NATO vs. Pakistan

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.

Look, there isn't even a choice for Pakistan to make here, because let's be honest—right now, India is the absolute number one destination for exporting that high-end, sophisticated, and incredibly expensive Western weaponry!

briskbadger18 said:Honestly, after all this, it makes total sense why the Pakistani armed forces won't lift a finger against the Taliban anymore. In fact, they're practically supplying them. On paper, sure, but the reality is the Pakistani military is already taking too many hits and dealing with way too much friction fighting them. And don't even get me started on the local Taliban fighters; their anger triggers constant bombings all over Pakistan whenever the military tries anything. To top it all off, their own "allies" turn around and attack them, killing people. Seriously, what kind of allies are those?

Don't you think the Pakistani government also faces significant issues with the Taliban, rather than this being strictly a matter of USA interests?

Kevin Gonzalez79 said:Don't you think the Pakistani government also faces significant issues with the Taliban, rather than this being strictly a matter of USA interests?

The reality is, the Pakistani government essentially helped bring the Taliban into existence.
They’ve had this supposed "problem" with them since 2001, right when the US gave them an ultimatum: help us take them out, or get swept away along with them.
Now that the USA is finally pulling its weight out of the chaos in Afghanistan, Pakistan is free to wrap up its little "conflict" with them whenever they feel like it.

Besides, there was a time when the Taliban were almost at odds with "heretical" Iran, which actually made them somewhat tolerable to the Americans back then. They have more beef with the Shiites than they do with the USA and Jewish people combined. There are reports that they intentionally starved about 2 million Shiites just to suit their own agenda. Honestly, the USA should just point the Taliban and Pakistan toward Iran and let them settle their scores amongst themselves.

Kevin Gonzalez79 said:Don't you think the Pakistani government also faces significant issues with the Taliban, rather than this being strictly a matter of USA interests?

Following this NATO strike on Pakistani soldiers, I’m worried Pakistan might shift from covertly supporting the Taliban to doing it openly. As for our global standing, we've seen a massive decline in influence since the Obama era. We lost key partners in Eastern Europe—places like Ukraine and Moldova that served as a geopolitical buffer for both Europe and the USA. Then, we lost our foothold in the Middle East, from Tunisia all the way to Iraq, where anti-Western and anti-Israel Islamists seized power. In my view, the Obama administration made even more strategic blunders than George Bush did. At least Bush maintained cooperation with secular Arab regimes in places like Egypt, Tunisia, and Libya, while keeping military control over Iraq. Now, it feels like we have zero control left; everything we once held has slipped through our fingers. Former American allies in the region have effectively become Iranian, Russian, or Chinese satellites.

http://english.cntv.cn/20111128/103927.shtml

Now the Russians and the Chinese have moved into the Middle East. We thought we were liberating people, but instead, we just let Hussein loose to tear apart those local factions. Looking back, it’s glaringly obvious that Operation Desert Storm and the occupation of Iraq were massive strategic blunders.

Melissa Chavez6 said:http://english.cntv.cn/20111128/103927.shtml

Now the Russians and the Chinese have moved into the Middle East. We thought we were liberating people, but instead, we just let Hussein loose to tear apart those local factions. Looking back, it’s glaringly obvious that Operation Desert Storm and the occupation of Iraq were massive strategic blunders.

So, frankly, it would be nothing short of foolish for China—this absolute economic juggernaut they've become—to just sit on its hands and do nothing to secure its own future prosperity!

James Nguyen13 said:The reality is, the Pakistani government essentially helped bring the Taliban into existence.
They’ve had this supposed "problem" with them since 2001, right when the US gave them an ultimatum: help us take them out, or get swept away along with them.
Now that the USA is finally pulling its weight out of the chaos in Afghanistan, Pakistan is free to wrap up its little "conflict" with them whenever they feel like it.

Besides, there was a time when the Taliban were almost at odds with "heretical" Iran, which actually made them somewhat tolerable to the Americans back then. They have more beef with the Shiites than they do with the USA and Jewish people combined. There are reports that they intentionally starved about 2 million Shiites just to suit their own agenda. Honestly, the USA should just point the Taliban and Pakistan toward Iran and let them settle their scores amongst themselves.

This is spot on. The Shiite Hazaras in Afghanistan likely had it the absolute worst under Taliban rule.

The USA actually ended up freeing Iran from two massive enemies sitting right on its borders.

steelwolf10 said:So, frankly, it would be nothing short of foolish for China—this absolute economic juggernaut they've become—to just sit on its hands and do nothing to secure its own future prosperity!

The Chinese moved into Kuwait fast, but they’ll be out even faster. The government in Kuwait that invited them just got ousted. To get past those corrupt sheiks, you need a pro-Western military junta in charge. http://north America.aljazeera.net/clanak/...nijela-ostavku

General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani has handed his troops "full freedom" to respond to any further cross-border strikes by NATO forces in Afghanistan, following an airstrike that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers.
According to The New York Times, citing official sources, commanders stationed along the western border with Afghanistan have been granted "full freedom of action and the use of all available assets."
Kayani stated that such actions "do not require approval at any level," noting that the military will "secure resources on the ground as needed."

Following last Saturday's strike on two military border crossings in the Mohmand region—which left 24 soldiers dead—the country shut down all supply routes used by NATO and demanded that the USA vacate the Shamsi airbase, allegedly utilized by the CIA for UAV operations.
In protest against these attacks, they have also decided to boycott the Bonn Conference on Afghanistan.
Sources report that Kayani characterized the NATO strike as an "unacceptable act of aggression."

The military commander issued direct orders to meet "any act of aggression" with "full force, regardless of the cost or consequences."
(The New York Times) This is a massive blow to the interests of the USA and NATO.

Melissa Chavez6 said:General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani has handed his troops "full freedom" to respond to any further cross-border strikes by NATO forces in Afghanistan, following an airstrike that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers.
According to The New York Times, citing official sources, commanders stationed along the western border with Afghanistan have been granted "full freedom of action and the use of all available assets."
Kayani stated that such actions "do not require approval at any level," noting that the military will "secure resources on the ground as needed."

Following last Saturday's strike on two military border crossings in the Mohmand region—which left 24 soldiers dead—the country shut down all supply routes used by NATO and demanded that the USA vacate the Shamsi airbase, allegedly utilized by the CIA for UAV operations.
In protest against these attacks, they have also decided to boycott the Bonn Conference on Afghanistan.
Sources report that Kayani characterized the NATO strike as an "unacceptable act of aggression."

The military commander issued direct orders to meet "any act of aggression" with "full force, regardless of the cost or consequences."
(The New York Times) This is a massive blow to the interests of the USA and NATO.

Hmm, this could just be a political face-saving move for the Pakistani military.
In reality, they might just stick to the supply blockade and call it a day.
But honestly, if this news is actually legit, the threat is so intense that whether it's a total "blow" to the West or not isn't even the main point.
Things could go south in minutes.

More than half of the supplies are already being hauled by rail from Riga all the way to Termez in Uzbekistan—plus there's that alternative route running from Poti in Georgia through Baku and across the Caspian Sea to get back to Uzbekistan. The real headache for the Pentagon, though, is the astronomical cost of shipping through Pakistan; we’re talking anywhere from $400 to $1,000 just to move a single gallon of oil, depending on how remote or godforsaken the destination is. Between those prices and the constant attacks on fuel tankers making the whole route unstable, they’re pushing hard to get 75% of the equipment moved via northern routes into Afghanistan.

Benjamin King2 said:More than half of the supplies are already being hauled by rail from Riga all the way to Termez in Uzbekistan—plus there's that alternative route running from Poti in Georgia through Baku and across the Caspian Sea to get back to Uzbekistan. The real headache for the Pentagon, though, is the astronomical cost of shipping through Pakistan; we’re talking anywhere from $400 to $1,000 just to move a single gallon of oil, depending on how remote or godforsaken the destination is. Between those prices and the constant attacks on fuel tankers making the whole route unstable, they’re pushing hard to get 75% of the equipment moved via northern routes into Afghanistan.

Good to know!