US Considering Formal Apology

[Imran Khan]

if this what they can do with unmanned planes what they will do against maned planes? i think SIJDA TO THEM

 

[BATMAN]

so the great thing pakistani forces did is they stop visits of USA ? wow they really get reward man

give our massage to you favorite air force begherto fly when pakistanis being bombed or wear burka and choriyaan .

100001 times US-NATO air crafts fly on Pakistan and bombed pakistanis and we are really emotional fools man why should we get mad its just sovereignty and human life nothing more to worry

Don't forget that chief executive of Pakistan and ministers may have double nationalities but their loyalties lies where their wealth is accumulated.

Army can't file a paper without the permission of Gilani.

 

[Imran Khan]

Don't forget that chief executive of Pakistan and ministers may have double nationalities but their loyalties lies where their wealth is accumulated.

Army can't file a paper without the permission of Gilani.

should i answer it daily before sleeping or make it my signature?

 

[regular]

still they are not men in uniform .they are women or she-males which can see there countrymen butchered by foreign forces and they just can cry but can't fly to save them . for these days we make our forces?

Our present PAF air Chief is the biggest US poodle.....thats why he never cares whoever gets killed/murdered mercilessly in our country by the US/NATO butchers......

 

[Thorough Pro]

What a joke! They have probably started to feel the effects of border closure now, hence an "apology" after two months of cold blooded murder of our brave sons, only for their own benefit/interest. I am not sure whether they will apologize or not but it clearly signals that they are not "sorry" for their crime, first they blamed it on Pakistan, then they brought out a report saying it was due to confusiuon and "fog of war", Pakistan now does not need an apology, if the Pakistan government has any shred of honour left they should not welcome any US government official in Pakistan. We don't need an apology, we are better off without them.

 

[monitor]

AFTER 2 MONTHS?!

soon or latter At least they are doing it .

 

[MastanKhan]

Our present PAF air Chief is the biggest US poodle.....thats why he never cares whoever gets killed/murdered mercilessly in our country by the US/NATO butchers......

Hi,

If he had the air force equipment to stand behind his threats and posturing---he would have----but his lack of any equipment makes him impotent----.

Chicken are stupid----You know what happens to chicken in a farm---when the hens get mated often---they make a certain posture---after a wile they automatically do that even if you put your hand on their backsthey stop differentiating between a rooster and your hand----that is the impotence level of PAF against the USAF----when Osama incidence happend---they were either instructed or chickened out----but when the real strike came on Salala check post and contd for 2 hours----the pak air force automatically went into its stance of being had----. They could have at least just flown by a couple of times----.

So, they accepted the loss of 24 soldiers to save the lives of 240----.

 

[BATMAN]

Parliament to decide fate of Nato supply lines: Kayani | Pakistan | DAWN.COM

 

[fatman17]

Michael Hirsh - Michael Hirsh is chief correspondent for National Journal.

Suck It Up, America: Why We Have to Apologize to Pakistan

By Michael Hirsh

Feb 17 2012


A internal investigation found that the U.S. shares blame for an errant NATO strike that killed 24 Pakistanis, so why won't Obama say we're sorry?

The Obama administration is actively considering issuing an apology or at least an expression of contrition to Pakistan over the errant NATO strikes that killed at least 24 Pakistani soldiers last fall, even though nearly two months have passed since the completion of an official Pentagon investigation that partially blamed mistakes made by U.S. forces for the incident, U.S. officials said.

The State Department has resurrected the idea after repudiating the U.S. ambassador to Pakistan, Cameron Munter, early on when he pressed for an immediate apology following the incident last November. A Pentagon official, asked about the possibility of a statement of apology or contrition last month, at first said he was unaware there was any discussion going on, then a few days later acknowledged that it was. Now the White House is mulling the language and timing of such a statement, a U.S. official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

U.S. officials are waiting, in part, on a Pakistani parliamentary committee report on the future of U.S.-Pakistan relations. And they are hoping for some conciliatory language from Islamabad because, as one U.S. official said, it would make issuing a U.S. statement easier "if the Pakistanis accepted some responsibility" for the NATO incident, which involved miscommunications and poor coordination on both sides, according to the U.S. military inquiry report.

The internal disagreement over whether to assuage the Pakistanis with a face-saving expression of apology or contrition is part of a larger debate within the administration as it puzzles its way through the Afghan endgame. With the United States pushing for talks with the Taliban ahead of a planned withdrawal that is to be phased in starting in 2013, Washington knows that without some help from Islamabad, America could end up bequeathing a huge safe haven to the Taliban in Pakistan, which has sought to support the Islamist group as a strategic asset.

Making matters even stickier, the debate comes in an election season when President Obama is being regularly accused of appeasement and, as Mitt Romney regularly puts it, "apologizing for America." Until now the farthest the U.S. government has gone is to "express our deepest regret" for "the loss of life, and for the lack of proper coordination between U.S. and Pakistani forces that contributed to those losses," according to a Defense Department statement issued after the report.

New rifts have also emerged in the administration over the details of the planned U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan. Some White House officials working on the Afghanistan problem were taken aback when, on Feb. 1, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told reporters about U.S. plans for a partial withdrawal from lead combat roles by mid-2013, before even consulting with other NATO officials. While the plan was generally agreed upon within the administration, the details had still not been clarified.

On Wednesday State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland, responding to harsh comments about the U.S.-Pakistan relationship from Pakistani Ambassador Sherry Rehman earlier in the day, said that "divorce is not an option with Pakistan. We have strategic interests in common, we have a lot of work to do together." Nuland added: "We're looking forward to the completion of Pakistan's internal review of our military-to-military relationship so we can get back to all the important work we have together."

 

[T90TankGuy]

give it up guys its been 10 days since this thread started . still no apology . you are not going to get one . just accept it and move on . and try to put the interest of Pakistan first next time.

 

[Al Bhatti]

Michael Hirsh - Michael Hirsh is chief correspondent for National Journal.

Suck It Up, America: Why We Have to Apologize to Pakistan

By Michael Hirsh

Feb 17 2012


A internal investigation found that the U.S. shares blame for an errant NATO strike that killed 24 Pakistanis, so why won't Obama say we're sorry?

The Obama administration is actively considering issuing an apology or at least an expression of contrition to Pakistan over the errant NATO strikes that killed at least 24 Pakistani soldiers last fall, even though nearly two months have passed since the completion of an official Pentagon investigation that partially blamed mistakes made by U.S. forces for the incident, U.S. officials said.

The State Department has resurrected the idea after repudiating the U.S. ambassador to Pakistan, Cameron Munter, early on when he pressed for an immediate apology following the incident last November. A Pentagon official, asked about the possibility of a statement of apology or contrition last month, at first said he was unaware there was any discussion going on, then a few days later acknowledged that it was. Now the White House is mulling the language and timing of such a statement, a U.S. official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

U.S. officials are waiting, in part, on a Pakistani parliamentary committee report on the future of U.S.-Pakistan relations. And they are hoping for some conciliatory language from Islamabad because, as one U.S. official said, it would make issuing a U.S. statement easier "if the Pakistanis accepted some responsibility" for the NATO incident, which involved miscommunications and poor coordination on both sides, according to the U.S. military inquiry report.

The internal disagreement over whether to assuage the Pakistanis with a face-saving expression of apology or contrition is part of a larger debate within the administration as it puzzles its way through the Afghan endgame. With the United States pushing for talks with the Taliban ahead of a planned withdrawal that is to be phased in starting in 2013, Washington knows that without some help from Islamabad, America could end up bequeathing a huge safe haven to the Taliban in Pakistan, which has sought to support the Islamist group as a strategic asset.

Making matters even stickier, the debate comes in an election season when President Obama is being regularly accused of appeasement and, as Mitt Romney regularly puts it, "apologizing for America." Until now the farthest the U.S. government has gone is to "express our deepest regret" for "the loss of life, and for the lack of proper coordination between U.S. and Pakistani forces that contributed to those losses," according to a Defense Department statement issued after the report.

New rifts have also emerged in the administration over the details of the planned U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan. Some White House officials working on the Afghanistan problem were taken aback when, on Feb. 1, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told reporters about U.S. plans for a partial withdrawal from lead combat roles by mid-2013, before even consulting with other NATO officials. While the plan was generally agreed upon within the administration, the details had still not been clarified.

On Wednesday State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland, responding to harsh comments about the U.S.-Pakistan relationship from Pakistani Ambassador Sherry Rehman earlier in the day, said that "divorce is not an option with Pakistan. We have strategic interests in common, we have a lot of work to do together." Nuland added: "We're looking forward to the completion of Pakistan's internal review of our military-to-military relationship so we can get back to all the important work we have together."