What's new

US Defense Secretary Panetta threatens ground intervention into Pakistan

Status
Not open for further replies.
.
Obviously since their present endeavors inside Afghanistan are too "successful". :lol:

I think they have achieved all of their objectives in AfPak region for which they went to war. How else do you define success?
 
.
:rofl:


A sign of desperation and depression without cost-saving supplies.
 
. .
Do research. Prove me otherwise. Wait, no need: I know, what I know. :)

So you wanted to come across as Intelligent instead it back fired On you Next time stay out of Subjects you have no knowledge off.
 
.
I think they have achieved all of their objectives in AfPak region for which they went to war. How else do you define success?
US's objectives were never to be pinned down in Kabul. It's more of a frustration that meager AK thumping, little dark people are fighting back.

A. Bad Marriage (No sex)
B. Couple stops talking.
C. Breakup: In diplomatic terms can be best described as stage iv in a breakup :D
i) Shock: "What the hell just happened?"
ii) Disbelief and denial
iii) Isolation.
iv) Anger: "I hate you for breaking my heart!"

So you wanted to come across as Intelligent instead it back fired On you Next time stay out of Subjects you have no knowledge off.
Whatever floats your boat.
 
.
I think they have achieved all of their objectives in AfPak region for which they went to war. How else do you define success?
1900 American soldiers killed, 16,000+ wounded, Cost of War in Afghanistan $536,486,446,560, Cost of War in Iraq $804,270,417,582, all to locate and find one man. source - Cost of War to the United States | COSTOFWAR.COM

Was it worth it? :pop:
And objectives are still not yet met, American forces are still actively searching for terrorists and need the vital resources to do such as NATO supply route and support of other countries - both from NATO coalition and Non-NATO allies.
 
.
I think they have achieved all of their objectives in AfPak region for which they went to war. How else do you define success?

Funny On Ground they have Lost the war But i guess May be that was one of their Objectives.
 
.
There is no need for you to worry. Study hard at whatever you're doing and leave such decisions to the people at helm. Everything, will be fine.

No need to get emotional, all that you see is well choreographed "diplomatic tango". No worries, have trust in our new generation of officers and consultants, they're all really good at it.
dear i am doing what i have to do.
and as for this drama (world politics) i am closely watching it since 2001 and i know all these things. but a hypothetical situation if(IF) any one attacked we cant let your army alone.
 
. .
‘Pakistan, US working on draft of apology’
20 hours ago.

WASHINGTON: The United States and Pakistan are working on the language of a possible US apology to end their stalemate and reopen Nato’s supply routes to Afghanistan, diplomatic sources told Dawn.

Pakistan wants the United States to apologise over a Nov 26 air raid that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers at the Salala military post. The United States had initially agreed to apologise but changed its mind after aides warned President Barack Obama the move could harm his re-election campaign.

Pakistan closed Nato’s supply routes to Afghanistan after the raid and is refusing to reopen them unless the Americans apologise.

The sources who spoke to Dawn said they “now see a stronger desire on both sides” to resolve this dispute.

They said the two sides had already exchanged several drafts of the expected apology and might soon agree “on a draft that meets everybody’s requirements”.


The sources rejected recent reports in the US media that Pakistan was refusing to reopen the routes because it wanted higher tariffs from the United States for using its highways.

A team of US experts has been based in Islamabad for the past six weeks, trying to end the dispute and reopen the supply routes. On Friday, another senior US official, Assistant Secretary of Defence Peter Levoy, also joined the team.

Meanwhile, Pakistan’s ambassador in Washington, Sherry Rehman, urged US officials to avoid making remarks that could further deteriorate an already tense relationship between the two countries. Commenting on Secretary Panetta’s recent statement that the United States was losing patience with Pakistan, Ambassador Rehman said: “This kind of public messaging from a senior member of the US administration is taken very seriously in Pakistan, and reduces the space for narrowing our bilateral differences at a critical time in the negotiations.”

Such statements, she noted, “adds an unhelpful twist to the process and leaves little oxygen for those of us seeking to break a stalemate”.
 
. .
dear i am doing what i have to do.
and as for this drama (world politics) i am closely watching it since 2001 and i know all these things. but a hypothetical situation if(IF) any one attacked we cant let your army alone.
he is a troll and living a fairy tale life thinking Pakistani officials are keeping the country safe

pakistan must prepare for war against whichever country attacks - nobody is going to help us except God Almighty

Conscription should be made mandatory, and at any time an attack can happen, and Pakistan must continue to work for self defense measures
 
. .
‘Pakistan, US working on draft of apology’
20 hours ago.

WASHINGTON: The United States and Pakistan are working on the language of a possible US apology to end their stalemate and reopen Nato’s supply routes to Afghanistan, diplomatic sources told Dawn.

Pakistan wants the United States to apologise over a Nov 26 air raid that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers at the Salala military post. The United States had initially agreed to apologise but changed its mind after aides warned President Barack Obama the move could harm his re-election campaign.

Pakistan closed Nato’s supply routes to Afghanistan after the raid and is refusing to reopen them unless the Americans apologise.

The sources who spoke to Dawn said they “now see a stronger desire on both sides” to resolve this dispute.

They said the two sides had already exchanged several drafts of the expected apology and might soon agree “on a draft that meets everybody’s requirements”.


The sources rejected recent reports in the US media that Pakistan was refusing to reopen the routes because it wanted higher tariffs from the United States for using its highways.

A team of US experts has been based in Islamabad for the past six weeks, trying to end the dispute and reopen the supply routes. On Friday, another senior US official, Assistant Secretary of Defence Peter Levoy, also joined the team.

Meanwhile, Pakistan’s ambassador in Washington, Sherry Rehman, urged US officials to avoid making remarks that could further deteriorate an already tense relationship between the two countries. Commenting on Secretary Panetta’s recent statement that the United States was losing patience with Pakistan, Ambassador Rehman said: “This kind of public messaging from a senior member of the US administration is taken very seriously in Pakistan, and reduces the space for narrowing our bilateral differences at a critical time in the negotiations.”

Such statements, she noted, “adds an unhelpful twist to the process and leaves little oxygen for those of us seeking to break a stalemate”.
i don't even think an apology is going to open the NATO supply routes - when relational ties are worst right now
 
.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom