Pakistan bans nato supply convoys

[routan]

How many Nato forces have been killed by the insurgents that freely pass through the border region while beloved patriot security forces assist them or look the other way?

Why do the beloved patriot security forces dress like Taliban and not wear regular military uniforms?

Why are beloved patriot security firing on American helicopters?

And we certainly aren't clueless about where your loyalties lie

GuitarDaddy, I dont know sincerely you are asking these questions:

If Nato is not able to stop insurgents from entering Afghanistan, why is Pakistan responsible to do so? I dont understand? I would assume Nato is far more capable equipment wise.

I havent come across any article suggesting Pakistan security forces dressed liked Taliban. However, would it be possible that the Taliban murdered Pakistan security forces and/or stole their clothes?

The quote a couple of posts ago stated why the forces fired bullets. I'll put it here again, but then again, I'm sure you missed it, because it was on the BBC News link as well:

A Pakistani military spokesman told the Agence France-Presse news agency that troops fired at the helicopter "to indicate that the helicopters were crossing into our territory".

My loyalty lies with intelligence. Not stupidity.

 

[Nebor]

I asked JoS about this last week and he believes that we cannot win without taking out a significant portion of the civilian population (which imo is unacceptable)...that the time to "get real" has long passed. He's pretty damn close to the situation so I think his opinion is likely very credible on this.

His mom's basement in Essex is pretty close to the action? Do you actually believe an SAS officer would so freely discuss his career, so inaccurately describe firearms, and write so poorly? And how much access to the internet do you think forward deployed "black" special operations groups have?

Every time I see another person taken in by JoS's charade, it makes me laugh that people are so gullible so as to accept such a poorly constructed deception.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Quote: A Pakistani military spokesman told the Agence France-Presse news agency that troops fired at the helicopter "to indicate that the helicopters were crossing into our territory".

So, the helicopters returned fire to indicate that they shouldn't be firing on Nato helicopters, whats the problem?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

His mom's basement in Essex is pretty close to the action? Do you actually believe an SAS officer would so freely discuss his career, so inaccurately describe firearms, and write so poorly? And how much access to the internet do you think forward deployed "black" special operations groups have?

Every time I see another person taken in by JoS's charade, it makes me laugh that people are so gullible so as to accept such a poorly constructed deception.

I would appreciate your opinion....is this war winnable? If so, at what cost?

 

[GuitarDaddy]

My loyalty lies with intelligence. Not stupidity.

I see, your myopic opinion represents intelligence and anyone with a differing opinion represents stupidity How convenient

Is that the official Muslim perspective?

 

[PeshakJang]

PeshakJang, hi, here's an interesting question... why can the Nato forces with tens of thousands of troops and the best equipment prevent fighters from sneaking across the border into Pakistan?

Or sneaking back across the border into Afghanistan?

Why is it that the modern medical system, with hundreds of billions of dollars and the best equipment, minds, and technology available, still not cure the common cold?

Do you honestly think that we just have soldiers arm-to-arm stretched across the border with Pakistan day and night?

Here's how it works, since you ignored it the first time. We have an outpost on one side of the border, miles from any major base and in the middle of the mountains. The Pak Army has an outpost a couple km away on their side of the border. They start shooting mortars at our base, and since it is coming from Pakistan, we can't shoot back...

So, we simply put our heads down and wait for them to stop... meanwhile, Taliban fighters have freedom of maneuver to come and go as they please, since they know we're not patrolling.

Too hard for you to understand?

 

[Lemon law]

I tend to agree with what Zebo said, it's time to get real or get out. If we're not prepared to do what it takes to win which probably includes invading parts of Pakistan then we should get out.

It's nothing short of a national embarassement that nine years after the attacks on 9/11 that the perpetrators still operate with relative freedom within the borders of our so called ally.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, Guitar Daddy is basically FOS in saying we have ever done what it takes to win or that the fault is Pakistan's. To do an Afghan occupation would have taken over 600,000 Nato troops, and we have never had 25% of that and more like 20%. Part of the GWB sweet nothing promises to Pakistan was that Nato would have Afghanistan stabilizing quick. And thanks to super incompetent Nato planning there was no Nato anvil to complete the trap at Tora Bora. As a result the Taliban escaped into both the tribal areas of Pakistan and the other Stans to the North and subsequently learned not to engage Nato at points of strength.

There might be an iota of validity to the concept that Pakistan should be responsible for exterminating Taliban on their soil, were it not for the fact that Pakistan never had any real control of its tribal areas. And is losing a lot of hearts and minds in the Tribal areas when it has offensives against the Taliban. But the real anger in the Tribal areas are directed against Nato for its drone strikes that kill civilians far too often.

But all our Generals now agree, we can't solve Afghan problems by trying to kill our way out of the problem or by blaming Pakistan. They are convenient excuses and nothing more. Nato can't win by getting in bed with corruption, and can't win by selling a turd of a Afghan government. Nato has too few troops to control any territory,
Nato build nothing because its an occupation on the cheap, and all it does is play wackomole while making the lives of the Afghan people miserable in the process. What good does it do for Nato to chase the Taliban out of a given area and then leave two days later? Because 2 hour later the Taliban comes right back. Now if this scenario only happened near the Afghan Pakistani border we could maybe say that the Taliban ran into Pakistan, but when that happens 150 miles from the border, its time to realize the Taliban is hiding in plain sight inside of Afghanistan 24/7/365.

The Afghan people may want Nato to win, but can't depend on Nato to protect them.

 

[routan]

Why is it that the modern medical system, with hundreds of billions of dollars and the best equipment, minds, and technology available, still not cure the common cold?

Do you honestly think that we just have soldiers arm-to-arm stretched across the border with Pakistan day and night?

Here's how it works, since you ignored it the first time. We have an outpost on one side of the border, miles from any major base and in the middle of the mountains. The Pak Army has an outpost a couple km away on their side of the border. They start shooting mortars at our base, and since it is coming from Pakistan, we can't shoot back...

So, we simply put our heads down and wait for them to stop... meanwhile, Taliban fighters have freedom of maneuver to come and go as they please, since they know we're not patrolling.

Too hard for you to understand?

PeshakJang, yes, your far-fetched story is an absolutely accurate account of ground reality - because you are reporting from the ground

From letting insurgents cross across borders - you have shifted to mortar attacks from ACROSS the border. Perhaps the same mortar attacks prevent Pakistani soldiers from doing anything? Oh wait, that is impossible, right? Because Pakistani soldiers are aiding the insurgents.

 

[routan]

I see, your myopic opinion represents intelligence and anyone with a differing opinion represents stupidity How convenient

Is that the official Muslim perspective?

GuitarDaddy, a differing view rooted in some form of common sense would be welcome.

To point fingers around and pass on the blame is what is convenient, and it is more or less the trend of some mmbers

 

[routan]

So, the helicopters returned fire to indicate that they shouldn't be firing on Nato helicopters, whats the problem?

GuitarDaddy, so then Pakistan stopped Nato convoys, and I believe you and I are both in agreement that IS a problem for our soldiers there

 

[ichy]

His mom's basement in Essex is pretty close to the action? Do you actually believe an SAS officer would so freely discuss his career, so inaccurately describe firearms, and write so poorly? And how much access to the internet do you think forward deployed "black" special operations groups have?

Every time I see another person taken in by JoS's charade, it makes me laugh that people are so gullible so as to accept such a poorly constructed deception.

You beat me to it. JoS is a perfect example of what the Brits call a "Walt." Anyone who's in the SAS is absolutely not allowed to talk about what they do. The idea that one of their officers would be blabbing all over an internet forum about that sort of thing is laughable.

 

[Lemon law]

The question is did the small Pakistani outpost fire directly at the Nato helicopters or was it the equivalent of a naval shot across the bow?

In either case, Nato has no technical right to operate in Pakistan.


As for the duration of the Nato convey blockage, I suspect it will not be long, Nato and Pakistan will kiss and make up, and it will be back to the same ole same ole of both sides saying one thing and doing another.

 

[yllus]

Oh Pakistan, ever so ready to cut off your nose to spite your face. Enjoy your double scoop of extremists.

 

[werepossum]

The question is did the small Pakistani outpost fire directly at the Nato helicopters or was it the equivalent of a naval shot across the bow?

In either case, Nato has no technical right to operate in Pakistan.


As for the duration of the Nato convey blockage, I suspect it will not be long, Nato and Pakistan will kiss and make up, and it will be back to the same ole same ole of both sides saying one thing and doing another.

I suspect that you are correct. I applaud Obama for operating when necessary in the tribal areas of Pakistan where Pakistan cannot or will not operate, but occasionally it will cause us problems which will need to be worked out (part of which is Pakistan instructing its forces that firing at or near a Western attack helicopter is a shortcut to martyrdom.) Regardless, we should all understand that although Pakistan IS an ally, its contributions are bounded by its own national interests, as are those of all nations. Pakistan was the first nation to recognize the Taliban as a legitimate government and was the Taliban's closest allies; they became an ally only because of Bush's position that "you are either with us or against us", and the Pakistani government suffers some real difficulty (both internally and regionally) to aid us as much as they do. I am very glad that we are not repeating our mistakes in Vietnam of allowing the enemy a sanctuary, but I also accept that we do not have carte blanche to operate on their soil and I am thankful that they aid us (however duplicitously it might be) as much as they do. In a country where the military and the government are both riddled with Islamicists, there is no way we'll ever get complete cooperation, but Pakistan has been a huge help in our war against the Taliban and al Qaeda.

Regarding JoS, I was just as skeptical as the rest of you, but I did verify with the mods that he is indeed posting from the area he claims to be in. Therefore I am taking him at his word that he is who and what he claims to be unless and until I have proof otherwise. Assuming he IS who and what he claims to be, I would be doing him a grave injustice to doubt him, and I admit I would not have doubted him if our views were more in line. So as far as I am concerned JoS is an SAS captain.

 

[Lemon law]

Oh Pakistan, ever so ready to cut off your nose to spite your face. Enjoy your double scoop of extremists.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh Pakistan, ever so ready to cut off your nose to spite your face. Enjoy your double scoop of extremists while Nato enjoys its triple dip of losing, bleeding lives and money, and finding victory ever more further away because of its fantasies.

Fixed for you yllus.

 

[manimal]

One more example of why I'll never give a penny for Pakistani flood relief. If they hate us so much then they can all drown for all I care.

Wow just wow I have no words...

 

[yllus]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh Pakistan, ever so ready to cut off your nose to spite your face. Enjoy your double scoop of extremists while Nato enjoys its triple dip of losing, bleeding lives and money, and finding victory ever more further away because of its fantasies.

Fixed for you yllus.

And while NATO can call things off and go back to their nice first-world homes at any time, it's Pakistan that will take to amputation of its own limbs sooner or later as it stays committed to defending the infection NATO is trying to kill off.

I like that you think you can "fix" people's statements on South Asia. As if you have any sense of the truth of the situation there.

 

[routan]

The question is did the small Pakistani outpost fire directly at the Nato helicopters or was it the equivalent of a naval shot across the bow?

In either case, Nato has no technical right to operate in Pakistan.


As for the duration of the Nato convey blockage, I suspect it will not be long, Nato and Pakistan will kiss and make up, and it will be back to the same ole same ole of both sides saying one thing and doing another.

+1 for good post.

 

[woolfe9999]

JTsyo, the billions of dollars are to mobilise that country's military, which is already stretched thin. Irrevelant in the discussion of airspace violation.

You can communicate with another army's helicopters using radios? Good Lord!

Routon, you don't fire on units of a military you are not at war with, and whose government is providing military aid to your country. Those beloved patriot troops may have been firing on our helicopters with weapons paid for by U.S. tax dollars.

If they object to the border incursions, the solution to that is through a political process, not firing upon armed helicopters. What business did these beloved patriot troops have firing on U.S. helicopters? Did they have approval from higher ups to do so? If not, then I must assume that the civilian government has no control over the military there, which acts entirely on its own initiative.

Anyway, if you fire on armed units, they are going to fire back and if you are out gunned, you are going to be killed.

- wolf

 

[routan]

I suspect that you are correct. I applaud Obama for operating when necessary in the tribal areas of Pakistan where Pakistan cannot or will not operate, but occasionally it will cause us problems which will need to be worked out (part of which is Pakistan instructing its forces that firing at or near a Western attack helicopter is a shortcut to martyrdom.) Regardless, we should all understand that although Pakistan IS an ally, its contributions are bounded by its own national interests, as are those of all nations. Pakistan was the first nation to recognize the Taliban as a legitimate government and was the Taliban's closest allies; they became an ally only because of Bush's position that "you are either with us or against us", and the Pakistani government suffers some real difficulty (both internally and regionally) to aid us as much as they do. I am very glad that we are not repeating our mistakes in Vietnam of allowing the enemy a sanctuary, but I also accept that we do not have carte blanche to operate on their soil and I am thankful that they aid us (however duplicitously it might be) as much as they do. In a country where the military and the government are both riddled with Islamicists, there is no way we'll ever get complete cooperation, but Pakistan has been a huge help in our war against the Taliban and al Qaeda.

Regarding JoS, I was just as skeptical as the rest of you, but I did verify with the mods that he is indeed posting from the area he claims to be in. Therefore I am taking him at his word that he is who and what he claims to be unless and until I have proof otherwise. Assuming he IS who and what he claims to be, I would be doing him a grave injustice to doubt him, and I admit I would not have doubted him if our views were more in line. So as far as I am concerned JoS is an SAS captain.

werepossum, let us all not forget that the Taliban was OUR creation, through Pakistan.

I agree with the sentiments of this post.

 

[routan]

Routon, you don't fire on units of a military you are not at war with, and whose government is providing military aid to your country. Those beloved patriot troops may have been firing on our helicopters with weapons paid for by U.S. tax dollars.

If they object to the border incursions, the solution to that is through a political process, not firing upon armed helicopters. What business did these beloved patriot troops have firing on U.S. helicopters? Did they have approval from higher ups to do so? If not, then I must assume that the civilian government has no control over the military there, which acts entirely on its own initiative.

Anyway, if you fire on armed units, they are going to fire back and if you are out gunned, you are going to be killed.

- wolf

wolf, warning shots are not uncommon:
http://www.google.com/search?q=ship...7&rls=com.microsoft:en-US&ie=utf8&oe=utf8&rlz=

We have indulged in the same.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Routon, you don't fire on units of a military you are not at war with, and whose government is providing military aid to your country. Those beloved patriot troops may have been firing on our helicopters with weapons paid for by U.S. tax dollars.

If they object to the border incursions, the solution to that is through a political process, not firing upon armed helicopters. What business did these beloved patriot troops have firing on U.S. helicopters? Did they have approval from higher ups to do so? If not, then I must assume that the civilian government has no control over the military there, which acts entirely on its own initiative.

Anyway, if you fire on armed units, they are going to fire back and if you are out gunned, you are going to be killed.

- wolf

QFT!!!

Mess with the bull you may get hooked by the horns

A64 apache

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M230_Chain_GunM230 Chain Gun

 

[Nebor]

I would appreciate your opinion....is this war winnable? If so, at what cost?

The "war" as I would define it, was won very early on. We rapidly achieved most of our stated objectives in Afghanistan (with the notable exception of Osama bin Laden) The situation that's developed now is a whole new animal. The people don't like our way of life, yet we're trying to force it on them. They don't care about democracy. If you want to "win" in Afghanistan, we are this point looking at a decades long involvement designed to change their culture into one more like ours. It will require incremental changes with every new generation, by pushing education that teaches them our way of life. The kids are the future of that country, but it will take several generations to see real change affected. In the interim, we will continue to pay an enormous toll in terms of blood and treasure.

If you ask me, it's not worth it. The Afghan people aren't worth it. There's no objective in Afghanistan that I would trade one soldier's life for. They've been relatively unchanged for the past 1000 years; they're not going to change quickly. If we're so hung up on nation building, why not fix Mexico? Their culture is already very similar to ours, and we would see direct benefit from improving Mexico. Instead we're funneling billions to a desolate wasteland across the world, with a huge portion going to Afghan graft and Chinese contractors. But I'm just a little cog in the big machine, so my opinion isn't very important.

 

[PeshakJang]

PeshakJang, yes, your far-fetched story is an absolutely accurate account of ground reality - because you are reporting from the ground

I was there 3 months ago, and for 12 months before that, just a few miles from the border. The scenario is accurate in every sense of the word, and it was a regular occurrence. How does your foot taste?

From letting insurgents cross across borders - you have shifted to mortar attacks from ACROSS the border. Perhaps the same mortar attacks prevent Pakistani soldiers from doing anything? Oh wait, that is impossible, right? Because Pakistani soldiers are aiding the insurgents.

Are you purposely not reading anything I say, or are you simply trying to win your argument through a lack of comprehension? Pakistan has outposts within km of our outposts, near major crossing points. I have literally watched, with my own eyes, as PAKISTANI ARMY fired mortars from at or near their positions, at US positions, to allow Taliban fighters to cross. US forces were strictly prohibited from returning fire across the border without division approval, which never happened. Sometimes our air assets could catch the bad guys slipping in, sometimes they couldn't. Either way, it happens exactly as I described it.

But let me guess, you're been there and know I am wrong.

 

[routan]

I was there 3 months ago, and for 12 months before that, just a few miles from the border. The scenario is accurate in every sense of the word, and it was a regular occurrence. How does your foot taste?

PeshakJang, I was on the moon yesterday and had honey water. Then I made out with Adriana Lima before hopping along Saturn's ring. It was an interesting trip. Perhaps you should join me next time.

Are you purposely not reading anything I say, or are you simply trying to win your argument through a lack of comprehension? Pakistan has outposts within km of our outposts, near major crossing points. I have literally watched, with my own eyes, as PAKISTANI ARMY fired mortars from at or near their positions, at US positions, to allow Taliban fighters to cross. US forces were strictly prohibited from returning fire across the border without division approval, which never happened. Sometimes our air assets could catch the bad guys slipping in, sometimes they couldn't. Either way, it happens exactly as I described it.

But let me guess, you're been there and know I am wrong.

Oh, so the deaths of the 3 soldiers from Pakistan ny Nato fire was a breach of military discipline? lol.