does not matter what you think. The talibans in that area think that that area is theirs and the Pakistan govt seems to have agreed to that by withdrawing from there.

That's all that matters.

Ch does not understand this. He feels that anyone who has political control has soveriegnty over it. Little does he realize that military control is essential and Pakistan does not have it in wazeristan.

Okay, Corny......then specifically when talking about "Iraq breaking the cease-fire", just exactly what specific violation of the ceasefire are you referring to?

Failure to cooperate with the UN. Threatening Kuwait. These are just two violations.
You are dodging again. :p

Specify the exact violation of the ceasefire that YOU are referring to.

The invasion/threatening of Kuwait does not qualify as a correct answer. You took political science?

Failure to cooperate with the UN is a violation of the ceasefire?????? Please explain.

You are dodging again. :p

Specify the exact violation of the ceasefire that YOU are referring to.

I did. You are just to ignorant to recognize it. Not surprising really considering your track record.

The invasion/threatening of Kuwait does not qualify as a correct answer.

Actually yes it is as the cease-fire resolution clearly states that Iraq is not supposed to threaten Kuwait again. I see you failed that lesson as well.

Failure to cooperate with the UN is a violation of the ceasefire?????? Please explain.

I did. It was spelled out by the cease-fire resolution that they are to fully cooperate with the UN. Boy you are stupid and ignorant.

I did. You are just to ignorant to recognize it. Not surprising really considering your track record.

Actually yes it is as the cease-fire resolution clearly states that Iraq is not supposed to threaten Kuwait again. I see you failed that lesson as well.

I did. It was spelled out by the cease-fire resolution that they are to fully cooperate with the UN. Boy you are stupid and ignorant.
Come on Corny...you are boxed in and your answers are made of fail.

You cannot refer to the specific incident(s) that you claim to be a violation of the "ceasefire". Admit it and then we can move forward to the US illegal bombing attack against Pakistani civilians.

BTW, calling me "stupid and ignorant" does not further your debate.

Come on Corny...you are boxed in and your answers are made of fail.

Oh I'm sorry. I did not know that they fully cooperated with the UN. I did not know they did not threaten Kuwait. Only a fool would believe these last two sentences.

You cannot refer to the specific incident(s) that you claim to be a violation of the "ceasefire".

Actually yes I can. Any violation of a cease-fire is grounds for immediate resumption of hostilities. That is basic law. Hussein violated the UN Cease-Fire Resolution and by doing so, forfeited the Resolution thus allowing for the resumption of hostilities against Iraq CH!

Anyone who knows anything about politics knows this. I guess you do not know as much about politics as you think you do.

Admit it and then we can move forward to the US illegal bombing attack against Pakistani civilians.

We should be dealing with the attack into Wazeristan (a tribal region that is not controlled by Pakistan even though it is considered pakistani territory)

BTW, calling me "stupid and ignorant" does not further your debate.

A truth is a truth.

Hmmmm. Just 3 weeks ago:

Bush criticizes talk of U.S. strike on Pakistan: govt (http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2007/08/03/bush_criticizes_talk_of_us_strike_on_pakistan_govt/)
By Zeeshan Haider | August 3, 2007

ISLAMABAD (Reuters) - U.S. President George W. Bush on Friday described the prospect of U.S. strikes against al Qaeda in Pakistan as "unsavory," saying Washington respected its ally's sovereignty, the Pakistani government said.

It said Bush made the comments to Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf in a telephone call to congratulate Pakistanis ahead of the 60th anniversary of their independence on August 14.

Hmmmm. Just 3 weeks ago:

Bush criticizes talk of U.S. strike on Pakistan: govt (http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2007/08/03/bush_criticizes_talk_of_us_strike_on_pakistan_govt/)
By Zeeshan Haider | August 3, 2007

As stated before, and something you choose to ignore it seems, that it is considered Pakistani territory. It is controlled politically, something that I did not deny but has no military control over.

Man...one would think you would know the difference. I even play simulator games dealing with shit like this. Even in the game they recognize the difference between political and military control.

Oh I'm sorry. I did not know that they fully cooperated with the UN. I did not know they did not threaten Kuwait. Only a fool would believe these last two sentences.

Actually yes I can. Any violation of a cease-fire is grounds for immediate resumption of hostilities. That is basic law. Hussein violated the UN Cease-Fire Resolution and by doing so, forfeited the Resolution thus allowing for the resumption of hostilities against Iraq CH!

Anyone who knows anything about politics knows this. I guess you do not know as much about politics as you think you do.

We should be dealing with the attack into Wazeristan (a tribal region that is not controlled by Pakistan even though it is considered pakistani territory)

A truth is a truth.
The sad part here is that you believe what you have stated to be "truths".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_actions_regarding_Iraq

In February 24, 2003, the U.S., the UK and Spain presented a draft resolution to the Security Council which declared that Iraq has failed to take the final opportunity afforded to it resolution 1441. [2] The resolution split the UN and led to serious diplomatic rifts, with the U.S. and the UK coming under sustained criticism from France, Russia and Germany. The resolution was eventually withdrawn, with the sponsors contending that it had been sabotaged by France's threat to veto the new resolution "whatever the circumstances", while critics (and France itself) argued that the French position had been intentionally misrepresented and that the majority of the Security Council had opposed the proposed resolution.
The US, UK, and Spain decided that Iraq was in violation of 1441. The Security Council to this day did NOT sanction the invasion of Iraq.

The sad part here is that you believe what you have stated to be "truths".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_actions_regarding_Iraq


The US, UK, and Spain decided that Iraq was in violation of 1441. The Security Council to this day did NOT sanction the invasion of Iraq.

Why need yet another resolution when the cease-fire resolution was enough? I guess you do not get what a cease-fire is. Violating a cease-fire means a resumption of hostilities. That is what the Cease-Fire Resolution stated when it was approved by Iraq.

Now let us get back to Pakistan.

Why need yet another resolution when the cease-fire resolution was enough? I guess you do not get what a cease-fire is. Violating a cease-fire means a resumption of hostilities. That is what the Cease-Fire Resolution stated when it was approved by Iraq.

Now let us get back to Pakistan.
Iraq was not in violation of 1441. You don't seem to understand that.

That is why most call the invasion of Iraq illegal. Just like the invasion of Pakistan is illegal.

Why the US would be willing to alienate Pakistan is way beyond reason.

Iraq was not in violation of 1441. You don't seem to understand that.

They have violated every UN Resolution, including 1441 but then you would not know that because of how the UN reports were reported by their rep. Gave ammunition to both sides of the debate and hence nothing could get done. Does not matter though if a 2nd one was passed or not as the Cease-Fire Resolution was all the authority needed to go in. But again, you do not give a shit about it because it goes against what you believe even though the action was legal in the eyes of International Law.

That is why most call the invasion of Iraq illegal. Just like the invasion of Pakistan is illegal.

And since we have not invaded Pakistan...

Why the US would be willing to alienate Pakistan is way beyond reason.

Alienate? That would mean we are prepared to invade with everything we got since that is what it would take to take down Pakistan. The tribal areas would be a pain in the ass. They are autonomous in case you have forgotten.

And Pakistan hasn't been trying to help track down the Taliban (http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/4778137/)over the past 6 years?

No, they have not. If they had, Mullah Omar would be dead or captured.



Meanwhile, this isn't the first US attack against Pakistan:

Pakistan Condemns Purported CIA Air Strike (http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/47/16961)

Saturday 14 January 2006

It is most certainly not. There have been at least a dozen that we know of. And probably many many more unreported.

what?

are you saying the Pakistani Gov ordered the Afghan insurgents to attack the US "coalition"?
really?

Yes.

Pak govt needs control of Afghanistan for lots of reasons. "Strategic depth", keeping down Pashtun nationalism and revision of Durrand line and not to mention money from Drug running.

Almost all of the heroin factories are on the Pakistani side of the border and taliban used to provide conduit for opium to reach there. The Pak army general etc all have a cut in that business.

From their POV, they really cannot let the NA rule Afg. They do think that it is just a matter of time b4 the coalition withdraws from Afg. So they like to keep their option (taliban) around.

Because CH knows jack shit about international law. He feels that Iraq did not violate the cease-fire accord with the UN even though anyone with a brain knows they did by failing to cooperate with the UN as specified in the Cease-Fire Resolution.

Face it. CH feels this is not a valid attack but what you are saying is spot on. ATTACK=LEGAL!!!

Just for the record, I am totally against the Iraq war - the lies we were fed, the diversion of resources from the real war in Afg, the creation of massive instability that is now fueling creation of more jihadis, the "collateral" etc etc...

Just for the record, I am totally against the Iraq war - the lies we were fed, the diversion of resources from the real war in Afg, the creation of massive instability that is now fueling creation of more jihadis, the "collateral" etc etc...

Even though I am all for the Iraq War, we should have finished Afghanistan first.

CH,

Watch these videos (originally from PBS - http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/taliban/).

http://hosted.filefront.com/C0pyLeft/1870150

Yes.To claim some Gov controls the Afghan Insurgency.. is like claiming some Gov controls the Iraqi insurgency.

You can make some deals with them.. sign some treaties.. exchange weapons for info.. and some times buy them (temporally).. but ultimately insurgencies have a mind of their own.
...
Pak govt needs control of Afghanistan for lots of reasons. "Strategic depth", keeping down Pashtun nationalism and revision of Durrand line and not to mention money from Drug running.

Almost all of the heroin factories are on the Pakistani side of the border and taliban used to provide conduit for opium to reach there. The Pak army general etc all have a cut in that business.There was much less opium plantations when the Talibans were in charge.

In situations concerning armed conflict. The one with the best weapons can do whatever they want. They just have to pay in the end if the lose to the other side. I hate to say it but it is war. War against the Taliban. Did you not catch that. If WW II Germany had all fled to the borderland of Spain do you think that the Allies would have sat on their asses waiting for the Nazis to attack them. Well then don't get your panties in a bunch over this either.

To claim some Gov controls the Afghan Insurgency.. is like claiming some Gov controls the Iraqi insurgency.

You are deliberately being obtuse.

I cannot wake up a person who is pretending to sleep.


There was much less opium plantations when the Talibans were in charge.

Does not matter. You are AGAIN missing the point.

Where are the factories and where is the money going ?

General Fazle Haq, a close associate of the then dictator of Pakistan Gen Zia ul Haq and former Governor of the North West Frontier Province (NWFP) alone amassed a several billion-dollar fortune due to the drug trade and was called "Noriega of Pakistan".

Read on narco-terrorism.

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/SRR/Volume14/raghavan.html

Corneliu, CanuckHeaven et al, suggesting (implying, stating ... take in synonyms here) that opponents are stupid is a debater's last resort, when there are no actual arguments left to throw.

So if you continue in your current vein, I'll have to assume (1) you've run out of convincing arguments and (2) you don't know when to take a friendly warning.

Stop with the "dumb" stuff. Stick with the arguments.

Where are the factories and where is the money going ?

...
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/SRR/Volume14/raghavan.html

#1 Your link shows that the routes go tru Iran and Pakistan.. Its like saying Someone in Colombia (and/or someone in Miami) is making money with Peruvian Coca production...

of course someone in Colombia and Miami is making money :rolleyes:, They are making Millions and.. some of them are in the Military or CIA or Law enforcement (like Noriega was.)

#2 Your link shows some undated study.. and the web site is sponsored by Bharat-Rakshak a extremely nationalist group of India (actually a bit like you.. I guess)