Featured Pakistan and Uzbekistan deny US military bases for Afghan mission

[Gangetic]

Any allowance by Pakistan to let US use its Air-space for US fighter jets to bomb innocent Afghans would simply mean Pakistan's generals would once again have blood on their hands. There is NO other way to describe this. Due to the decisions of Pakistan's generals to join US war on terror after 9/11, thousands of Pakistan's soldiers, it civilians and police have died, and the economy of Pakistan has been destroyed beyond recognition. Thousands of innocent Afghan civilians have been butchered or bombed to pieces. If this is NOT crimes against humanity, I don't know what it is then.

If the government tries bullshitting like last time and Pakistanis find out about secret bases, TTP/ISIS would get a MASSIVE number of recruits. We'd get Raymond Davis scenarios and innocent people being bombed all over again. I like to call it the US war OF terror, rather than ON.

 

[fitpOsitive]

KABUL (Pajhwok): Uzbekistan has ruled out hosting foreign military bases on its soil, rejecting reports that the US troops withdrawing from Afghanistan may be deployed to the Central Asian nation.

Asked about the reported US plan, a spokesperson for the Defence Ministry in Tashkent said on Monday: “Fundamental documents in the field of defence have clear-cut answers to these questions.”

Sputnik quoted the spokesperson as warning against hosting foreign military bases and facilities on Uzbekistan’s soil.

Uzbekistan’s defence policy was based on the principle of non-participation in peacekeeping operations and military conflicts abroad, the official explained.

Last week, the Wall Street Journal cited military officials as saying the US would “prefer” to redeploy troops and equipment leaving Afghanistan into Uzbekistan or Tajikistan.

In line with President Joe Biden’s announcement, US troops will complete their withdrawal from Afghanistan by September 11.

https://pajhwok.com/2021/05/11/wont...kistan/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

ISLAMABAD - Pakistan ruled out Tuesday the possibility of again providing its military bases to the United States for future counterterrorism operations in Afghanistan after U.S. troops leave the conflict-torn neighbor by September 11.

Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi made the remarks to reporters in Islamabad, explaining that his government has adopted a policy that allows it to become "only partners in peace” and not join any future U.S. war.

“No sir, we do not intend to allow boots on the ground and no [U.S.] bases are being transferred to Pakistan,” Qureshi said when asked whether his government is under pressure to give military bases to the U.S.

President Joe Biden’s administration has acknowledged it is in talks with several Central Asian neighbors of Afghanistan to examine where it can reposition troops to prevent the landlocked country from once again becoming a terrorist base for groups like al-Qaida.

But U.S. officials have not named Pakistan, which shares a nearly 2,600-kilometers border with Afghanistan, nor have they commented on media speculation that the subject of bases might be under bilateral discussions.

Qureshi noted that Pakistan has also been consistently using its leverage over the Taliban, who have been waging a deadly insurgency against the U.S.-backed Afghan government, to encourage them to stop their violent campaign and negotiate a political settlement with Afghan rivals.

The foreign minister said “we feel” the Taliban’s engagement in the Afghan peace process would bring and enhance the “international respectability and recognition” that the group required.

“If they want to be acceptable, if they want delisting to take place, if they want recognition then engagement, giving up violence and looking for a political solution is in their political interest,” he said.

Qureshi referred to the Taliban's demand for the United Nations and the U.S. to delist top insurgent leaders from their sanctions lists.
https://www.voanews.com/south-central-asia/pakistan-no-more-military-bases-us-afghan-mission

USA is here for destruction. Destruction of region, destruction of traditions, destruction of social fabric, destruction of co-operation among people, among countries.
This regions constitutes a powerful fabric, where at one side there a great country, a country that never bowed down in front of any invader: Russia.
At one side, there is a country, which consists of a region, that always disrupted the established order: The Mongoloid of China.
On, one side, there is a country which has 1000s years old civilization: Iran.

The great nations of central Asia, and here stands a country, a sacred country, that stands at the doorsteps of all that, a country that God created to destroy the tyrants of times, a country that helped a lot in establishing the world orders on many occasions: Pakistan.

And man, our common enemy knows it.

It's Pakistan's duty to connect countries, all the way from Russia to China to Tajikistan to Afghanistan, in one common fabric.

 

[VCheng]

Any allowance by Pakistan to let US use its Air-space for US fighter jets to bomb innocent Afghans would simply mean Pakistan's generals would once again have blood on their hands. There is NO other way to describe this. Due to the decisions of Pakistan's generals to join US war on terror after 9/11, thousands of Pakistan's soldiers, it civilians and police have died, and the economy of Pakistan has been destroyed beyond recognition. Thousands of innocent Afghan civilians have been butchered or bombed to pieces. If this is NOT crimes against humanity, I don't know what it is then.

Pakistan must put its own national interests above all else, including Afghanistan's.

 

[Meliodas]

US fighter jets are stealth.... Pakistan can't see them.

US have a very obvious choice and that is to stay put in Afghanistan and BTW, to whom in Afghanistan US want to bomb by airforce?
Common sense says, It's illogical of US to ask for airbase in neighboring countries of Afghanistan to keep land locked Afghanis under check.
US is in Afghanistan to keep a check on Pakistan.... 911 was a drama, airplane collusion can't bring down buildings like WTC.

Not all jets are stealth, any info on use of f22 or f35 in Afghanistan.

 

[Dalit]

Any allowance by Pakistan to let US use its Air-space for US fighter jets to bomb innocent Afghans would simply mean Pakistan's generals would once again have blood on their hands. There is NO other way to describe this. Due to the decisions of Pakistan's generals to join US war on terror after 9/11, thousands of Pakistan's soldiers, it civilians and police have died, and the economy of Pakistan has been destroyed beyond recognition. Thousands of innocent Afghan civilians have been butchered or bombed to pieces. If this is NOT crimes against humanity, I don't know what it is then.

It won't happen. This is just wishful thinking. The Americans are desperate and pleading for bases. They are not getting any.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

ISLAMABAD - Pakistan ruled out Tuesday the possibility of again providing its military bases to the United States for future counterterrorism operations in Afghanistan after U.S. troops leave the conflict-torn neighbor by September 11.

All the thinking Pakistani';s including GHQ and FM know that it makes every sense to allow a US base. It entails gaining influence on USA, possible space to squeeze better trade deals, grants, loans and even some much needed military hardware perhaps like MRAPs if not the F-35s.

But in Pakistan a culture of emtion and grandious illusions have taken root so this is impossible. The reality is if Sultan Erdogan Ghazi's Turkey can host huge NATO bases, UAE, Saudia, Bahrain, Qatar host US air and naval bases what shine would come off a begging country like Pakistan if it hosted just one poxy base.

We all can't settle abroad can we?

No, for now. Haggling can be good, sometimes.

Sometimes it's best not let the loonatics know. Maybe they are already building a giant USAF base in Balochistan. Just tell Google to blur it please.

Or the lonnies are gonna go tunes .....

 

[BATMAN]

Not all jets are stealth, any info on use of f22 or f35 in Afghanistan.

Whole ideology of US looking for an airbase around Afghanistan to carry out airstrikes on Afghanistan is BS propaganda for primitives.
US basically want to keep check on Pakistan, especially after the war on 27th February 2019.

 

[TigerOfMysore]

Those "inhumane" calculations were made by those cutting the deals to trade internal peace and stability for dollars, and I am merely describing it.



Putting aside your attempted whataboutery, all funds transferred to Pakistan for its services were recorded in the appropriate ledgers.

(Just so you know, the Iraqi cash was not US-sourced. The alleged $3T missing was nothing more than a failure of the DoD to meet updated audit guidelines, and fixed. And the Geneva Convention applies to uniformed soldiers, not stateless terrorists. The lack of integrity is not on my side, clearly.)

Again no depth in your thinking. Just bravado.
You write Guantanemo Bay is outside of Geneva Convention. GC applies to warfare, that includes how you deal with uniformed and non-uniformed combatants among other things (like prisoners, wounded, etc). Even the Supreme Court of the US disagrees with you and finds the GB is within the purview of Geneva Convention. I will take back my question on your integrity and wonder more about your intellectual authorship and rigor. It is ok to be wrong sometimes. I am wrong a lot and I learn and move on.
***
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, held that international law applies to Guantanamo detainees, that they cannot be held indefinitely without trial, that constitutional habeas corpus protections apply to them, and that the combatant status review tribunals were unconstitutional and violated the Geneva Conventions.
***

 

[Dalit]

Whole ideology of US looking for an airbase around Afghanistan to carry out airstrikes on Afghanistan is BS propaganda for primitives.
US basically want to keep check on Pakistan, especially after the war on 27th February 2019.

LOL the Yanks can't do shit against Pakistan. They have been watching Pakistan for decades.

 

[Dual Wielder]

Pakistan must put its own national interests above all else, including Afghanistan's.

By opening its legs to get f****** by the Americans again? You sure Your not a masochist?

 

[VCheng]

Again no depth in your thinking. Just bravado.
You write Guantanemo Bay is outside of Geneva Convention. GC applies to warfare, that includes how you deal with uniformed and non-uniformed combatants among other things (like prisoners, wounded, etc). Even the Supreme Court of the US disagrees with you and finds the GB is within the purview of Geneva Convention. I will take back my question on your integrity and wonder more about your intellectual authorship and rigor. It is ok to be wrong sometimes. I am wrong a lot and I learn and move on.
***
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, held that international law applies to Guantanamo detainees, that they cannot be held indefinitely without trial, that constitutional habeas corpus protections apply to them, and that the combatant status review tribunals were unconstitutional and violated the Geneva Conventions.
***

That case was a ruling on the military commissions set up to try the detainees. The violation of GC was related to their trial process, and not to their detention. Please do pay attention to the details

"The Supreme Court, in a 5-to-3 decision authored by Justice John Paul Stevens, held that neither an act of Congress nor the inherent powers of the Executive laid out in the Constitution expressly authorized the sort of military commission at issue in this case. Absent that express authorization, the commission had to comply with the ordinary laws of the United States and the laws of war. The Geneva Convention, as a part of the ordinary laws of war, could therefore be enforced by the Supreme Court, along with the statutory Uniform Code of Military Justice. Hamdan's exclusion from certain parts of his trial deemed classified by the military commission violated both of these, and the trial was therefore illegal. Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito dissented. Chief Justice John Roberts, who participated in the case while serving on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, did not take part in the decision."

By opening its legs to get f****** by the Americans again? You sure Your not a masochist?

Pakistan can best decide what serves its national interests, and no one else.

 

[TigerOfMysore]

That case was a ruling on the military commissions set up to try the detainees. The violation of GC was related to their trial process, and not to their detention. Please do pay attention to the details

"The Supreme Court, in a 5-to-3 decision authored by Justice John Paul Stevens, held that neither an act of Congress nor the inherent powers of the Executive laid out in the Constitution expressly authorized the sort of military commission at issue in this case. Absent that express authorization, the commission had to comply with the ordinary laws of the United States and the laws of war. The Geneva Convention, as a part of the ordinary laws of war, could therefore be enforced by the Supreme Court, along with the statutory Uniform Code of Military Justice. Hamdan's exclusion from certain parts of his trial deemed classified by the military commission violated both of these, and the trial was therefore illegal. Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito dissented. Chief Justice John Roberts, who participated in the case while serving on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, did not take part in the decision."




Pakistan can best decide what serves its national interests, and no one else.

God VCheng, you are a bright guy but seriously. You have a knack for parsing words and playing semantics. You mentioned that G-Bay was outside of the purview of Geneva Convention (your exact words: And the Geneva Convention applies to uniformed soldiers, not stateless terrorists."), since I raised the issue that the US Laws get "flexed" as they desire for their interests often by the Executive Branch. That was your retort to my point that US Executive subverted laws to establish G-Bay. Now you parse that by saying well it was not the detention but the application of military tribunals at G-Bay. I'll give you that. But I hope you'll give me that the Executive had a legal framework, had an international treaty, yet found ways to circumvent those. How do you explain "Enhanced Interrogation", clearly outside of all legal acceptance, and acts (water boarding) for which the US executed Nazi soldiers post WWII, nevertheless had DOJ memos authorizing those very acts, through masterful legal interpretation. A few decades agoUS executed people who did it, now DOJ says it is perfectly legal.

And even being a signatory the executive branch of the US decided to institute GB. Military Tribunals happen to be part of the process they were putting all detainees under. The lawsuit in question raised the issue that Military Tribunals within GB are against International Law, US Habeus Corpus, and Geneva Convention. The mere fact that the US Supreme Court agreed to that Geneva Convention applies to an instrument used for detainees at GB gives you the color of Geneva Convention on G-Bay detainees. The Executive Branch knew this and were trying to contort the law and its application by using an offshore military base to avoid US law and by expressing that US Detainees were outside of International and Geneva convention application. Thereby putting them in this black hole of legal limbo.

For you to argue that the US is steadfast in its application of laws was our argument, and you used a poor example to anchor you argument. You keep digging the hole.

US Executive is notorious in flexing, interpreting, applying and contorting laws to get around the principle, meaning and intent. Which is why your belief that the US does not bribe, is the original part of our argument. US does bribe and has exotic and interesting ways of skirting and walking the edges of its own laws. Not to mention with dark funds it completely subverts them, with no accountability.

 

[Vapnope]

Something tells me that US and Pak will reach an agreement for this. I'd like to think that recent visit of coas and IK to KSA was for this agreement. Just my two cents (I can be very wrong here though).

 

[VCheng]

For you to argue that the US is steadfast in its application of laws was our argument, and you used a poor example to anchor you argument.

LOL. It was your whataboutery that brought up this issue, not me.

Besides exact words matter in law. Please read the SC decision again, with comprehension this time. Now can we please remain on topic in this thread?

====================================

Pakistan can be convinced in many ways to serve its own national interests. That is the bottom line in context.




x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x

PS: "The purpose of the basic principle of international humanitarian law that a clear distinction must be made between combatants and civilians was obviously in tune with the requirement of wearing a military uniform. The principle of distinction is the foundation on which the laws and customs of war rests. Article 48 of the Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions explicitly defines the principle for the first time. The provision reads as follows: “In order to ensure respect for and protection of the civilian population and civilian objects, the Parties to a conflict are required at all times to distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and accordingly must conduct their operations only against military objectives.” This requirement is the result of the desire to restrict warfare to acts of violence against the enemy, which are strictly necessary from a military standpoint. The provision is a cardinal rule and principle not only of the Additional Protocol, but also of the whole of international humanitarian law."

 

[COOKie LOOkie....]

Pakistan should allow US Airspace right under the following conditions:

1) Narrow corridor for ingress and egress into Pakistani airspace
2) Pakistan's full participation in the fusion center in which ever gulf states the drones fly out of
3) SOP defined on authorization process, where Pakistan should have a veto on a drone attack
4) Drones that use Pakistan airspace can only be used against ISIS and TTP, or force protection of US forces
5) Only unmanned UAV allowed. - no other planes manned should be allowed
6) Pakistan should have access to all data from the drones

In return for the above US should provide:

1) Authorization of Heli Engines
2) Removal from FATF Grey List
3) US investment in IT, health and education - as a function of CPEC 2 - lets call it UPEC (min investment of $10B in these areas)
4) US support for return of ill-gotten money and AML efforts

If we can define a deal that looks like the above I think it is worth it. Otherwise it should be a big fat NO!!!

Indeed Pakistan should ask for such demands its their right. Seeing whats gonna happens after NATO withdrawal from afghanistan most of the militants are going to start looking at Pakistan. Why cant members of TTA join ISIS and TTP and open up on a new enemy. they are war hungry, they still want to fight after US gone there still Pakistan to clash with. they are mere pons they have no ideology, war is their bread and butter. The same crap is gonna happen again the struggle for power, everyone wants their piece of cake. Pakistan can or should let the americans stay in their country but with strict restrictions on them because intelligence sharing would be key for both countries to get rid of the common enemy.

And about the past “trust” is a two way street, we both fucked up each other . but in the past we have good to eachother as well. Pakistan’s politicians and army sold their own country n blood. they approved drone strikes, ramond davis case and salala checkpoints situation. they could have used that opportunity in their own favor but do u expect Kayani or zardari to do that. the most currupt to their cores leaders. all i am saying it could have been handled differently. but thats just my point of view.