Pakistan Rejected CIA Request for Drone Strike in January

[Safriz]

should we condemn pakistan for not being able to defend her air space or should we condemn USA for violating another country's sovereighnty?

 

[Imran Khan]

should we condemn pakistan for not being able to defend her air space or should we condemn USA for violating another country's sovereighnty?

whats different between two? usa ruling pakistan by puppet politicians and generals

 

[VCheng]

should we condemn pakistan for not being able to defend her air space or should we condemn USA for violating another country's sovereighnty?

One may condemn anyone one wants, as much as one wants. However:

"Only strength can cooperate. Weakness can only beg." - Dwight D. Eisenhower

whats different between two? usa ruling pakistan by puppet politicians and generals

And whose fault is that? Surely not USA's.

"Powerful states can maintain themselves only by crime, little states are virtuous only by weakness." - Mikhail Bakunin

 

[Imran Khan]

And whose fault is that? Surely not USA's.

"Powerful states can maintain themselves only by crime, little states are virtuous only by weakness." - Mikhail Bakunin

of course not USA its pakistani fault from first day when they join this bed they expose each and every thing and shear with yunks .

 

[fd24]

Pakistani forces will not act against the drones unless the Zardari regime is removed from power, because if they do the government will not support their action.

I think this point you make is very valid. There is complete breakdown in the relationship between Zardari and the army. If Zardari had any self respect he would resign now and move over for early elections. I think he has indeed lined his pockets enough and can live happily ever after. He is doing nothing but screwing up anything left in Pakistan. There is no point in pointing the finger at the CIA until we can sort this failed human being first.

 

[Safriz]

One may condemn anyone one wants, as much as one wants. However:

"Only strength can cooperate. Weakness can only beg." - Dwight D. Eisenhower



And whose fault is that? Surely not USA's.

"Powerful states can maintain themselves only by crime, little states are virtuous only by weakness." - Mikhail Bakunin

thats proof that USA isnt entitled to the power they have as they are misusing it.......same way as USSR was....
and anybody who condemns USA is right in doing so...
they are condemning an opressor and thats a good thing to do.

 

[VCheng]

thats proof that USA isnt entitled to the power they have as they are misusing it.......same way as USSR was....
and anybody who condemns USA is right in doing so...
they are condemning an opressor and thats a good thing to do.

You are mixing up two different things.

Of course USA is entitled to its power and influence, for it has worked long and hard to achieve them. Any other nation is also entitled to out-achieve USA and dethrone it, if it can. USSR paid the ultimate price for its failures, as a reminder that not all those who try to dethrone USA may succeed. Someone else may succeed in doing so, although that may happen further in the future than many here think.

Condemnation is quite another matter. Everyone is allowed to express their opinions, after judging events as they see fit.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

You are mixing up two different things.

Of course USA is entitled to its power and influence, for it has worked long and hard to achieve them. Any other nation is also entitled to out-achieve USA and dethrone it, if it can. USSR paid the ultimate price for its failures, as a reminder that not all those who try to dethrone USA may succeed. Someone else may succeed in doing so, although that may happen further in the future than many here think.

Condemnation is quite another matter. Everyone is allowed to express their opinions, after judging events as they see fit.

So by extension a brutal feudal is entitled to 'power and influence and the ability to subjugate those weaker than him'. The feudal is not 'entitled' to any of that, the feudal chooses to do so in the absence of checks on his/her behavior. The US position on the international stage is no different.

Your position has no standing morally and ethically - but of course it is your own choice that you pride yourself in belonging to the ideological class of people that supported the Nazis during their rise to power, riding rough-shod over everyone weaker than them.

I take it had your daddy been a Bugti willing to deliver the bodies of those who annoyed him you would have happily stayed in Pakistan - but of course now you get to grovel and act cheerleader for an even bigger monstrosity than Bugti - the US Establishment.

 

[VCheng]

So by extension a brutal feudal is entitled to 'power and influence and the ability to subjugate those weaker than him'. The feudal is not 'entitled' to any of that, the feudal chooses to do so in the absence of checks on his/her behavior. The US position on the international stage is no different.

Your position has no standing morally and ethically - but of course it is your own choice that you pride yourself in belonging to the ideological class of people that supported the Nazis during their rise to power, riding rough-shod over everyone weaker than them.

I take it had your daddy been a Bugti willing to deliver the bodies of those who annoyed him you would have happily stayed in Pakistan - but of course now you get to grovel and act cheerleader for an even bigger monstrosity than Bugti - the US Establishment.

False analogy, for there is no comparing an individual to a country. Morals and Ethics apply to the former but not the latter.

 

[SMC]

^ Then why have groups such as UN, International criminal court, the hague, etc?

 

[VCheng]

^ Then why have groups such as UN, International criminal court, the hague, etc?

Please note that these entities are set up to try only individuals and never states, for the very reason I have stated above.

 

[SMC]

Please note that these entities are set up to try only individuals and never states, for the very reason I have stated above.

No they're not. Do you even know about sanctions, declaring states to be certain things (such as terrorist state), making wars illegal except for certain conditions (which is a farce anyway, read Iraq war), etc?

You don't know much about UN, do you?

 

[VCheng]

No they're not. Do you even know about sanctions, declaring states to be certain things (such as terrorist state), making wars illegal except for certain conditions (which is a farce anyway, read Iraq war), etc?

You don't know much about UN, do you?

Sanctions are intended to apply political pressure; they do not represent prosecution for unethical or immoral acts by states, for that is simply not possible.

 

[SMC]

You're not getting the point. You're saying morals and ethics should not apply to states. Then what's the use of UN, International Criminal Court, The Hague, etc?

Secondly, then what's wrong with any state supporting any terrorist/freedom fighter group (pick your choice)?

 

[VCheng]

You're not getting the point. You're saying morals and ethics should not apply to states. Then what's the use of UN, International Criminal Court, The Hague, etc?

Secondly, then what's wrong with any state supporting any terrorist/freedom fighter group (pick your choice)?

No, YOU are not getting the point(s).

Firstly, I am not saying morals and ethics should not apply to states; I am saying morals and ethics do not apply to states. Big difference.

Secondly, those international entities have NEVER prosecuted STATES because they CANNOT, by definition. Can you name any example where anything other than individual/individuals has/have been tried? These entities serve useful international geopolitical purposes, pure and simple.

Thirdly, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter; it all depends on whose definition holds sway when backed up by resources of the supporting parties. That may not seem fair to you, but that is just the way it is, sorry.