US is going to raid in Pakistan.

[hasang20]

U.S. justifies cross-border strikes - GEO.tv


WASHINGTON: A country should have the right to attack another if it is harbouring a potential terrorist threat, the U.S. homeland security chief said in remarks appearing to justify recent U.S. raids in Pakistan and Syria.

Laying out what amounts to a broadened definition of self-defence, Michael Chertoff said international law should accommodate a country's need to deter a possible threat abroad even if it meant taking pre-emptive action.

His remarks, at a discussion on democracy held in the British parliament, follow recent secret raids by U.S. forces into Pakistan and Syria that were justified using a similar rationale and drew condemnation from those countries.

"International law must begin to recognise that part of the responsibility of sovereignty is the responsibility to make sure that your own country does not become a platform for attacking other countries," Chertoff told an audience.

"There are areas of the world that are ungoverned or ungovernable but nevertheless technically within the sovereignty of boundaries. Does that mean we simply have to allow terrorists to operate there, in kind of badlands, where they can plan, they can set up laboratories, they can experiment with chemical weapons and with biological weapons?" he said.

His remarks, challenged by some members of parliament in the audience, follow comments made by U.S. Secretary of Defence Robert Gates on Tuesday in which he said Washington would hold countries fully accountable for their actions.

Gates' remarks, made to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, included a warning that the United States should modernize its nuclear arsenal as a hedge against "rogue nations" such as Iran and North Korea.


Pakistan wakeup !!!!! take up a strong stand and go to China,Saudi Arabia,Iran and Turkey for help and send F-16 falcons on skies US cant even cant a hold in Afganistan there they go again we should give Iran Nuclear weapons for $40b i think world war 3 is just too close its all a big conspiracy of India,Isreal and USA 600,000 innocent muslims have been killed in Iraq and Afganistan its not a war on terror its a Muslim "Hollacaust"

EDIT - Pakistan should invade Afganistan and Iraq and make them 1 strong country;we have done more than enuff to kill those terriost now we should pull out of war on terror and we need somone brave to tell US that if anythign happened in Pakistan we would retalite and sink thier battleships in our port and cut off all te supplies and will attack in Afganistan in thier safe "haveans"

 

[JK!]

^^^ You need three things to win wars: money, money and more money.

Potentially Pakistans economy is going to go bust it will make it harder to afford basic commodities yet you want to declare War on two fronts?!?!

Pull your head out of the sand newbie it ain't gonna happen and the guy with the bigger stick ie the US would come out on top.

 

[daredevil]

Pakistan at this juncture (or even in future) cannot standup to the US. You simply cannot afford to do it.

 

[bellicose.mcbein]

US has learnt bitter experience in afghanistan.They dont have experience of gurilla war fare.

You dont need money in gurilla war ,you need just unity,faith,decipline in nation.

wow. not that i'm in favor of a fullscale invasion, but would YOU care to fight a guerilla war against the u.s?

how comfortable you must be with in your coffee chair 1000 miles away.

 

[Keysersoze]

If US cant defeat Afghan poorest nation of world.How can he defeat pakistan.Majority of pakitanis are belong to warriors.

Pakistan is land of fear less warriors ,read indian history who ruled india more then 2500 years rajput,jat and pushtoons.

MAN BEHIND THE GUN IS MORE IMPORTANT

You are a armchair warrior with no idea about the realities of warfare. I suggest you stop talking in your platitudes until you grow up.

If the MAN BEHIND THE GUN is more important please tell me why the TAliban and their ilk are being beaten in the field and having to resort to suicide bombing (the most retarded of weapons)?

 

[Keysersoze]

US fired 80 tomo hawk missiles in start of Afghan war non of them hit the target.

American latest technolgy failed in 8000 meters high mountains very badly.

10 years old afghan child more confortably climb on these mountains with AK 47 then your camados

a) How the hell do you know what the targets were? Frankly the tone of your posts mark you as a fool. SO I doubt that you are privy to any information other than your own deluded imagination.

b) American technology seems to have driven all the Taliban into hiding behind innocents so I would say it works pretty well. I would say the level of casualties on the side of western forces as opposed to the casualties on the other side reflect the level of success the technology has. Wanna a video clip of a Taliban commander shouting on his radio as a great big bomb lands on him?

c)Maybe you are stupid enough to believe a 10 year old would outperform a fully trained soldier (which again marks you as a fool) maybe you take comfort from the idea that a 10 year old, who should be enjoying his childhood has been brainwashed into DYING for a idiotic cause. (Which makes you a sick b*****d) But what is painfully clear is that you don't have the faintest idea what you are talking about. please shut up.

 

[Keysersoze]

US has learnt bitter experience in afghanistan.They dont have experience of gurilla war fare.

You dont need money in gurilla war ,you need just unity,faith,decipline in nation.

Have you ever read a book? The US did learn a lesson but it was in the 1960's in a place called Vietnam. They infact helped supply the yokels in Afghan with SAM missiles and small arms in the guerrilla struggle against the Soviets. they helped the Contra's against The Sandnista's. WHat do you think The US forces have been doing the last few years in IRAQ? that would give them at least 6 years of experience. also British and French forces have been quite good in the past at that kind of thing.

YOU DO NEED MONEY otherwise NO GUNS-NO FOOD-NO SUPPLIES. As was proved in the Malayan and Borneo insurgencies guerrilla war cannot exist within a vacuum.The French armies defeated (in Algeria and other)s it militarily but lost it politically. Hell even successful insurgencies have outside help. Vietnam being another example.
Discipline is nice but food in your belly is better

I suggest you go and read a few hundred books grow up maybe 10 or 15 years then come back. cause right now you are talking a whole load of crap.

 

[SatishChandra's Assistant]

http://www.defence.pk/forums/indian...p-defend-its-borders-against-u-s-attacks.html

 

[T-Rex]

a) How the hell do you know what the targets were? Frankly the tone of your posts mark you as a fool. SO I doubt that you are privy to any information other than your own deluded imagination.

b) American technology seems to have driven all the Taliban into hiding behind innocents so I would say it works pretty well. I would say the level of casualties on the side of western forces as opposed to the casualties on the other side reflect the level of success the technology has. Wanna a video clip of a Taliban commander shouting on his radio as a great big bomb lands on him?

c)Maybe you are stupid enough to believe a 10 year old would outperform a fully trained soldier (which again marks you as a fool) maybe you take comfort from the idea that a 10 year old, who should be enjoying his childhood has been brainwashed into DYING for a idiotic cause. (Which makes you a sick b*****d) But what is painfully clear is that you don't have the faintest idea what you are talking about. please shut up.

Against an inexperienced player you have the field to yourself, so I felt I should say a few words. I do not think that declaring war against the most powerful, wicked and savage state is a good idea but niether is a policy of appeasement with this wicked power. Secondly, if I'm not wrong there have been reports that this power is seriously considering negotiation with the Talebans. If this power was really so close to victory because of its superior weapons why would it consider negotiation with its enemies ? I believe you are aware of the fact that the world is in another cold war mode and that makes your so-called invincible friend even more vulnerable than it appears to be. Considering these facts I think you are a greater fool to simply ignore these facts while telling someone to shut up for his immature remarks.

 

[RescueRanger]

Well my two cents:

Rather then looking individually at Pakistan and being very introverted let’s get a bit global.

Global Economic Situation:

Given the present global economic downturn a slow-down of market growth, lack of consumer investor and manufacturer confidence. Governments are considering protectionism measures all round the globe: US, UK, China, EU, India and the list goes on.

Given all of this I don’t want to bloat my post with links I am sure you guys can do a google search on “Economic Meltdown” could the American taxpayer and for that matter Uncle Sam afford another theatre to send and support troops for?

Now the US Situation:

Overcommitted troops and ground assets in Iraq and Afghanistan the US has decided to commit its aerial assets to S&D in Pakistan and the tribal belt.

For those reading the reports in the press and thinking we will have 100,000 or so U.S. and allied troops amassing on our western border then think again, my reasoning for saying so is primarily the uncertainty of the stance of the new administration, and you see it is here that the plot thickens:

The US is considering deploying highly trained and specialised "Special Forces" in Afghanistan and scaling back the number of conventional troops with the reasoning that unlike Iraq.

Iraq, where large portions of the population are urbanized in the wide, flat plains of the Tigris and Euphrates river valleys compare that to Afghanistan where much of the country is mountainous and dotted with remote villages that are hard to reach with large bodies of conventional forces, several Pentagon officials involved in the Afghanistan strategy review said.

"It's a much different place, and to surge forces doesn't necessarily fit.

The proposal for more special operations teams is being discussed in both the White House's review and one led by Navy Adm. Michael G. Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Advocates of a plan focused on special operations argue that the top U.S. priority in Afghanistan should be preventing the country from again becoming a terrorist haven, an objective that could best be met by targeted attacks on militants in regions near the border with Pakistan.

In addition, the Army's Green Berets are the U.S. military's premier unit for training foreign security forces, making them ideally suited for linking up with the small but increasingly competent Afghan army to improve its ability to secure the country.

However according to (Janes Intel Review, 2008) only 12 of the 36 special operations units already in Afghanistan are being fully used. Many lack the supporting infrastructure -- surveillance drones, helicopter transport and intelligence networks -- in part because it is still needed in Iraq.

Now here come the big guns, among those advocating a special operations influx is Army Lt. Gen. Douglas E. Lute, the White House's Iraq and Afghanistan "war czar."

A move to a strategy focusing heavily on special operations would be a significant shift for the U.S. military. The current strategy, which is supported by 32,000 U.S. forces and 30,000 North Atlantic Treaty Organization troops from other nations, aims to stabilize and secure the country and foster a viable central government.

Although the Iraqi government has frequently proved corrupt and ineffectual, the population is well-educated and skilled, providing abundant human capital once security can be achieved. In addition, Iraq's oil industry and fertile agricultural sector have quickly ramped up since violence declined after nearly 30,000 additional U.S. troops arrived in 2007, a buildup strategy that some have advocated for Afghanistan.

However we have to remember that the Soviet Union failed to control the country in the 1980s with more than 100,000 soldiers, and some U.S. military officials fear Afghans could see large-scale troop increases as a repeat of that occupation.

Although President Bush has decided to redirect an Army brigade and Marine battalion from Iraq to Afghanistan by January, any further troop reductions in Iraq could be slowed by commanders' concerns over the need to maintain security during Iraqi elections scheduled next year.

Now here comes the uncertiunity and potential policy shift:

Army Gen. David D. McKiernan, the overall commander in Afghanistan, has requested an additional three brigades and a division headquarters unit. Although there is widespread support for the increase within the Pentagon, it remains unclear when those troops will be made available.

And in washington both presidential candidates, Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama, have advocated an increase in conventional forces for Afghanistan. The issue of special operations force levels has not been widely discussed in the campaign, given all this could a potential policy shift be on the Cards?

Pakistan's Predicament: Gen. David H. Petraeus' a very hawkish individual has become a serious advocate for cross border incursions, frankly as Pakistani's we have to accept that legally the US has the right to chase these mysterious “bogey” men into Pakistan.

Secondly we have to recognise that whilst cross border aerial attacks may rise in the coming days and months, the US too cannot risk direct conflict with Pakistan at this present time… I am sure with our DeMOCKratic leaders in place we will see some diplomatic hush on the whole affair allowing the US to run shadow operations under our noses…


So much for (Territorial Integrity)…

 

[daredevil]

If US cant defeat Afghan poorest nation of world.How can he defeat pakistan.Majority of pakitanis are belong to warriors.

Pakistan is land of fear less warriors ,read indian history who ruled india more then 2500 years rajput,jat and pushtoons.

MAN BEHIND THE GUN IS MORE IMPORTANT

Remember, this is not a conventional war. These terrorist bas***ds are cowards, they shoot and runaway. If they fight a conventional war, they will be gone in 1 day.

As I said before, pakistan cannot standup to US. It is living partially on US dollars. Now even chinese have shown their back, when zardari went to china for dollars.

 

[RescueRanger]

Remember, this is not a conventional war. These terrorist bas***ds are cowards, they shoot and runaway. If they fight a conventional war, they will be gone in 1 day.

As I said before, pakistan cannot standup to US. It is living partially on US dollars. Now even chinese have shown their back, when zardari went to china for dollars.

Whilst your comments have some merit, you seem to underestimate the one thing "THE US POP" do they have the stomach for another conflict? With a Nuclear armed state?

I seriously doubt it... Although i do agree that our presently elected DEMOCKCRAZY government will sell out and do a massive hush hush by giving the yanks carte blanche to do what they want on the border.

This will fuel resentment in the country, another coup will ensue in the coming years and we will be back at square one... So much for that...

 

[hasang20]

Remember, this is not a conventional war. These terrorist bas***ds are cowards, they shoot and runaway. If they fight a conventional war, they will be gone in 1 day.

As I said before, pakistan cannot standup to US. It is living partially on US dollars. Now even chinese have shown their back, when zardari went to china for dollars.

how about we get Iran to stand up US is going to be trapped in the middle when Pakistan and Iranian force will go down the ground troops and PAF on the skies hitting them from both side and dont kill Taliban its more likely going to be 3 forces fighting US will just surrender i just watched the new documentry on US in Afganistan they have failed so hard there soliders are even scared to go out of thier camp anything happened they just call air support,for India begin a threat we should Nuke India first.


EDIT - in Karachi Port where the first US battleships come in we just need to sink them and send a strong msg.

 

[third eye]

how about we get Iran to stand up US is going to be trapped in the middle when Pakistan and Iranian force will go down the ground troops and PAF on the skies hitting them from both side and dont kill Taliban its more likely going to be 3 forces fighting US will just surrender i just watched the new documentry on US in Afganistan they have failed so hard there soliders are even scared to go out of thier camp anything happened they just call air support,for India begin a threat we should Nuke India first.


EDIT - in Karachi Port where the first US battleships come in we just need to sink them and send a strong msg.

In addition to all what you have written.. you may also consider a visit to a shrink.

 

[daredevil]

Whilst your comments have some merit, you seem to underestimate the one thing "THE US POP" do they have the stomach for another conflict? With a Nuclear armed state?

I seriously doubt it... Although i do agree that our presently elected DEMOCKCRAZY government will sell out and do a massive hush hush by giving the yanks carte blanche to do what they want on the border.

This will fuel resentment in the country, another coup will ensue in the coming years and we will be back at square one... So much for that...

US is in Afghanistan for some reason and that is to dominate central asian region (CAR) for strategic purpose vis-a-vis China and Russia. It has all the resources to fight anybody and anywhere in the world. You have no idea, what USA can do if they want to.

Even if you have nuclear arms, on whom you are going to use it on, US army in Afghanistan?. Do you think that they are going to sit silent?. After that Pakistan will bite dust.

The only thing pak can do right now is to toe the line of US. You have no choice. Though your govt. will say, we will not allow US incursion into pak, that is just for the public consumption.