NATO vs. Pakistan

Twenty-five soldiers were killed and seven others wounded on Saturday morning during a NATO helicopter strike on a military outpost near the Afghanistan border, according to officials from the Pakistani armed forces. In direct retaliation for the strike, Washington, D.C. has decided to block NATO supply lines running through their territory. "We have halted all NATO supplies per orders from the federal government," stated official Hussein.

Melissa Chavez6 said:

Twenty-five soldiers were killed and seven others wounded on Saturday morning during a NATO helicopter strike on a military outpost near the Afghanistan border, according to officials from the Pakistani armed forces. In direct retaliation for the strike, Washington, D.C. has decided to block NATO supply lines running through their territory. "We have halted all NATO supplies per orders from the federal government," stated official Hussein.

This NATO strike against the Pakistani armed forces sets a dangerous precedent that could trigger a nuclear conflict. As a regional nuclear power, they aren't going to sit by while NATO provokes them in their own backyard. This kind of escalation might just push Washington, D.C. closer to Moscow and the BRICS bloc.

http://thefortress.pk/2011/08/30/pak...n-with-russia/

Donna Ramos10 said:http://www.alumnieeni.com/print/AF-map.gif I honestly find myself wondering which particular genius decided to fly a helicopter straight into the Pakistani armed forces... if I had any say in the matter, I’d have that entire crew relieved of duty immediately and handed over to the Pakistani justice system without a second thought. It’s quite a devastating blow for NATO in this part of the world, really, given that they’ve just severed our only viable supply line to Afghanistan. We can't route through Iran, and now that we're being blocked by Pakistan, our options are dwindling fast... it seems we're left with nothing but to pray for some sort of transit route through Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan, all of which are UN members, and that is inevitably going to cost us millions more in fees that we'll ultimately have to pay to Russia...

copperhound122 said:

But isn't that whole "transit" issue basically settled by Israel selling UAVs to Russia? Now, through live broadcasts from the White House and the White House, they can apparently monitor UAV flights coming right out of Russia and track their coordinated strikes against targets in Afghanistan—or even Pakistan, if things get that messy.

Donna Ramos10 said:The military agreement between Israel and Russia regarding the delivery of UAV drones is an entirely separate matter from any agreements held between the USA and Russia. The USA and NATO still have to keep paying Russia for those transit corridors used to move equipment to NATO forces stationed in Afghanistan...http://www.rferl.org/content/Russia_...t/2150123.html http://www.atlantskainicijativa.org/...id=118&lang=hr

copperhound122 said:Then why on earth are they still paying a toll for war and sending their soldiers into Afghanistan?
Maybe they should just leave Afghanistan and Pakistan under the "protection" of the BRICS nations. In any case, those countries probably care more about maintaining decent relations with their neighbors than dealing with Americans. That would, I suppose, be some sort of progress for global peace.

Melissa Chavez6 said:

Twenty-five soldiers were killed and seven others wounded on Saturday morning during a NATO helicopter strike on a military outpost near the Afghanistan border, according to officials from the Pakistani armed forces. In direct retaliation for the strike, Washington, D.C. has decided to block NATO supply lines running through their territory. "We have halted all NATO supplies per orders from the federal government," stated official Hussein.

This NATO strike against the Pakistani armed forces sets a dangerous precedent that could trigger a nuclear conflict. As a regional nuclear power, they aren't going to sit by while NATO provokes them in their own backyard. This kind of escalation might just push Washington, D.C. closer to Moscow and the BRICS bloc.

http://thefortress.pk/2011/08/30/pak...n-with-russia/

Regarding the Bin Laden operation, I’ve shared quite a bit about Pakistan's role in all of this, along with some links that highlight just how messy the relationship between the USA and Pakistan really is. To put it bluntly, the US essentially greenlit their nuclear program and provided extensive military support because they needed them as a buffer against the former USSR. The irony is that while we were providing that help, they were working behind our backs to effectively cultivate Al Qaeda. The root of the issue is that many in Pakistan hold deep-seated religious convictions and a desire for retribution against the West; they feel sidelined by Western powers after once having much greater influence over the entire Indian subcontinent. Even US officials admit that navigating the relationship with Pakistan is a total nightmare—one that we simply can't extricate ourselves from without significant consequences.

Joseph Peterson6 said:Regarding the Bin Laden operation, I’ve shared quite a bit about Pakistan's role in all of this, along with some links that highlight just how messy the relationship between the USA and Pakistan really is. To put it bluntly, the US essentially greenlit their nuclear program and provided extensive military support because they needed them as a buffer against the former USSR. The irony is that while we were providing that help, they were working behind our backs to effectively cultivate Al Qaeda. The root of the issue is that many in Pakistan hold deep-seated religious convictions and a desire for retribution against the West; they feel sidelined by Western powers after once having much greater influence over the entire Indian subcontinent. Even US officials admit that navigating the relationship with Pakistan is a total nightmare—one that we simply can't extricate ourselves from without significant consequences.

Melissa Chavez6 said:

Melissa Chavez6 said:

Gregory Booth48 said:The USA backed the Afghans when the country was under Soviet occupation, but back then we weren't dealing with the Taliban—we were dealing with the Mujahideen, who paved the way for them. Looking back, it's clear we made a massive miscalculation. We should have let local tribal dynamics play out naturally. Instead, the financial aid sent to Pakistan turned into a geopolitical boomerang that hit us right where it hurts on 9/11, when Al Qaeda launched suicide attacks from Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan against the USA. Reagan's policy succeeded in breaking communism and the Soviet Union through a foreign policy built on "the enemy of my enemy is my friend," but it failed to account for the fact that those very same allies would eventually become our number one threat.

briskbadger18 said:Amanda Hill4, give it a rest!
Anyone actually paying attention to what's happening on the ground knows that Russia was never a player in Pakistan's foreign policy. Besides, those "monkeys" you keep calling names are actually essential to Western interests—the US probably blew their chances with them long ago. China is Pakistan's real, concrete ally; they’re the ones consistently watching their back. This whole situation is just going to tighten the bond between Pakistan and China, which isn't inherently a bad thing. If NATO wants a massive headache, all they need is for Pakistan to stay passive or, better yet, actively help the Taliban by cutting off supplies. If that happens, NATO is going to be dealing with endless problems. Honestly, they'll regret this cowboy diplomacy big time.

briskbadger18 said:Amanda Hill4, give it a rest!
Anyone actually paying attention to what's happening on the ground knows that Russia was never a player in Pakistan's foreign policy. Besides, those "monkeys" you keep calling names are actually essential to Western interests—the US probably blew their chances with them long ago. China is Pakistan's real, concrete ally; they’re the ones consistently watching their back. This whole situation is just going to tighten the bond between Pakistan and China, which isn't inherently a bad thing. If NATO wants a massive headache, all they need is for Pakistan to stay passive or, better yet, actively help the Taliban by cutting off supplies. If that happens, NATO is going to be dealing with endless problems. Honestly, they'll regret this cowboy diplomacy big time.

Maria Booth said:And hey, as the Pakistan-China alliance gets stronger, so does the USA-India connection. Pakistani politicians really need to weigh if it's worth it to let the USA openly take India's side.

steelwolf10 said:Following this, we will likely see an even more aggressive push to support the Taliban, effectively rolling out the red carpet for China to march right into their backyard. This is going to hand NATO—and specifically India—a colossal headache that they never should have invited in the first place, despite how much it might suit certain regional interests.