Afghanistan - What is the objective?

[quadraphonics]

Also, you completely ignored my post. Take a look at it.

Your post, as usual, was incoherent drivel that betrays both blatant misrepresentations of my own statements, as well as unsubstantiated nonsense about Pakistani military might, geopolitics, and US mass psychology.

[StrawDog]

Look, either start referring to the Taliban as "Pashtun" instead of "Afghan," or stop complaining about "cross-border" raids. Either the distinction matters, or it doesn't. All I ask is consistency.

There is no distinction other than illegal drone strikes in sovereign Pakistani territory. Whether the target is the Taliban, Mongol Hordes or Mickey Mouse.

[DiamondHearts]

Your post, as usual, was incoherent drivel that betrays both blatant misrepresentations of my own statements, as well as unsubstantiated nonsense about Pakistani military might, geopolitics, and US mass psychology.

As expected you completely ignored my post. Please re-read the portion of the post specifically addressed to you. I have included it below.

Simply false, the Taliban are a decentralized organization with all its high level officers, commanders, and government officials being Afghanis. the Pukhtoon are the majority demographic in Afghanistan, thus it follows they gain support from this populace, especially as the Northern Alliance is anti-Pukhtoon and known for burning many Pukhtoon villages to the group and massacring thousands of Pukhtoon civilians. the Taliban emerged as a group during the civil wars to protect their Pukhtoon people from genocide by Northern Alliance (whom the US backs today), most of whom are Tajiks. The Northern Alliance were backed by several powers including Russia, Iran, and later the US. The Pukhtoons, on the other hand, were previously supported by Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE. It is a complete lie and total propaganda that most Taliban are Pakistani. It's an excuse to invade another Muslim sovereign nation on lies and deception.

There is no distinction other than illegal drone strikes in sovereign Pakistani territory. Whether the target is the Taliban, Mongol Hordes or Mickey Mouse.

Unfortunately, people on both sides of the border are becoming extremely angered by the murder of hundreds of civilians monthly by these US predator drones. A few months ago, a elementary level school was attacked killing almost 60 children. How can you possibly defend this in the so-called "war on terror"? Is it no surprise that Afghanis are willing to take up arms to fight for the security of their families against such attacks.

[Baron Max]

... these US predator drones. .... How can you possibly defend this in the so-called "war on terror"? Is it no surprise that Afghanis are willing to take up arms to fight for the security of their families against such attacks.

Interesting. In the first part of your post, you went to great lengths to try to explain that Afghanis are different tribes, etc, some of whom are fighting the other tribes. Yet here, you imply that all Afghanis are the same, and that they're all willing to take up arms and fight shoulder to shoulder. You're confusing me. Are Afghanis actually Afghanis, or are some of them different?

Baron Max

[Buffalo Roam]

Interesting. In the first part of your post, you went to great lengths to try to explain that Afghanis are different tribes, etc, some of whom are fighting the other tribes. Yet here, you imply that all Afghanis are the same, and that they're all willing to take up arms and fight shoulder to shoulder. You're confusing me. Are Afghanis actually Afghanis, or are some of them different?

Baron Max

They will cut each others throats in a heart beat if it means one scintilla of advantage and profit, with no remorse.

They are different, Family, Tribe, and all else, in that order, the only thing respected is power, who holds the biggest club and sharpest knife.

[Arsalan]

They will cut each others throats in a heart beat if it means one scintilla of advantage and profit, with no remorse.

They are different, Family, Tribe, and all else, in that order, the only thing respected is power, who holds the biggest club and sharpest knife.

Says the person whose country is consistenly called the most powerful in the world because of its 1000s of clubs and sharpest knives in the world. Wait, you are an American right?

[Buffalo Roam]

Says the person whose country is consistenly called the most powerful in the world because of its 1000s of clubs and sharpest knives in the world. Wait, you are an American right?

And?

[Arsalan]

And?

said the hypo

[DiamondHearts]

Interesting. In the first part of your post, you went to great lengths to try to explain that Afghanis are different tribes, etc, some of whom are fighting the other tribes. Yet here, you imply that all Afghanis are the same, and that they're all willing to take up arms and fight shoulder to shoulder. You're confusing me. Are Afghanis actually Afghanis, or are some of them different?

Baron Max

The Pukhtoons are the major ethnic group of Afghanistan, and they represent majority of the landmass of Afghanistan. The Persian Afghanis (Tajiks, Hazaras, Iranians, etc) are immigrants who entered the country in waves from the Persian rule in Afghanistan to the Mongol invasions. Linguistically, the word 'Afghan' applies to the Pukhtoon. Majority of the violence in Afghanistan by the US is directed against them, thus they have united together. The US cannot stay in Afghanistan as long as the vast majority of the population opposes them. This is also the reason why the present Afghani government (which is controlled by puppets among the Tajik Northern Alliance mainly) has no jurisdiction in the major part of the landmass of Afghanistan.

[Baron Max]

..... Linguistically, the word 'Afghan' applies to the Pukhtoon. Majority of the violence in Afghanistan by the US is directed against them, thus they have united together.

So only part of the "Afghanis" are fighting the US/UN troops? And are those same "Afghanis" the ones who are also blowing up other Afghani civilians in suicide bombings and car bombs? Don't sound very united, do they?

....as the vast majority of the population opposes them(US/UN forces).

The vast majority? Can you prove that? No one has ever been able to show that that "propaganda" has any basis in fact ...yet it's thrown up so casually as if everyone on Earth knows that it's fact.

And again, you're trying to make us think that Muslims speak in some unified voice ....yet Afghani Muslims are killing other Afghani Muslims. Don't seem like a unified voice to me ....does it to you?

Baron Max

[Arsalan]

And again, you're trying to make us think that Muslims speak in some unified voice ....yet Afghani Muslims are killing other Afghani Muslims. Don't seem like a unified voice to me ....does it to you?

Baron Max

Americans are killing Americans right now too. Does that mean that if Iran invaded them it would be wrong to assume that they would oppose that invasion? With a bunch of gangs killing everyone who didnt look like their version of "Americans" and or was suspected of collaborating with the invaders? All we have to do is look at what the white Christian gangs did in New Orleans after Katrina, then multiply that for all of the USA

[quadraphonics]

There is no distinction other than illegal drone strikes in sovereign Pakistani territory. Whether the target is the Taliban, Mongol Hordes or Mickey Mouse.

But if the Taliban are all Afghans, regardless of whether they currently reside in Pakistan (and even if they have resided there continuously since birth, have Pakistani nationality, etc.), and are launching attacks on Pakistan's neighbors in express defiance of the Pakistani government, then in what sense can the territory in question be considered "sovereign" and "Pakistani?"

And, again, what law is it that the drone stikes are violating?

[StrawDog]

Interesting. In the first part of your post, you went to great lengths to try to explain that Afghanis are different tribes, etc, some of whom are fighting the other tribes. Yet here, you imply that all Afghanis are the same, and that they're all willing to take up arms and fight shoulder to shoulder. You're confusing me. Are Afghanis actually Afghanis, or are some of them different?

Baron Max

And that somehow is more important to you than voicing your dismay at the loss of innocent lives, including children?

[StrawDog]

But if the Taliban are all Afghans, regardless of whether they currently reside in Pakistan (and even if they have resided there continuously since birth, have Pakistani nationality, etc.), and are launching attacks on Pakistan's neighbors in express defiance of the Pakistani government, then in what sense can the territory in question be considered "sovereign" and "Pakistani?"

And, again, what law is it that the drone stikes are violating?

Its up to the Pakistani government to control the strikes, and they have said as much. The US has constantly disregarded this request.

Regarding the law, ( it is conveniently gray)

These types of cross-border operations clearly implicate the jus ad bellum, in that they entail one state projecting highly coercive military force into another state. Arguably Pakistan has consented to at least some of these types of cross-border operations, but that consent is poorly documented, suffers from the conflicting and diffuse sources of authority within the Pakistani government, and ultimately may not endure given the vicissitudes of Pakistani domestic politics

(http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...act_id=1296733)

It is legal under the law if the Pakistani Government approves. Yet the Pakistani government denies complicity.

It is meaningless to indulge in a debate on whether the US is simply informing Pakistan, as Mr Gates disclosed about its drone attacks, and that too after the strikes have been made, or there is some kind of understanding between the two countries on the issue.

The sentiment in Pakistan is clear.

In terms of airstrikes, Pakistan has suffered more US attacks than Syria, Yemen and Somalia for the simple reason that its tribal areas have been marked as a safe haven for Al Qaeda militants. All these countries are Islamic, just like Iraq and Afghanistan that are under US occupation, and this is a major reason for Muslims to complain that they are the real target of the US-led Western war against terror. It is true that some Al Qaeda operatives have been killed in the drone attacks and others are still hiding in the tribal areas or elsewhere in Pakistan, but the civilian casualties far outnumber of Al Qaeda militants eliminated and the outcome has been a further increase in anti-US sentiment.

(http://www.thenews.com.pk/editorial_....asp?id=159975)

[quadraphonics]

Its up to the Pakistani government to control the strikes, and they have said as much. The US has constantly disregarded this request.

Control of one's territory is not something that one requests from the United States, as it is not theirs to grant. Rather, it is something that a state exercises (or fails to exercise) on its own merits.

If Pakistan is truly sovereign over these areas, there is a simple way to end the drone strikes: exercise control over the territory in question by preventing its use as a base for attacks on Pakistan's neighbors. If they can't or won't do that, their claim to sovereignty there is weak.

It is legal under the law if the Pakistani Government approves. Yet the Pakistani government denies complicity.

And there is ample evidence that such denials are for public consumption only, and that the government is in fact giving consent to the US for the strikes (including basing of the drones on Pakistani territory, with Pakistani logistics and intelligence support).

The sentiment in Pakistan is clear.

Likewise, the Pakistani government's conviction that said sentiment does not serve the national interests of Pakistan, and so will be worked around.

[StrawDog]

Control of one's territory is not something that one requests from the United States, as it is not theirs to grant. Rather, it is something that a state exercises (or fails to exercise) on its own merits.

I was saying exactly that. It is a matter for Pakistan, not the US. The US and their drones should stay OUT of Pakistan.

If Pakistan is truly sovereign over these areas, there is a simple way to end the drone strikes: exercise control over the territory in question by preventing its use as a base for attacks on Pakistan's neighbors. If they can't or won't do that, their claim to sovereignty there is weak.

Whatever the claims, there is a distinct border, and within that border, it is sovereign Pakistani territory under International LAW. Period.

And there is ample evidence that such denials are for public consumption only, and that the government is in fact giving consent to the US for the strikes (including basing of the drones on Pakistani territory, with Pakistani logistics and intelligence support).

Yes, the truth is difficult to pinpoint.

Likewise, the Pakistani government's conviction that said sentiment does not serve the national interests of Pakistan, and so will be worked around.

Thus the popular support for the Taliban grows and the government weakens.

[Arsalan]

But Strawdog, you expect too much. After all this is the country that bombed Iraq way before the invasion to destroy its infrastructure, which continues to carry out covert ops in Iran and various other countries. Respect for borders? Only when its a couple of brown people crossing them.

[StrawDog]

But Strawdog, you expect too much. After all this is the country that bombed Iraq way before the invasion to destroy its infrastructure, which continues to carry out covert ops in Iran and various other countries. Respect for borders? Only when its a couple of brown people crossing them.

There is a rule of International Law that considers it illegal to violate sovereign borders. If this rule of law is disregarded at will, or under false pretenses, then the integrity of International Law is compromised. This leads to eventual anarchy.

Furthermore, the US drone strikes are causing an 80% civilian casualty rate. This is patently unacceptable.

[Arsalan]

There is a rule of International Law that considers it illegal to violate sovereign borders. If this rule of law is disregarded at will, or under false pretenses, then the integrity of International Law is compromised. This leads to eventual anarchy.

Furthermore, the US drone strikes are causing an 80% civilian casualty rate. This is patently unacceptable.

I know Law student. Thats why I find politics so funny. Its all BS nowadays

[spidergoat]

I don't believe Pakistan truly objects to these drone strikes, they only do so publically so as not to offend certain parts of their population.