# Sen. Levin vs. Pakistan



## AWP (Oct 2, 2010)

I'm actually very glad to see someone from our gov't, and a Dem. no less, say this. Afghanistan will never know stability as long as Pakistan exists as a nation.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/10/01/levin.pakistan/index.html?hpt=T1



> Washington (CNN) -- A top senator slammed Pakistan's government Friday, urging more action against terrorists and less complaining about American drone strikes.





> Amidst popular outcry in Pakistan against the U.S. attacks, Levin said the United States has the right to target terrorists coming across the Pakistan border to attack U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan.
> 
> "It is legitimate to target the people who are targeting you," Levin said in a question and answer session the speech.
> 
> ...


----------



## pardus (Oct 2, 2010)

He must be racist.



About time! And yes Free, I think you are correct, the problem here is Pakistan. We seem to focus on the wrong country/issue alot. If you dig deeper the problem is actually Saudi Arabia, those fuckers need nuking.


----------



## Scotth (Oct 2, 2010)

I agree with you both.  Pakistan was a direct threat after 9/11 and is still a threat today and we should have never called them our "allie".  Same with the Saudi's, we really need to stop sending billions of dollars a day to some of our favorite countries in the world buying there oil.  Both countries have one public image but there actions behind the scenes tell a much different story.


----------



## Marauder06 (Oct 2, 2010)

> _*"It is legitimate to target the people who are targeting you,"*_



This could bite us in the ass the next time Iran goes after the Kurds in NE Iraq.  Might also be used by AQ and TB to justify attack planning against US and Western interests.

All the same though, I agree with the Senator about more action and less bitching.  Anyone who knows anything about the "War on Terror" or whatever we're calling it, knows that the real fight right now is in Pakistan, not Iraq or Afghanistan.


----------



## DA SWO (Oct 2, 2010)

Marauder06 said:


> This could bite us in the ass the next time Iran goes after the Kurds in NE Iraq.  Might also be used by AQ and TB to justify attack planning against US and Western interests.
> 
> All the same though, I agree with the Senator about more action and less bitching.  Anyone who knows anything about the "War on Terror" or whatever we're calling it, knows that the real fight right now is in Pakistan, not Iraq or Afghanistan.



Didn't Iran just whack a bunch of kurds in Iraq?
Pisses me off that they close the truck routes while we spend millions in relief aid; we should shut the relief operation down until the convoy route get re-opened.


----------



## AWP (Oct 3, 2010)

SOWT said:


> Didn't Iran just whack a bunch of kurds in Iraq?
> Pisses me off that they close the truck routes while we spend millions in relief aid; we should shut the relief operation down until the convoy route get re-opened.


 
Yep. Unfortunately we have a long, sad history of being Pakistan's bitch in the region. Excluding the Soviet occupation, every roadblock to a peaceful Afghanistan in the last 30 years was constructed in part by Pakistan. They own that region and aren't too shy about letting us know that they do. Hell, when we've caught their own members of the Army fighting us we were gracious enough to allow them to fly, unmolested, to Pakistan with as many TB and Al Q as they could.

Pakistan mocks us. If they told us to go out on the corner and make daddy some money, we'd do it.

Not too shabby for a country that didn't have anything resembling a national identity until 1947 when it was created for them out of the trash India didn't want.


----------



## SpitfireV (Oct 4, 2010)

You can't really blame them for it if you look at it through the prism of the India-Pakistan thing. That's not to say I like it, mind, just that I can understand it. 

Personally I'd like India to roll them again.


----------



## AWP (Oct 4, 2010)

SpitfireV said:


> You can't really blame them for it if you look at it through the prism of the India-Pakistan thing. That's not to say I like it, mind, just that I can understand it.
> 
> Personally I'd like India to roll them again.


 
I agree. I know WHY they do it, but I have a problem with us allowing it, even encouraging it, to happen. What's more is our ogv't like the esteemed senator will complain about it and then turn around and choke on Pakistan's cock to keep them happy.

Dude, I'd tell India they could have everything east of the Indus, just leave Karachi and Peshwar to the Afghans to clean up that 150 year old sore.


----------



## SpitfireV (Oct 4, 2010)

I suppose one of the big things is that Pakistan needs their dick stroked from time to time since where else could you support the Afghanistan operation from. 

India has kicked their arse, what, three times? Shame nukes are involved now, could have had it sorted.


----------



## dknob (Oct 10, 2010)

Richard Armitage had it right: "If you don't support us we are going to send you back into the stone age" (Armitage  to Pakistan's ISI Director) on September 12th, 2001


----------



## QC (Oct 11, 2010)

Under the Hague Convention of 1907 a neutral country has the obligation not to allow its territory to be used by a belligerent. If the neutral country is unwilling to prevent this, the other belligerent has the right to to take appropriate counteraction. This was originally stated in 1970 by State Department legal advisor John Stevenson.


----------



## SpitfireV (Oct 11, 2010)

I wouldn't consider Pakistan neutral by any stretch though.


----------



## pardus (Oct 11, 2010)

QC (anyone) hasn't the Hauge been superseded by the Geneva now?


I'm 100% behind backing India to annex Pakistan. :2c:


----------



## ///M3 (Oct 11, 2010)

the issue with Pakistan is and always has been Kashmir.  After the blank check they kept getting from CIA during the 1980s for weapons to be used against the Soviets its not surprising they realized they could use the same Mujahideen against Indian forces in Jammu and Kashmir.  Taliban keeps itself in check in Pakistan while being be able to have a safe haven to attack Afghanistan and in return they have to supply militants to keep the Indian army trenched up in Kashmir.

Moreover, it is in India's interest to have a hostile Afghanistan towards Pakistan which would then allow for a 2nd front to be used against any future major conflicts between their countries.  

add corruption + terrible and selfish leadership and you have Pakistan.  Broker a peace agreement with India and Pakistan and you solve Afghanistan.  Easier said then done, obviously.  

all in my opinion.


----------

