Pakistan bans nato supply convoys

[PeshakJang]

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 just trying to look like an idiot? I don't understand.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

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.

I have to agree with PeshakJang and question why you're mocking his experience in Afghanistan. My daughter is currently serving there and she's described similar circumstances.

 

[routan]

I have to agree with PeshakJang and question why you're mocking his experience in Afghanistan. My daughter is currently serving there and she's described similar circumstances.

Londo_Jowo, with all due respect:

1. Because someone says he has had some personal account does not make it into a fact. I expect (and observe) the same credibility defeciency in others when addressing me.

2. I actually have extended family in Pakhtoonkhwa. They are in a miserable state because Nato has pushed the Taliban into their region, who in turn have been raising havoc. As per them, thousands of civilians AND military personnel have died fighting the insurgents.

So you'll excuse me if I dont take lightly the ridicule and mocking that is thrown on the sacrifice of thousands of soldiers and thousands of CIVILIANS on account of a mess created by the our country some 20 years ago, and now recreating another mess.

 

[woolfe9999]

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.

I haven't heard anyone say these were warning shots. The helicopter crews believed they were being fired upon directly, and they characterized the small arms fire as "effective." In other words, they were being hit with bullets, which probably did not succeed in penetrating the Apache armor or did minor damage.

In any event, even if these were warning shots, the decision to fire upon units of nation you are not at war with should be a decision of civilian government in any civilized society. Once you're at war, that's different. Then the military units of course must have discretion in the field. But if the civilian government doesn't have control of the military at least to the extent of being able to enforce standing orders not to fire on US units unless they are fired upon first, then there is a systemic problem in Pakistan.

I'll give you an example so you can better understand what I mean. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, the U.S. had a naval blockade to prevent Russian vessels from delivering weaponry to Cuba. The civilian government issued standing rules of engagement for U.S. navy vessels participating in the blockade. And, because they wanted to be sure that these ROE's were followed as the consquence of being trigger happy might have been global thermonuclear war, the President himself (and another time the SoD) personally telephoned the naval commander to walk him through how the confrontation was handled. In one case, a warning shot was fired without authorization and it was a "pins and needles" moment, and the military brass got chewed out for it. While that is an unusual situation where the civilian leadership has direct contact with people on the ground, the point is that decisions about whethor to fire on nations that you are not at war with is not one for military units on the ground.

If Pakistan's civilian government can't control its miltiary or its intelligence services, if they are firing on U.S. units, aiding the Taliban, looking the other way while militants sabotage our supply lines, etc. then we have a serious problem.

- wolf

 

[PeshakJang]

Londo_Jowo, with all due respect:

1. Because someone says he has had some personal account does not make it into a fact. I expect (and observe) the same credibility defeciency in others when addressing me.

Got it... I will assume you are making up the following statement:

2. I actually have extended family in Pakhtoonkhwa.

They are in a miserable state because Nato has pushed the Taliban into their region, who in turn have been raising havoc. As per them, thousands of civilians AND military personnel have died fighting the insurgents.

So you are going to blame NATO because they are fighting the Taliban, while your government fights them during the day and supports them during the night?

So you'll excuse me if I dont take lightly the ridicule and mocking that is thrown on the sacrifice of thousands of soldiers and thousands of CIVILIANS on account of a mess created by the our country some 20 years ago, and now recreating another mess.

Mocking? Who is mocking anything? I'm telling you the truth about what is happening, and you are spouting off on some tangent.

At least you can admit that Pakistan created the mess of the Taliban. Once you realize how much they are still supporting them, maybe your attitude will change.

 

[routan]

I haven't heard anyone say these were warning shots. The helicopter crews believed they were being fired upon directly, and they characterized the small arms fire as "effective." In other words, they were being hit with bullets, which probably did not succeed in penetrating the Apache armor or did minor damage.

In any event, even if these were warning shots, the decision to fire upon units of nation you are not at war with should be a decision of civilian government in any civilized society. Once you're at war, that's different. Then the military units of course must have discretion in the field. But if the civilian government doesn't have control of the military at least to the extent of being able to enforce standing orders not to fire on US units unless they are fired upon first, then there is a systemic problem in Pakistan.

I'll give you an example so you can better understand what I mean. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, the U.S. had a naval blockade to prevent Russian vessels from delivering weaponry to Cuba. The civilian government issued standing rules of engagement for U.S. navy vessels participating in the blockade. And, because they wanted to be sure that these ROE's were followed as the consquence of being trigger happy might have been global thermonuclear war, the President himself (and another time the SoD) personally telephoned the naval commander to walk him through how the confrontation was handled. In one case, a warning shot was fired without authorization and it was a "pins and needles" moment, and the military brass got chewed out for it. While that is an unusual situation where the civilian leadership has direct contact with people on the ground, the point is that decisions about whethor to fire on nations that you are not at war with is not one for military units on the ground.

If Pakistan's civilian government can't control its miltiary or its intelligence services, if they are firing on U.S. units, aiding the Taliban, looking the other way while militants sabotage our supply lines, etc. then we have a serious problem.

- wolf

wolf, I have posted the BBC News link, and quoted the interior minister twice in prior posts who stated these were warning shots.

Every nation has the right to protect its territorial borders. A military aircraft entering another nations airspace is doing so illegally. I expect the US to do the same, and it has in many occassions as shown by my prior link to your post.

I would suspect that as with all governments, the Pakistani government has issued orders to fire "warning" shots to any aircrafts entering the territory.

You should also take into account that there are frequent drone attacks by our military into Pakistan, and Pakistan has taken somewhat of a blind eye approach on them, despite significant civilian casualties.

 

[routan]

Got it... I will assume you are making up the following statement:





So you are going to blame NATO because they are fighting the Taliban, while your government fights them during the day and supports them during the night?



Mocking? Who is mocking anything? I'm telling you the truth about what is happening, and you are spouting off on some tangent.

At least you can admit that Pakistan created the mess of the Taliban. Once you realize how much they are still supporting them, maybe your attitude will change.

PeshakJang, lol, I am an American. Thank you very much.

How many Nato soldiers have died fighting with Taliban and how many Pakistani soldiers? Not asked as a comparison question - but a question on your "objective" view on Pakistan aiding the Taliban fighters

 

[woolfe9999]

wolf, I have posted the BBC News link, and quoted the interior minister twice in prior posts who stated these were warning shots.

Every nation has the right to protect its territorial borders. A military aircraft entering another nations airspace is doing so illegally. I expect the US to do the same, and it has in many occassions as shown by my prior link to your post.

I would suspect that as with all governments, the Pakistani government has issued orders to fire "warning" shots to any aircrafts entering the territory.

You should also take into account that there are frequent drone attacks by our military into Pakistan, and Pakistan has taken somewhat of a blind eye approach on them, despite significant civilian casualties.

Well, there is a dispute of fact between what the Interior Minister is now saying and what the U.S. helicopter crews said. You don't characterize warning shots, which should be wide of the mark, as "effective small arms fire." Anyway, did the Minister say that there was a standing policy of firing warning shots, or did he simply say these were warning shots? I suspect that there was no such policy, that the units fired on the helicopters, and now the the beloved patriot government is trying to whitewash the incident because they don't want to make it look like they don't have control of their military.

This incident aside, do you honestly think the civilian government there has a firm grip on its military and intelligence communities?

- wolf

 

[werepossum]

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

I agree with the sentiments of this post.

I disagree completely that the Taliban was "our creation" - this is just another case of blaming the USA for everything that happens. We gave them the tools and training to take back their freedom from the Soviet Union, although it's arguable that even without our help they would have regained their freedom. No nation has ever succeeded in occupying Afghanistan, probably because they are so poor that their freedom is about the only thing they have worth fighting for. That is why we did not invade with conventional forces.

It is a blessed thing to help provide freedom, albeit we did it for our own reasons (to help slow or stop the spread of Communism, the antithesis of freedom.) But what a person, or a group, does with its freedom is his or its responsibility. That is the definition of freedom.

 

[routan]

Well, there is a dispute of fact between what the Interior Minister is now saying and what the U.S. helicopter crews said. You don't characterize warning shots, which should be wide of the mark, as "effective small arms fire." Anyway, did the Minister say that there was a standing policy of firing warning shots, or did he simply say these were warning shots? I suspect that there was no such policy, that the units fired on the helicopters, and now the the beloved patriot government is trying to whitewash the incident because they don't want to make it look like they don't have control of their military.

This incident aside, do you honestly think the civilian government there has a firm grip on its military and intelligence communities?

- wolf

wolf, one can say that this is a he said she said dispute. However, one fact remains, the helicopter WAS in Pakistan territory which should not have happened. And it was Pakistan's soldier's lives that were lost.

Either one of our suspicions can be correct. Irrespective, I do think the military engages any foreign military entering territorial borders. I can recount countless high profile incidents... the immediate one that comes to mind was the Hainan Island incident.

I will agree that the military hiearchy in Pakistan is weak compared to the hiearchy of developed nations. That is a fact. But to claim it is as loose as suggested/portrayed/perceived is also not accurate, and it would be not an intelligent approach to have that perception.

 

[routan]

I disagree completely that the Taliban was "our creation" - this is just another case of blaming the USA for everything that happens. We gave them the tools and training to take back their freedom from the Soviet Union, although it's arguable that even without our help they would have regained their freedom. No nation has ever succeeded in occupying Afghanistan, probably because they are so poor that their freedom is about the only thing they have worth fighting for. That is why we did not invade with conventional forces.

It is a blessed thing to help provide freedom, albeit we did it for our own reasons (to help slow or stop the spread of Communism, the antithesis of freedom.) But what a person, or a group, does with its freedom is his or its responsibility. That is the definition of freedom.

werepossum, this post is flawed beyond measure. Afghanistan was in quite a decent spot before the USSR invasion. Flooding the nation with arms, training kids to shed blood for our cause, and then leaving them to fend for themselves is not at all what "providing freedom" is. Millions became refugees during the war. Thats your definition of freedom? ha.ha.ha.

 

[PeshakJang]

PeshakJang, lol, I am an American. Thank you very much.

How many Nato soldiers have died fighting with Taliban and how many Pakistani soldiers? Not asked as a comparison question - but a question on your "objective" view on Pakistan aiding the Taliban fighters

My "objective" view isn't based on bodies, it's based on history, and facts. Maybe so many good Pakistani soldiers wouldn't die every year if the ISI stopped funneling money and arms to Taliban fighters.

There is well documented history supporting me. The US didn't fucking create the Taliban. We supported certain factions of the Mujaheddin during the Russian occupation. Once the occupation ended, the ISI supported the Taliban as a way to exert proxy control over Afghanistan and gain control of the trade routes in/out of the country. Unfortunately, once they created the monster, it started to turn on them, which is what we have today. Half the government is still ISI hardline radicals who support them, the other half is an inept bunch of softies who put on these charades to convince the world they are fighting against them. Innocent civilians are the ones caught in the middle, as well as the soldiers who want to do the right thing.

 

[routan]

My "objective" view isn't based on bodies, it's based on history, and facts. Maybe so many good Pakistani soldiers wouldn't die every year if the ISI stopped funneling money and arms to Taliban fighters.

There is well documented history supporting me. The US didn't fucking create the Taliban. We supported certain factions of the Mujaheddin during the Russian occupation. Once the occupation ended, the ISI supported the Taliban as a way to exert proxy control over Afghanistan and gain control of the trade routes in/out of the country. Unfortunately, once they created the monster, it started to turn on them, which is what we have today. Half the government is still ISI hardline radicals who support them, the other half is an inept bunch of softies who put on these charades to convince the world they are fighting against them. Innocent civilians are the ones caught in the middle, as well as the soldiers who want to do the right thing.

PeshakJang, what baloney. Certain "factions" of Mujahideen? What?

We funded arms and finances to militias in Afghanistan. We called the militias Mujahideen. After the war was over, the Mujahideen morphed into the Taliban, the Northern Alliance and so on. The large amount of refugees in Pakistan and armed militias across the border handed Pakistan a mess. To control it was a priority. We were safe across oceans (when in reality, it didnt turn out that way).

That is the REAL history of that region.

 

[bfdd]

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.



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

So what you're saying is it's safe to assume everything you say is made up because you assume everything any one else says you don't agree with is. Got it.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

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.

Oh, we call them a "Walt" do we? Well that is fucking news to me, son.

We usually call them leckers but obviously you are more British than me too, right?

Anything i have stated is nothing more than you can read in news articles published by the BBC, i should know, I FUCKING CLEARED THE INFORMATION and the ONLY reason i ever told anyone about anything before it was published was because it was relevant information that was over and done with for a good amount of time and cleared for publishing.

If you have a problem with anything, you can send a request for an investigation to the SAS.

You'll get the same response everyone else gets.

 

[woolfe9999]

wolf, one can say that this is a he said she said dispute. However, one fact remains, the helicopter WAS in Pakistan territory which should not have happened. And it was Pakistan's soldier's lives that were lost.

Either one of our suspicions can be correct. Irrespective, I do think the military engages any foreign military entering territorial borders. I can recount countless high profile incidents... the immediate one that comes to mind was the Hainan Island incident.

I will agree that the military hiearchy in Pakistan is weak compared to the hiearchy of developed nations. That is a fact. But to claim it is as loose as suggested/portrayed/perceived is also not accurate, and it would be not an intelligent approach to have that perception.

Routon, there's a great solution if Pakistan doesn't want any U.S. military units crossing the border. It involves U.S. border units NOT being fired upon from militants in Pakistan, and militants NOT crossing over the border from hideouts in Pakistan. If Pakistan doesn't want us in their air space or on the ground, then they need to clean up their own house. We're paying them BILLIONS yearly to secure their side of the border from militants. In your view, has the US gotten a fair return on its investment?

- wolf

 

[PeshakJang]

PeshakJang, what baloney. Certain "factions" of Mujahideen? What?

We funded arms and finances to militias in Afghanistan. We called the militias Mujahideen. After the war was over, the Mujahideen morphed into the Taliban, the Northern Alliance and so on. The large amount of refugees in Pakistan and armed militias across the border handed Pakistan a mess. To control it was a priority. We were safe across oceans (when in reality, it didnt turn out that way).

That is the REAL history of that region.

And I think it is pretty safe to say that you are completely ignorant of history, even as you suggest you are from that region.

There have been too many first-hand books, historical documentations, and personal accounts that describe the evolution of the Taliban... many more than I could possibly summarize for you here.

 

[routan]

So what you're saying is it's safe to assume everything you say is made up because you assume everything any one else says you don't agree with is. Got it.

bfdd, if thats how you want to interpret it...

 

[ichy]

Oh, we call them a "Walt" do we? Well that is fucking news to me, son.

Walt, liar, phoney, it's all the same thing.

The reason you haven't posted anything that you can't read in the news is because you're not in the SAS and have never set foot in Afghanistan. REAL special forces members in the UK, the US, or any other Western army do NOT go around blathering around on the internet about it.

 

[ayabe]

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.

Sadly, I think this is the truth and more people are beginning to realize it as more and more information comes out. Things are so fucked over there and have been for a long time.

In this case, it's past time for pointing fingers, we just need to get the fuck out.

 

[routan]

Routon, there's a great solution if Pakistan doesn't want any U.S. military units crossing the border. It involves U.S. border units NOT being fired upon from militants in Pakistan, and militants NOT crossing over the border from hideouts in Pakistan. If Pakistan doesn't want us in their air space or on the ground, then they need to clean up their own house. We're paying them BILLIONS yearly to secure their side of the border from militants. In your view, has the US gotten a fair return on its investment?

- wolf

wolf, while your solution is fair, it is a tad bit idealistic.

To my knowledge, the figure is $1.5 billion a year in military aid, not billions. The monthly cost of JUST OUR presence in Aghanistan is over $5 billion. With that much expenses, do you have any reasons why militants are able to cross INTO Pakistan and create havoc there?

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

PeshakJang, what baloney. Certain "factions" of Mujahideen? What?

We funded arms and finances to militias in Afghanistan. We called the militias Mujahideen. After the war was over, the Mujahideen morphed into the Taliban, the Northern Alliance and so on. The large amount of refugees in Pakistan and armed militias across the border handed Pakistan a mess. To control it was a priority. We were safe across oceans (when in reality, it didnt turn out that way).

That is the REAL history of that region.

No.

 

[routan]

And I think it is pretty safe to say that you are completely ignorant of history, even as you suggest you are from that region.

There have been too many first-hand books, historical documentations, and personal accounts that describe the evolution of the Taliban... many more than I could possibly summarize for you here.

PeshakJang, none differ from my account. The "monster" as you termed it was the OUR funded militias. After the USSR left, no order was left in Afghanistan. No US support came.

With the massive refugees and a heavily armed militia, who was left holding the hands of utterly destroyed Afghanistan? It was our former "ally". To control this very monster, they sided with the dominant force emerging - the Taliban.

Every historical account will support this. If you disagree, feel free to post your substantiation.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Walt, liar, phoney, it's all the same thing.

The reason you haven't posted anything that you can't read in the news is because you're not in the SAS and have never set foot in Afghanistan. REAL special forces members in the UK, the US, or any other Western army do NOT go around blathering around on the internet about it.

Son, if i feel the need to fuck around with a retard, i'll just call your mum.

Cheerio.

 

[bfdd]

bfdd, if thats how you want to interpret it...

.. interpret it? That's how you presented it. You didn't leave any room for interpretation. You're calling this man/woman a liar after he presents his first hand account. Sure you shouldn't take everything everyone says on the internet as truth, but I like to think the people on this forum are a bit above that.