Where does pakistan get off?

derbski

derbski

Active member
And before you give me the "searchbar" treatment, I already checked, last thread to have pakistan in the title was in february.
Members of their government have said America coming to our territory and taking action is a violation of our sovereignty, handling and execution of the operation [by US forces] is not correct. The Pakistani government should have been kept in the loop

and "saying that the United States had made “an unauthorized unilateral action” that would be not be tolerated in the future. The foreign ministry further said “Such an event shall not serve as a future precedent for any state, including the United States.”

They are essentially saying that our actions taken were against their sovereignty, which makes no sense because we were taking out another military force acting illegally on their land (Al Qaeda, if you dont follow). Not to mention the fact that the military force that we took action against is also one that we have been giving them 1.3 billion a year to resist.
The only reason that we haven't taken action against Pakistan (for their blatant misuse of our funds and housing of our enemy that we pay them to keep out) is that we have already seen what happens in the case of Iraq. If we were to have a war with Pakistan, the terrorist numbers there would multiply like wildfire. Instead, it would be more effective to use our forces to kill terrorists in Pakistan without engaging the country.
My question then is where does Pakistan get off telling us that our raid leading to the capture of Osama was a violation of their rights? This essentially says that we are more concerned with you violating our sovereignty than Al Qaeda, because they know as well as we do that they can't be trusted to "be in the loop" with us.
Are they really just that arrogant, or is it possible that they are so allied with Al Qaeda that they actually WANT a war with us (they are already calling our raid a violation of their sovereignty(about 1 millimeter away from saying "act of war"), and saying future such actions would not be tolerated), or is it something else?
 
big surprise, pakistan's loyalty to the US is questionable.. nothing new there. half of them are probably livid they couldn't let him escape like they probably did in tora bora in 2001
 
Fully aware, but if they have been accepting funds to counter terrorism in their own country, and clearly did no such thing, now that the gig is up what do you think their aim is in condemning the capture of osama bin laden. They can be really pissed off about it at home, they can act to us like they just didn't know he was there, but saying that we violated their rights when they just got caught for something this big seems like they are almost asking for it. Do you think they might be trying to bait us into a war? Not that it would be most logical for them, but it would exponentially increase Al Qaeda presence int he area. I am just trying to figure out their angle
 
Almost $20 bill most of which was for security purposes, not exactly chump change...
I think its important to remember not everyone in pakistan was hiding bin laden..i've read a few different articles about the divide in pakistani gov't there was a minority presence that was actually working with the u.s. on battling terrorism... unfortunately there are a lot of people in important positions in pakistan that frankly couldnt give a shit if he was caught or not, but theyre totally fine with taking the check from the u.s. for the "help" they provided
 
the way i picture it in my head is like if you were rooting around in someone's bag and found something of yours that they stole.. and to divert a bit of attention away from their guilt they jump on you yelling about how messed up it is that you were going through their bag

pretty terrible analogy but that's just the idea that came to my mind when the story broke. yeah idk.. fucking pakistan man. itll be interesting to see where this goes. no i dont think they want a war at all (well maybe some of them do but not the state as an entity), but i do think they are extremely split on the subject..
 
Not that terrible of an analogy, I was trying to think of a dumbed down one myself but it wasn't working. Only problem is that the thing in their backpack would be something like a bomb that they said they don't want in there and that they want our help getting it out, but then getting pissed when we are like "Dude, this thing was in your front pocket, there is no way that you overlooked it"(equally terrible analogy)
You would think that the good guys in their government would hear something about Osama though, considering how out in the open he was. To be honest, as much as they deserve it, going to war with the people who were turning a blind eye to that compound would be extremely counterproductive. In another mediocre analogy, it would be like ifif you were trying to get some pebbles (terrorists) underneath a big boulder (Pakistan). It would be better to use a couple of small underground tools (small surgical military groups like the one that did the osama raid) than to blow up the bolder to get to the bottom, you would just make a shitload more little pebbles.
I just wish that they would shut up and let us do our thing so that we can pretend to turn a blind eye to their blind eye. If they continue to resist us killing terrorists, I don't know how the US or even the world can let them house terrorists while insisting that we leave the Jack Bauer work up to them. The problem is that, like I said, a war with Pakistan would not help, not to mention the fact that as good as it may look to the (western) world that we were finally able to kill Osama, I doubt other countries would be very enthused to join another US & Friends vs. Terrorist infested shithole war. I just don't know man
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top