Pakistan cuts off NATO supply routes

[Jhhnn]

Friendly relations with Pakistan may be a lost cause at this point. Looks like we'll have to ship supplies into Afghanistan the expensive way.

That being the case, it may be time to start thinking about how we can improve our friendly relations with India even further. It's not like we have to worry about pissing off the Pakistanis anymore.

Which way is that?

Honest question.

 

[child of wonder]

Good. Let's get the hell out of there and treat them like enemies like we should've done a while ago.

This.

Let's quit wasting money on the Middle East in general.

 

[Nintendesert]

Our damn President should have announced our withdrawal from that shithole part of the world the day after OBL was confirmed dead. That would have been the honorable and "on our terms" exit from that shithole but unfortunately we missed that opportunity.

 

[al981]

We went into Afghanistan to remove the Taliban from supporting AQ.

OBL is done; the Taliban are routed; nothing has been heard of from Omar.

Give up the nation building concept -let Kabul clean up its mess.
Monitor Pakistan for nuke issues and get out of that area of the region.

It may be of strategic value to China; Russia learned that it is a shithole and does not want anything to do with it, Pakistan can not take care of itself and Iran is smart enough to leave that area along -gains it nothing.

So as others have stated; why do we need to be there.
There initial reasons are completed.

since you ducked this link in the other thread, it applies here as well:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFbpKKOEnAE

 

[sm625]

Turn 'em into a parking lot.... So they are trotting out the same brain dead moronic chants once again now with Pakistan. Pakistanis are fools for thinking this country has any interest in seeing them as anything but rubble. It's sad watching a people degenerate and destroy themselves and half the world along with them. It's like watching a herd of bison run over a cliff.

 

[cybrsage]

It is not like the Pakistanis harbored someone like Bin Laden or anything. I mean, if they did something like that I could understand the US being a bit upset with them...but no nation would harbor OBL...

 

[Doppel]

Op post is good but the rest are mainly concluding about an event with nearly no details yet.

 

[Lemon law]

In my personal opinion, this forum and the American people understand nothing about Pakistan. The filth most populous nation on the planet and over 50% of the population of the USA. Yet total idiots on this forum want to characterize Present day Pakistan as only an extension of their tribal regions. As absolute idiot's view because because 90% of Pakistan is in fact a Western values economy and democracy.

If we want to better understand current Pakistani attitudes towards its tribal areas, we have a home grown US history analogies circa the USA in the 1850's. At that time, 95% of the US population was east of the Mississippi river, Even if the USA, with the Louisianan purchase of 1803 and the victories of the 1848 Mexican wars extended American ownership from the Atlantic to the Pacific.

After that the American V modern Pakistani analogy fails. Because as new American civilization moved West, to those areas of East of the Rocky Mountains, a pile of new American states destabilized the old Southern institution of slavery and States rights. And ultimately resulted in an American civil war circa 1861.

But if we want to understand present Pakistani values, we would be better looking at the vast areas West of the Rockies extending all the way to the Pacific from American eyes post the winning of the civil war.

In short a vast 1200 mile worthless desert, and nothing but a vast distance to be traversed before any land worth farming and settling could be found. Who in their right mind would want it? Better leave it to the American Indians to try to settle on worthless land.

But there is the crucial historical difference between 1875 America and Modern day Pakistan, as the Americans built a transcontinental railroad through worthless land to find something valuable at the other end. But from the mainstream Pakistani view, there is nothing of value to be found at the other end, except anarchy in Afghanistan and something they don't want either.

So the modern Pakistani view was the same of the view the USA had of the lands West of the Rockies in 1859, its nice that we own it, but why try to control it? If they don't bother us as the majority population, why should we bother to assert control?

But now that the USA and Nato invaded Afghanistan, and it spread to the tribal areas of Pakistan. As Pakistan now has to spend more money than all US aid is worth, just to keep the tribal areas from causing endless mischief for Pakistanis too. Which only results in a lose lose situation for Pakistan.

Prior to the US invasion of Afghanistan, the tribal areas of Pakistan were peaceful, happy, even if they were backward. With no Taliban or Al-Quida following as modern Pakistan just ignored them.

Now the Tribal areas of Pakistan are in open rebellion, as they hate the Pakistani army almost as badly as Nato.. As Al-Quida and Taliban popularity goes from zero to almost universal.

As for the 90% of the modern Pakistani population, Taliban type ideas have no buyers.

 

[Howard]

As for the 90% of the modern Pakistani population, Taliban type ideas have no buyers.

How do you know this?

 

[Nintendesert]

How do you know this?

He means there are only 15 million Taliban in Pakistan. D:

 

[busydude]

Prior to the US invasion of Afghanistan, the tribal areas of Pakistan were peaceful, happy, even if they were backward.

You are being delusional. Tribal regions of Pak came into spotlight only recently. Conflicts in Baloch province have been going on since Pakistan got its independence. Northwest Frontier wasn't always peaceful or happy either.

 

[William Gaatjes]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/26/us-pakistan-nato-idUSTRE7AP03S20111126


Looks like a cross-border raid into Pakistan might have been the straw that broke the camel's back. Details are blurry, but it looks like Pakistan attacked NATO forces that crossed into Pakistan to attack militants.

The primary supply route is now gone. I assume all aid to Pakistan will be cut shortly unless this decision is reversed soon. Looks like our alliance with Pakistan could be over. The Afghan war will soon be unsustainable, unless the US pays a big bribe to Pakistan to reopen the supply routes.

In the coming months, unless the routes are reopened and NATO & Pakistan kiss and make up, we will likely watch Afghanistan plunge further into chaos, NATO's effort undone, Karzai beheaded by Taliban and Friends (one thing The West and The Taliban are united in), and Pakistan being ripped apart by internal divisions created by years of selling out to America, Russia, China, etc.

The US can also start to sort out the differences with Russia...

 

[PeshakJang]

In my personal opinion, this forum and the American people understand nothing about Pakistan.

You always manage to prove your own point so aptly.

 

[PeshakJang]

While it's clear you believe that to be true, It's every bit as clear that strategic considerations outweigh the tactical ones. Well, unless we're trying to bad-guy the Pakis, use it as cover for withdrawal, in which case it would make sense.

Well it looks like there is more evidence that I was right:

Afghans Say Pakistan Fired First in NATO Attack

Two Afghan officials working in the border area where the attack took place said Sunday that the joint force was targeting Taliban forces in the area when it received fire from a Pakistan military outpost. That prompted the coalition force to call for an air attack on the Pakistani posts, said an Afghan Border Police official in the area. Pakistani officials were informed of the operation before it took place, he said.


"There was firing coming from the position against Afghan army soldiers who requested support and this is what happened," said a third Afghan official in Kabul, where Gen. Allen met with top government leaders for a special security meeting to discuss the incident. The Afghan official in Kabul said the government believes that the fire came from the Pakistan base—and not from insurgents operating nearby.


That view was bolstered by one Western official who discussed the attack with military officials in Kabul on Sunday.


"They were fired on from a Pakistani army base," the Western official in Kabul said. "It was a defensive action."

You know when even Afghan officials, who usually wind up on the side opposite ours when it comes to things like this, support the story, it's got to have some merit.

Coupled with the fact that the Pakis were informed of the raid, yet claimed most of their soldiers were sleeping and had no warning, and you've got some more questions to ask.

 

[Lemon law]

You are being delusional. Tribal regions of Pak came into spotlight only recently. Conflicts in Baloch province have been going on since Pakistan got its independence. Northwest Frontier wasn't always peaceful or happy either.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you want to split hairs you might have a point, but you do nothing to rebut my point.

Various conflicts in the tribal areas may have resulted in some low level conflicts confined to only the tribal areas of Pakistan, but the rest of modern Pakistan just ignored it granted the entire tribal regions regional autonomy. As conflicts in places like the Baloch area, did not effect the rest of modern Pakistan in any way. Making a policy of Pakistani benign neglect wise, practical, and sustainable.

And up to the time the Nato invasion of 2001 and 2002, the modern parts of the Pakistan had
a growing economy and a very small religious right with minimal political influence. But as soon as Nato pushed the Taliban and Al-Quida into the tribal areas, it totally changed the political balance of the tribal areas. As the Pakistani army was ill prepared to assert control of its tribal areas, something the equally incompetent Nato also failed miserably at in its only legitimate mission area in Afghanistan.

But rather than blame itself, Nato scapegoats Pakistan. If Nato can't control its side of the Afghan Pakistani, how can we expect Pakistan to do the job for us. Especially since this was no part of the original lease a supply line in deal into Afghanistan. As a result the Pakistani economy is shrinking as Pakistani military cost soar to double or triple the value of US aid. Especially considering the fact, Pakistani domestic and foreign policy has zero in common with Nato concerns. As Pakistan concerns are driven by its disputes with a far larger India, as was they both squabble over the Kashmir region. And Al-Quida and the Taliban have learned a new Trick. Anytime Pakistani army puts too much pressure on their tribal regions, they simply launch a Mumbi type attack in India. As suddenly the whole Pakistani army has to go back to the India Pakistani border to shore up defenses until the hysteria dies down.

Then there is another problem in Pakistani foreign policy interests, when you have a huge and hostile neighbor to the East, you desperately need a stable and friendly neighbors on your other borders. Something Pakistan basically had when the Taliban controlled Afghanistan. As Mushy somehow believed GWB's promises that Nato would fix Afghanistan
up bigger and better in jig time. Yet 10 years later its clear Nato wont commit the 600,000 troops or any economic development money to even start stabilizing Afghanistan.

In short, as long as Nato stays in Afghanistan, it will only bring Afghan anarchy, because the Taliban, who is now more popular than Nato, is too weak to ever dislodge Nato. While Nato is so stupid that it only increases Taliban support inside of Afghanistan. Now the Taliban does not need to flee into the tribal areas for resupply, they stay in Afghanistan 365 days a year.

None of this is good for Pakistan, so why should not they not terminate the Nato lease to a supply line? And get their sovereignty back. Eventually the economic forces of modernity will find their way into Afghanistan and the tribal areas, and then Taliban type ideas will be toast without firing a shot.

 

[Craig234]

looks like the us is going to pave pakistan into a nice parking lot, which will be a good springboard/staging area for the invasion of iran.

Yawn, internet keyboard sociopath ass.

Makes their fanatic terrorists look like the good guys.

 

[pcgeek11]

Good time to GTFO and let them sort out their own shit... IMO

 

[5150Joker]

Pakistan's ISI knows the US is about to cut and run, it has to given the failed economy here. So they'll keep playing double games until they can secure Afghanistan for themselves once the US is gone and reinstall the Taliban as the de facto leaders of Afghanistan. Of course its the Afghans that are the ultimate losers in all of this. First the Russians, then the Arabs (bin laden and his crew), then the ISI sponsored Taliban, then the US and again the ISI.

 

[cybrsage]

About the only shift in the paradigm over there is that the people actually want theri new democracy to succeed. Not all, but enough do that it has a chance.

The problem will be whether they can survive against a group funded by Pakistan. That I am not sure about.

 

[Spikesoldier]

Yawn, internet keyboard sociopath ass.

Makes their fanatic terrorists look like the good guys.

Yawn, internet political partisan hack asshole.

Disagree with me or my master's agenda and I'll troll you.

 

[Nebor]

That being the case, it may be time to start thinking about how we can improve our friendly relations with India even further. It's not like we have to worry about pissing off the Pakistanis anymore.

:thumbsup: It never made sense that we courted Pakistan, a country full of savages that hate us, our culture and our way of life when India has always been an advanced nation, has given the world so much, adores the Western way of life and Western cultures. Up with India, down the Pakistan.

 

[Nebor]

Which way is that?

Honest question.

Air lift from Eastern block nations that we have basing agreements with. It's enormously expensive and impractical.

 

[Lemon law]

About the only shift in the paradigm over there is that the people actually want theri new democracy to succeed. Not all, but enough do that it has a chance.

The problem will be whether they can survive against a group funded by Pakistan. That I am not sure about.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is or should say there WAS a tiny grain of truth to what cybrsage asserted. But to say what cybrfool says now, is why he deserves the cybrfool label.

First we have to understand Afghanistan has had no stable or popular government since 1937. But things really turned for the worse when the Russian invaded in the early1980's
and gave the Afghan people the Chechnya treatment. Which turned into a civil war and revolution when Uncle Sammy armed Afghan terrorists ( the nicer vocabulary is freedom fighters ) to tweak the Russian bears nose. Once the Russian bear's nose was properly tweaked, Uncle Sammy left Afghanistan to fall civil war and anarchy. As terrorists and their militia's fought each other for control, as they became the next Afghan warlords and drug dealers. As for the Afghan people themselves, things had never been so bad. Then the Taliban took over, and even if ultra brutal, they actually made things better because the Afghan people finally had a stable government and law enforcement. That did not last long as 911 happened, and it was back to the chaos of a decade earlier after Nato chased the Taliban out.

But the Afghan people finally had hope of a future government that would act in their interests, without the brutality and stupidity of the Taliban.

But sadly, proved not to be the case, as Nato and Karzai set up a government that favors only drug dealers and warlords. The courts only function by bribes, but Nato is happier than a mentally retarded fool. As they say, we support any level of Afghan government 0thuggery as long as they don't interfere with the Nato mission.

The people of Afghanistan gave up all hope in Nato years ago, and now we wonder why most of the Afghan people agree with the Taliban assertion of throw the Western Devils out.

 

[cybrsage]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is or should say there WAS a tiny grain of truth to what cybrsage asserted. But to say what cybrfool says now, is why he deserves the cybrfool label.

Wow, you really are a dork. I did not believe all the PMs I received about it, but they were apparently right.

The one which surprised me was from a user named "Lemon's Mom". She said some very bad things about you. Seems even she does not like you.

But the Afghan people finally had hope of a future government that would act in their interests, without the brutality and stupidity of the Taliban.

But sadly, proved not to be the case, as Nato and Karzai set up a government that favors only drug dealers and warlords. The courts only function by bribes, but Nato is happier than a mentally retarded fool. As they say, we support any level of Afghan government 0thuggery as long as they don't interfere with the Nato mission.

The people of Afghanistan gave up all hope in Nato years ago, and now we wonder why most of the Afghan people agree with the Taliban assertion of throw the Western Devils out.

Links for support or your mom and I will laugh about you.

 

[cybrsage]

To help you out, I will post some info:

Figures released by the IEC on August 31, when the ballots from almost half of the country's polling stations had been counted, pointed to a turnout of only 30% to 35%. Most of the ballots counted to that point were from the north of the country.[133

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_presidential_election,_2009

In the US, the average voter turnout for a presidential election is about 52%
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html

In the US, we do not have people actively trying to kill us and stop us from voting. I find it amazing that 30-35% of the country was willing to risk death in order to vote. Heck, the US voting rate drops a percent or two if it is raining on election day...