# Did Pakistan soldiers shoot at US helicopters?



## CrimsonWhite (Sep 22, 2008)

Unbelievable.


> ISLAMABAD, Pakistan - U.S. helicopters flew into Pakistan's militant-infested border region, but returned to Afghanistan after troops and tribesmen opened fire, intelligence officials said Monday. Washington denied the account.
> 
> The alleged incident late Sunday threatened new rifts between the United States and its key ally against terrorism days after a truck bomb struck a luxury hotel in Islamabad, killing 53 people.
> 
> ...


----------



## Chris (Sep 22, 2008)

Yes, they did.


----------



## Gunny (Sep 22, 2008)

Chris said:


> Yes, they did.



Wow.  Thanks for that, Walter Cronkite.  You were there, huh?


----------



## I Missthe North (Sep 22, 2008)

If they did I would not be surprised, or blame them for that matter.  They have repeatedly asked us to stop our incursions into their country, yet we continue to do it anyways.  Think about it.  If Canada was bombing the Rocky Mtns. in the US cause there were anti-Canadian rebels there, we would not be happy with it either.  I understand that we want to continue fighting terrorism, but we still have to respect the borders of other sovereign nations.  As much as we like to believe we are; we are not above the law.  We need to find a diplomatic solution to this problem instead of continuing to violate their borders illegally.


----------



## Chris (Sep 22, 2008)

Pakistan warned us a week ago, that they would fire on our soldiers if they entered Pakistan.


----------



## crazyassted (Sep 22, 2008)

I Missthe North said:


> If Canada was bombing the Rocky Mtns. in the US cause there were anti-Canadian rebels there, we would not be happy with it either.



Speak for yourself.  I would support bombing raids in the Rocky Mts by Canada if there were anti-Canadian rebels there.


----------



## CrimsonWhite (Sep 22, 2008)

crazyassted said:


> Speak for yourself.  I would support bombing raids in the Rocky Mts by Canada if there were anti-Canadian rebels there.



Yep, allies are allies. If Pakistan cannot control the region then fuck em. Lets go in and control it for them. The region presents a clear and present danger.


----------



## I Missthe North (Sep 22, 2008)

crazyassted said:


> Speak for yourself.  I would support bombing raids in the Rocky Mts by Canada if there were anti-Canadian rebels there.



After we asked them cease and desist numerous times? I doubt it, and that is exactly what happened in Pakistan.


----------



## CrimsonWhite (Sep 22, 2008)

I Missthe North said:


> After we asked them cease and desist numerous times? I doubt it, and that is exactly what happened in Pakistan.



Then we go to war with Pakistan for harboring terrorists. Nukes or no.


----------



## I Missthe North (Sep 22, 2008)

CrimsonWhite said:


> Yep, allies are allies. If Pakistan cannot control the region then fuck em. Lets go in and control it for them. The region presents a clear and present danger.



And that is the problem with American foreign policy right there; that attitude.  Just because we have the largest military in the world does not give us the right to ignore international laws.  The region may or may not pose an imminent threat to the US (I am not convinced that it does), but there are better way of dealing with this situation then just ignoring Pakistani requests to stop our incursions.  If the Bush Administration really wanted to, I am sure they could work out something with Pakistan to deal with the issue.  That would involve some effort on the part of the Bush Administration, and why actually try to do something the right way when you can just take shortcuts?  The story of the last eight years.


----------



## Gunny (Sep 22, 2008)

I Missthe North said:


> After we asked them cease and desist numerous times? I doubt it, and that is exactly what happened in Pakistan.



Bullshit.  They've been grandstanding us since the Taliban first ran into Pakistan with their tails between their kicked asses.


----------



## Gunny (Sep 22, 2008)

I Missthe North said:


> And that is the problem with American foreign policy right there; that attitude.  Just because we have the largest military in the world does not give us the right to ignore international laws.  The region may or may not pose an imminent threat to the US (I am not convinced that it does), but there are better way of dealing with this situation then just ignoring Pakistani requests to stop our incursions.  If the Bush Administration really wanted to, I am sure they could work out something with Pakistan to deal with the issue.  That would involve some effort on the part of the Bush Administration, and why actually try to do something the right way when you can just take shortcuts?  The story of the last eight years.



Relativist arguments do not give us the right to ignore a clear and present danger to everyone it comes in contact with either.

Pakistan has stonewalled us from Day One.  The only options left are to maintain an indefinite war since we cannot strike at our enemies where they live, or seek, locate and destroy the enemy wherever it is.

That isn't dangerous thinking.  It's called sound strategy and tactics.


----------



## I Missthe North (Sep 22, 2008)

Gunny said:


> Bullshit.  They've been grandstanding us since the Taliban first ran into Pakistan with their tails between their kicked asses.



You are right and I am not trying to argue otherwise.  All I am saying is that the US needs to respect the rights of other countries and attempt to find a diplomatic solution to the problem instead of just ignoring rules and regulations like we have done in the past.  We don't make any friends that way, and we are in painfully short supply of those these days.  You may not care, but some day in the future when we need them it would be nice if not everyone hated us just because we couldn't respect the borders of other countries.  Seems like a stupid reason to me to make enemies.


----------



## CrimsonWhite (Sep 22, 2008)

I Missthe North said:


> And that is the problem with American foreign policy right there; that attitude.  Just because we have the largest military in the world does not give us the right to ignore international laws.  The region may or may not pose an imminent threat to the US (I am not convinced that it does), but there are better way of dealing with this situation then just ignoring Pakistani requests to stop our incursions.  If the Bush Administration really wanted to, I am sure they could work out something with Pakistan to deal with the issue.  That would involve some effort on the part of the Bush Administration, and why actually try to do something the right way when you can just take shortcuts?  The story of the last eight years.



I never said imminent threat, I said clear and present danger. There is a difference and both are legitimate reasons fro action. Intelligence has been saying for years the the mastermind of 9/11 is in this region. You don't consider that reason enough to go in? "Justice for all." perhaps?


----------



## I Missthe North (Sep 22, 2008)

CrimsonWhite said:


> I never said imminent threat, I said clear and present danger. There is a difference and both are legitimate reasons fro action. Intelligence has been saying for years the the mastermind of 9/11 is in this region. You don't consider that reason enough to go in? "Justice for all." perhaps?



Is this the same intelligence that said there were WMD's in Iraq and Saddam was connected to Al Quaeda?  Sorry, not all that impressed.  I am under the firm belief that the terrorists we need to worry about have long since moved on from Pakistan and into an area that is not under constant bombardment and military pressure.  If anything, we are just creating a breeding ground in Pakistan for more extremists by continuing to show a complete disregard for Islam and its people.


----------



## Jeepers (Sep 22, 2008)

Pakistani politics are much more difficult than many of you are grasping... If a leader lives to see another day then the day prior was a good one.. each time we cross the border we are pissing off those people that would pull the trigger. The leader must keep up a good appearance.. we need to help him with that... we need to be a bit more stealthy in our activities...


----------



## crazyassted (Sep 22, 2008)

I Missthe North said:


> After we asked them cease and desist numerous times? I doubt it, and that is exactly what happened in Pakistan.



I wouldn't ask them to cease and desist, so your point is stupid.


----------



## I Missthe North (Sep 22, 2008)

crazyassted said:


> I wouldn't ask them to cease and desist, so your point is stupid.



 Not as stupid as that response was.  Good try though.


----------



## CrimsonWhite (Sep 22, 2008)

I Missthe North said:


> Is this the same intelligence that said there were WMD's in Iraq and Saddam was connected to Al Quaeda?  Sorry, not all that impressed.  I am under the firm belief that the terrorists we need to worry about have long since moved on from Pakistan and into an area that is not under constant bombardment and military pressure.  If anything, we are just creating a breeding ground in Pakistan for more extremists by continuing to show a complete disregard for Islam and its people.



Way to turn National Security into a partisan issue. Good job.


----------



## I Missthe North (Sep 22, 2008)

CrimsonWhite said:


> Way to turn National Security into a partisan issue. Good job.



I am simply stating that the entire basis of your argument is intelligence from an Administration and intelligence community that has shown gross negligence in presenting the American public with the truth in the past 8 years.  I am not saying all Republicans are evil and liars, I am saying that the Bush Administration has a history of lying to the American public.  If you have a problem with the facts, then I apologize.  

As I said before, and as you conveniently ignored, I have a hard time believing that anyone that is currently in Pakistan now presents the United States with a national security risk.  How easy can it be to operate a terrorist organization in a region that is swarming with American military personnel (I guarantee you our Special Forces are operating regularly in the area)?  As much as you might not want to believe it, they are smarter then that.  But if people continue to be ignorant enough to believe that region of Pakistan is a our biggest worry right now, I guess the terrorists are doing a pretty good job or throwing us off their trail.


----------



## CrimsonWhite (Sep 22, 2008)

I Missthe North said:


> I am simply stating that the entire basis of your argument is intelligence from an Administration and intelligence community that has shown gross negligence in presenting the American public with the truth in the past 8 years.  I am not saying all Republicans are evil and liars, I am saying that the Bush Administration has a history of lying to the American public.  If you have a problem with the facts, then I apologize.
> 
> As I said before, and as you conveniently ignored, I have a hard time believing that anyone that is currently in Pakistan now presents the United States with a national security risk.  How easy can it be to operate a terrorist organization in a region that is swarming with American military personnel (I guarantee you our Special Forces are operating regularly in the area)?  As much as you might not want to believe it, they are smarter then that.  But if people continue to be ignorant enough to believe that region of Pakistan is a our biggest worry right now, I guess the terrorists are doing a pretty good job or throwing us off their trail.



I agree, you are completely correct. They are *probably* not there right now, but do we know that for sure? Also, have we ever truly trusted our intelligence community? Kinda hard to trust poeple who lie for living. Have you ever actually trusted the Bush Adminstration. Have you considered the possibity that the WMD's that were possibly in Iraq were moved prior to the very public build up to invasion. Though it is convenient to ignore these questions, can we agree that this completely unruled and lawless region of Pakistan is perfect staging area for the Taliban and Al Qaeda. 

Or we could just pack it all up and come home. Have some Bar-b-que and wait for the next building to blow up.


----------



## I Missthe North (Sep 23, 2008)

CrimsonWhite said:


> I agree, you are completely correct. They are *probably* not there right now, but do we know that for sure? Also, have we ever truly trusted our intelligence community? Kinda hard to trust poeple who lie for living. Have you ever actually trusted the Bush Adminstration. Have you considered the possibity that the WMD's that were possibly in Iraq were moved prior to the very public build up to invasion. Though it is convenient to ignore these questions, can we agree that this completely unruled and lawless region of Pakistan is perfect staging area for the Taliban and Al Qaeda.
> 
> Or we could just pack it all up and come home. Have some Bar-b-que and wait for the next building to blow up.



I do not disagree with you on any of those point, and yes, I have thought that it was possible that the WMD's were moved before the US arrived, but I still believe there would have been SOME trace of them left in the country.  Saddam Hussein was not a dumb man, but he was not incredibly smart either.  All I am saying is that I think it is time to take a different approach to the War on Terrorism.  Our current one is obviously not having the success that we all want it to and it is driving more Muslims to extremism and driving more countries away from us.  There have got to be other ways to deal with the problem of terrorism, and all I am saying is it is about time to find them, cause our current ones are not working.


----------



## editec (Sep 23, 2008)

So the myth that Pakistan is our ally is coming unraveled, eh?

They're waiting for the USA to bankrupt itself because they know we'll have to leave when that happens.

In the meanwhile, they'll continue this passive-aggressive game of saying one thing and doing another.

They know that Alqada is in their country and using their land from which to launch stikes in Afghanistan and probably Iraq, too, and _they don't care._

They'll give lipservice to fighting terrorism, but basically they aren't afraid of terrorists because the terrorist are not yet trying to topple their military dictatorship.

Everything the neo-cons have been telling us is a lie. Everything those notwits has done has turned to blood and debt.

Damned fools have been running this nation for 8 years, now, and they're broken it.

Nice work Bushites. You have been the most incompetent government in this nation's history.

Stupid idealogues and the even stupider people who supported them need a good asskicking..


----------



## Jeepers (Sep 23, 2008)

I Missthe North said:


> I am simply stating that the entire basis of your argument is intelligence from an Administration and intelligence community that has shown gross negligence in presenting the American public with the truth in the past 8 years.  I am not saying all Republicans are evil and liars, I am saying that the Bush Administration has a history of lying to the American public.  If you have a problem with the facts, then I apologize.
> 
> As I said before, and as you conveniently ignored, I have a hard time believing that anyone that is currently in Pakistan now presents the United States with a national security risk.  How easy can it be to operate a terrorist organization in a region that is swarming with American military personnel (I guarantee you our Special Forces are operating regularly in the area)?  As much as you might not want to believe it, they are smarter then that.  But if people continue to be ignorant enough to believe that region of Pakistan is a our biggest worry right now, I guess the terrorists are doing a pretty good job or throwing us off their trail.



Dont throw out good inteligence with the bathwater... Pakistan has been a dangerous country for decades now... they have Nukes and theyve been at near war with India since like 1850... poverty and factionalism with a strong conservative muslim contingent have left this country as a political wasteland absent on any type of rationality... though many moderates did rise under bhutto and mushareffs reign (till recently)... Just look at recent history.. from sharia rule to the first woman leader to a military coup, to emperor, to elections... this country is all over the place politically... basically this confusion has empowered warlord rule outside the city... generally conservative the taliban and alqaeda contigents are allowed to thrive... Eh thats a summary but you should be worried about this country... muslim extremists have functional nukes within reach.. they will not think twice about taking out our troops, israel, india, or anyone else within reach....


----------



## I Missthe North (Sep 23, 2008)

Jeepers said:


> Dont throw out good inteligence with the bathwater... Pakistan has been a dangerous country for decades now... they have Nukes and theyve been at near war with India since like 1850... poverty and factionalism with a strong conservative muslim contingent have left this country as a political wasteland absent on any type of rationality... though many moderates did rise under bhutto and mushareffs reign (till recently)... Just look at recent history.. from sharia rule to the first woman leader to a military coup, to emperor, to elections... this country is all over the place politically... basically this confusion has empowered warlord rule outside the city... generally conservative the taliban and alqaeda contigents are allowed to thrive... Eh thats a summary but you should be worried about this country... muslim extremists have functional nukes within reach.. they will not think twice about taking out our troops, israel, india, or anyone else within reach....



I think you misunderstood me.  I was talking about the Taliban and Al Quaeda in Pakistan not being a serious threat to the United States at this point.  You are right about Pakistan being unstable, but I don't think they are anywhere near being insane enough to go to war with the United States, let alone use nukes against us (I don't think anyone is that stupid these days, they just like to have the threat on hand).  Not saying Pakistan are our best friends or anything, but that doesn't mean we have the right to infringe on their borders.  We are never going to get rid of the Taliban or Al Quaeda completely in the middle east by using force.  It is impossible to a eradicate a group with no central structure and a belief system as strong as theirs.  We need a new strategy.


----------



## Jeepers (Sep 24, 2008)

I Missthe North said:


> I think you misunderstood me.  I was talking about the Taliban and Al Quaeda in Pakistan not being a serious threat to the United States at this point.  You are right about Pakistan being unstable, but I don't think they are anywhere near being insane enough to go to war with the United States, let alone use nukes against us (I don't think anyone is that stupid these days, they just like to have the threat on hand).  Not saying Pakistan are our best friends or anything, but that doesn't mean we have the right to infringe on their borders.  We are never going to get rid of the Taliban or Al Quaeda completely in the middle east by using force.  It is impossible to a eradicate a group with no central structure and a belief system as strong as theirs.  We need a new strategy.



I hope your right... there might be a flaw to your reasoning though... Your assuming that Pakistan would attack us directly... They wouldnt have too.. With a well placed nuke in the hands of radicals that any new government might be sympathetic too, well... you get the point... I seriously doubt that they would actually like to attack us anyway... they might however be ambivalent to any attack that might take place. Even if they upped the anti in the measure of the attack..i.e. New clear...


----------



## CrimsonWhite (Sep 24, 2008)

I Missthe North said:


> I do not disagree with you on any of those point, and yes, I have thought that it was possible that the WMD's were moved before the US arrived, but I still believe there would have been SOME trace of them left in the country.  Saddam Hussein was not a dumb man, but he was not incredibly smart either.  All I am saying is that I think it is time to take a different approach to the War on Terrorism.  Our current one is obviously not having the success that we all want it to and it is driving more Muslims to extremism and driving more countries away from us.  There have got to be other ways to deal with the problem of terrorism, and all I am saying is it is about time to find them, cause our current ones are not working.



See, I see our current policy working as it was intended to. It is and has always been a band aid. It keeps terrorism abroad, which it has done. Do we need a change in direction? Absolutely, but even the experts don't have solution to terror. Ask the French what should be done. After all, Robespierre created modern terror. Maybe they have some insight.


----------



## editec (Sep 24, 2008)

If the USA and Isreal weren't involved in the internacine power struggles in Islamic Asia, those people would be killing each other just as they'd been doing all along.

But there is nothing that's likely to end a family squabble as fast as a stranger who gets involved.

Leave the Islamic world to solve it's own problems and we all better off.

They have the oil, you say?

So what?

Whoever has it will sell it.


----------



## strollingbones (Sep 28, 2008)

how much foreign aid is pakistan getting?  military spending etc?  Pakistan is playing both sides of the fences.  We cannot ask your soldiers to not purse those trying to kill them?  This is not a un mission.


----------



## Larkinn (Sep 28, 2008)

CrimsonWhite said:


> Then we go to war with Pakistan for harboring terrorists. Nukes or no.



Thats retarded.   Whatever "clear and present danger" Islamic militants in Pakistan are, they are NOTHING compared to war with Pakistan.   

Oh, and border raids into Pakistan just destabilizes the government.   Bitch and moan all you want about how Pakistan isn't controlling the militants, but if those militants gain control of Pakistan because they become destabilized and radicalized (as tends to happen when other countries bomb/invade your country) you can kiss your ass goodbye, because are all going up in smoke.


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 28, 2008)

I Missthe North said:


> After we asked them cease and desist numerous times? I doubt it, and that is exactly what happened in Pakistan.


if there were terrorists in the rocky mountains attacking Canada, WE would take them out ourselves


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 28, 2008)

CrimsonWhite said:


> I never said imminent threat, I said clear and present danger. There is a difference and both are legitimate reasons fro action. Intelligence has been saying for years the the mastermind of 9/11 is in this region. You don't consider that reason enough to go in? "Justice for all." perhaps?


um, the mastermind of 9/11 is in gitmo

KSM


----------



## CrimsonWhite (Sep 28, 2008)

DiveCon said:


> um, the mastermind of 9/11 is in gitmo
> 
> KSM



I didn't realize Bin Laden had been captured, when did that happen? Perhaps I should have said financier?


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 28, 2008)

CrimsonWhite said:


> I didn't realize Bin Laden had been captured, when did that happen? Perhaps I should have said financier?


thats because Bin Laden wasnt the mastermind behind it
Kaled Sheik Muhammad(KSM) was
and he was captured


----------



## CrimsonWhite (Sep 28, 2008)

DiveCon said:


> thats because Bin Laden wasnt the mastermind behind it
> Kaled Sheik Muhammad(KSM) was
> and he was captured



Like I said, guess I should have said "financier"? Either way, the public face( or voice) is still at large. The was the point.


----------

