US targeted killings guidebook allows CIA drones in Pakistan: Report

[KRAIT]

Like they are doing in Iran.Right

Iran has more guts. Musharraf to Zardari, no one could stop drone strikes. People even stopped protesting against it. Even Pakistani parliament denounced it, still they are continuing. Now even few posters from Pakistan supports drone strikes.

 

[rockstarIN]

Please elaborate. You are suggesting that US will remain active in conducting drones strikes in Pakistan regardless of what. What I am emphasizing is that United States have not consider the scenario in which there is an independent government in Pakistan. I am sure that you have heard what Imran Khan has said about Drone strikes

IF Pakistan is able to curb the problems in lawless areas, there is no need for such strikes. They undertake such strikes where the govt. forces are failed to keep control like Yemen, Somalia etc. If they came to know such presence in any other country say India or EU, they will go by official route indeed, but secretly.

 

[unicorn]

Iran has more guts. Musharraf to Zardari, no one could stop drone strikes. People even stopped protesting against it. Even Pakistani parliament denounced it, still they are continuing.

Read my post no# 26

Now even few posters from Pakistan supports drone strikes.

Those only fraction 0.00000001% who support drone strikes in Pakistan does not have any idea about ground realities. Drones strikes are extremely counter productive.

 

[RescueRanger]

Kohi nahi, lets see what happens till the next election. The government has the tools to stop these strikes, but sadly lack the resolve. What is frustrating is seeing the result of these so called "precision strikes" in broken families and building a new generation of terrorists.

 

[KRAIT]

Read my post no# 26
Those only fraction 0.00000001% who support drone strikes in Pakistan does not have any idea about ground realities. Drones strikes are extremely counter productive.

After 2014 pull out you won't have any leverage on US like you have now in name of supply lines.

 

[unicorn]

After 2014 pull out you won't have any leverage on US like you have now in name of supply lines.

Actually it is quite the opposite. The good thing that is on our side is we never run out of option whereas US does. Like for example there is ambiguity whether Afghan government will support it self after the US draw down or not. This by any stretch is a very serious question.

As far as the question of supply line is concerned we never used it as a tool against US. We never charge them a penny for using our air corridor and we never charge them a dime about the damages to our infrastructure.
Instead we give them the services by putting our lives on the line. The drivers who take there supplies are on constant threat of attack all the time.

 

[RazorMC]

Actually it is quite the opposite. The good thing that is on our side is we never run out of option whereas US does. Like for example there is ambiguity whether Afghan government will support it self after the US draw down or not ...

The US is the only country in the world that can never run out of options.

They have the funds to support any insane agendas. They have way too much power for their own good and it makes their policymakers blind to what is really needed.

And there's no ambiguity in Afghanistan's future. There is very little chance of Karzai's regime continuing smoothly once NATO leaves. This is why the US is busy talking to the same terrorists it swore never to negotiate with. Talibs are coming back one way or another. The only thing left to see is how the upcoming anarchy and power-struggle is managed.

I fully support a stable Afghanistan, but Karzai is not the one who can do that job, nor the Talibs.
Corruption on one hand and incompetence on the other. The Afghans lose either way.

 

[unicorn]

The US is the only country in the world that can never run out of options.

They have the funds to support any insane agendas. They have way too much power for their own good and it makes their policymakers blind to what is really needed.

Well when it come to us they do run out of options. And I quote US Senator John McCain who said that with Pakistan we cannot go beyond a certain line because of the nuke factor.

And there's no ambiguity in Afghanistan's future.

Actually there is a lot ambiguity and you are elaborating it yourself further strengthening the point which I make earlier.

There is very little chance of Karzai's regime continuing smoothly once NATO leaves. This is why the US is busy talking to the same terrorists it swore never to negotiate with. Talibs are coming back one way or another. The only thing left to see is how the upcoming anarchy and power-struggle is managed.

I fully support a stable Afghanistan, but Karzai is not the one who can do that job, nor the Talibs.
Corruption on one hand and incompetence on the other. The Afghans lose either way.

 

[RazorMC]

Well when it come to us they do run out of options. And I quote US Senator John McCain who said that with Pakistan we cannot go beyond a certain line because of the nuke factor. ...

I used to think the same way about nukes and how we became invincible because of them. But that's simply not true. The US has enough diplomatic strength that it can isolate us from other countries completely. What can nukes do then? We have no means of touching the US mainland and until we get that capability, we are going to be at a disadvantage.

... Actually there is a lot ambiguity and you are elaborating it yourself further strengthening the point which I make earlier.

I don't get it. How is it ambigious if power-struggles are guaranteed? There is no doubt how the situation is going to turn out once NATO withdraws. This is why the US is following a policy of appeasement with the Taliban; to minimize the chances of anarchy.

 

[unicorn]

I used to think the same way about nukes and how we became invincible because of them. But that's simply not true. The US has enough diplomatic strength that it can isolate us from other countries completely. What can nukes do then? We have no means of touching the US mainland and until we get that capability, we are going to be at a disadvantage.

For isolating us US first has to make a strong case against us.I don't think any NATO member ever have said some thing in support of Drones strikes. Instead many NATO members understand our stance on the drone strikes 'Britain being one of them'.If US ever try to put us into isolation than it is US own loss because it will destabilize nuclear Pakistan which US itself does not wants. They have to work with us regardless of they like it or not. They have no choice in this.

I don't get it. How is it ambigious if power-struggles are guaranteed? There is no doubt how the situation is going to turn out once NATO withdraws. This is why the US is following a policy of appeasement with the Taliban; to minimize the chances of anarchy.

Because Taliban will never come to negotiations.They have already asked the Aalims from different regions to not attend the Kabul conference.In order to negotiate with Talibans they the USA have to accept Talibans demands which they will never do as far as my understanding on this issue goes.

 

[RazorMC]

For isolating us US first has to make a strong case against us.I don't think any NATO member ever have said some thing in support of Drones strikes. Instead many NATO members understand our stance on the drone strikes 'Britain being one of them'.If US ever try to put us into isolation than it is US own loss because it will destabilize nuclear Pakistan which US itself does not wants. They have to work with us regardless of they like it or not. They have no choice in this ...

Look at the underlined part again.

And now tell me who stands to lose more from a destabilized Pakistan, the US or the people living in Pakistan? This is exactly the sort of thinking that has reduced our international image to ashes.

 

[unicorn]

Look at the underlined part again.

And now tell me who stands to lose more from a destabilized Pakistan, the US or the people living in Pakistan? This is exactly the sort of thinking that has reduced our international image to ashes.

Lol. this is neither our thinking nor our stance.This is the view of US that destabilized Pakistan is not in their interest.

You have highlight your concern in your previous post that US can isolate us to which I replied that how can they do that when it contradicts their own policy.I rest my case.