pmaitra
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2009
- Messages
- 33,262
- Likes
- 19,593
Sure, you must be a saint incarnate. I believe in nemesis. Hope you know what that means.I'm not that sadistic, to look forward to a civil war in another country.
Sure, you must be a saint incarnate. I believe in nemesis. Hope you know what that means.I'm not that sadistic, to look forward to a civil war in another country.
Sorry...A prostitute has sovereignty over herself in respect to her customer. You must be referring to her pimp and the US does not own Pakistan.Once paid a prostitute has the same level of sovereignty over her body as pakistan has now.
It took money and now it is being fucked. Its as simple as that.
Unlikely to happen mate..China will not allow that to happen, it'll be disasterous for their geostrategic interests and internal situation in Xinjiang. Pakistan will stay just afloat- look at North Korea.Question for all:
How many of you are looking forward to a sudden stop in US aid and complete collapse of the Pakistani economy leading to a civil war?
We should not. Some do. The gentleman who opened this thread is not from India." Pakistan, where is your sovereignty? "
Should we really care ?
We should not. Some do. The gentleman who opened this thread is not from India.
It is very unfortunate that Pakistan is itself responsible for its own Condition..It's a question to express my concern and disappointment of Pakistan's current status. Pakistan makes her own destiny.
Theory is already established.Not 'can'...But MUST...And once the theory is agreed upon, or at least major provisions thereof, the theory is formalized into practices that we are comfortable with today. That comfortability none can deny exist, let alone contends over.
Rights are indeed accompanied with responsibilities.No one is disputing that, however, rights are accompanied by responsibilities as outlined on previous page.
If one finds that Pakistan has lost its right to sovereignty and territorial integrity because they have tossed out their responsibility to the world, then the same can be said of the US and their action around the world, Iraq, Central America, Panama, Granada, Cuba and so on and so forth ad infintum.When responsibilities are tossed by a ruling authority, so will rights that are normally respected. Look at sovereignty as a train resting atop the parallel rails of rights and responsibilities.
Political Science textbook definition.The moment there is an independent authority figure over a territory that establishes a local government, laws, economy, currency, etc. historical arguments over who was there first doing what no long apply.
Lucky for you US does not have border disputes. We are supposedly impinging on Chinese sovereignty by claiming Tawang for our own. This is what their govt has decided. Taiwan and the Japanese islands too.If Pakistan claimed and have reasonably credible justifications upon an island and UN peers accepted said claim, must Pakistan stake out a garrison to defend that island? No. Sovereignty is often automatically respected.
Yes, on paper and on TV we would be mortified. However people who have studied these things will not be surprised. India has supported LTTE rebels in Sri Lanka. We are currently supporting a Mafia don called Chota Rajan who is a blood rival of Dawood Ibrahim. Have you already forgotten the Bay of Pigs incident?Take the current conflict over Kashmir for example, if Kashmir is truly Indian territory and there are belligerents in some war that DOES NOT involve India, would Indians tolerate violations of Kashmir for one belligerent's benefits? Of course not. The Indian government would be mortified at even a hint of India being in alliance with a belligerent, let alone allowing Indian territory being used in a war.
Afghanistan was never a sovereign country and was under the hands of mullahs while Iraq was a dictatorship. Nobody will question an invasion on these territories. The thing about violating territorial sovereignty is that you cannot hide the fact that you have already steamrolled into their sovereignty. But the simple fact is you control Pakistan in it's entirety and can easily build a veil around it.What you are arguing is not about sovereignty but about foreign policies that have consequences. Pakistan was involved in Afghanistan long before the current conflict between US and al-Qaeda. Sovereignty for Pakistan still exists but not for Afghanistan and Iraq is somewhere in-between Pakistan and Afghanistan as far as independence from foreign influences go. Violation of territorial sovereignty usually precede subversion of authority but the latter does not have to follow the former. The violator can chose to attempt to overthrow the ruling authority. Violations of territorial sovereignty is temporary. Subversion of authority is more permanent. Violation of territorial sovereignty and subversion of authority happened for Afghanistan and Iraq but not for Pakistan. The US have not establish any garrison, let alone moral claims, upon any parcel of territorial Pakistan. The deceptive argument I am seeing here focus on the action but not the justifications that must be expressed before any violations of territorial sovereignty can proceed. Best of all is the now obvious fact that Pakistan have been harboring the moral leader of a belligerent in this conflict.
Small sections of the Pakistani military are playing you. However you control most of the country right from it's foreign policy to it's army. I wouldn't go so far as to say the Pak Army is under the US president. However your decisions can make or break a regime. Musharaff was a key example. Had you wanted it you would have kept him in power for a lot longer.As for the drone missions over Pakistani territory, that is an uncomfortable part of war that is a direct result of Pakistani involvement in Afghanistan and covert support for al-Qaeda, a belligerent, and the contradictory alliance with the US, another belligerent. Pakistan is playing both sides and everyone know it so you cannot legitimately criticize US for those drone missions.
And from what I have seen of your arguments so far about this, you need a refresher.Political Science textbook definition.
Taiwan is not US possession. Neither is Japan. You are confused between an alliance and a possession.Lucky for you US does not have border disputes. We are supposedly impinging on Chinese sovereignty by claiming Tawang for our own. This is what their govt has decided. Taiwan and the Japanese islands too.
Support for insurgencies does not constitute violations of sovereignty, which usually mean physical incursions.Yes, on paper and on TV we would be mortified. However people who have studied these things will not be surprised. India has supported LTTE rebels in Sri Lanka. We are currently supporting a Mafia don called Chota Rajan who is a blood rival of Dawood Ibrahim. Have you already forgotten the Bay of Pigs incident?
Electromagnetic emissions that travels beyond one's borders are fair game for interceptions and analysis. This is a very weak argument. But if you are going to charge that the US entered Tibet, which is under China's controls, for such purposes, you need to bring supporting evidences, even circumstantial ones.You were in the military, haven't you heard about Black Ops? US and India or should I say CIA and RAW have infiltrated Tibetan borders and planted high powered transmitters over mountains in the 70s in order to study Chinese Nuclear Tests. All major countries impinge on other's sovereignty, textbook or no textbook.
Absurd. Both Afghanistan and Iraq were sovereign nation-states regardless of the nature of the government, disparate tribalism or centralized institutions. It is clear now that you have no idea of these basic political concepts.Afghanistan was never a sovereign country and was under the hands of mullahs while Iraq was a dictatorship. Nobody will question an invasion on these territories.
This is a nonsensical argument. It make no point and does not illuminate any existing ones.The thing about violating territorial sovereignty is that you cannot hide the fact that you have already steamrolled into their sovereignty. But the simple fact is you control Pakistan in it's entirety and can easily build a veil around it.
Hahhhahahhahahah Shameless pakistanis, truely a Beggar nationNo apology for violating Pak air space: White House
http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/article1990458.ece?homepage=true
"He was enemy number one for this country and killed many, many innocent civilians," White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said
U.S. would not make any apology for its unilateral military action against al Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden at his hideout in Pakistan, the White House has said.
"We make no apologies about that," White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said when asked that U.S. should not have gone unilaterally inside Pakistan to get bin Laden. "He was enemy number one for this country and killed many, many innocent civilians. And no apologies," Mr. Carney said.
On Tuesday, Pakistan termed the U.S. commando operation in Abbottabad that killed Laden an "unauthorised, unilateral action".
Mr. Carney claimed otherwise. "It has been our cooperation with Muslims in Pakistan and other countries, as well as Muslim Americans, which has helped in our overall effort to fight al Qaeda and protect Americans, to protect this country," he said.
"It doesn't change the fact the President's very strongly held conviction and expressed conviction that this has never been about Islam, because, in fact, Osama bin Laden was a mass murderer who killed many Muslims," he said.
Mr. Carney said bin Laden was a relic of the past, in many ways. "The kind of yearning for individual freedoms that we've seen protest on the streets of the Arab world in these past few months represent a movement that is in the polar opposite direction that Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda wanted to take the Arab world," he said.
"I think that that's an important point to make and to observe because he's in many ways, the symbol of everything that those folks who have been demonstrating on the ground for their voices, for their rights, for their individual aspirations, he's a representation of everything they don't want," he said.
Whatever they may 'feel' does not negate the reality that the muslims dominated their own territories, established their own economies, printed their own currencies, created their own governmental institutions, and perpetuated their own cultures. They have all the visible trappings of sovereign nation-states. They control their own media and if they are incompetent at presenting their own viewpoints on any issue, that is not the fault of those who criticized them.Theory is already established.
The supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power by which an independent state is governed and from which all specific political powers are derived; the intentional independence of a state, combined with the right and power of regulating its internal affairs without foreign interference.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/National+sovereignty
I wonder if the 'formalised theory' is comfortable to the Islamic nations, who rightly or wrongly, feel that they are at the wrong end of the stick, where the so called 'formalised theory' that the West is 'comfortable' with, makes them uncomfortable, when their Nations are under 'attack' through a media blitz on various issues that upsets western sensibilities or physically attacked as in Iraq and even Afghanistan (technically it is valid attack since Afghanistan harboured a person who attacked the US).
The General Assembly members agreed that for inter-states issues that may create tensions that may escalate into armed conflicts, the Security Council should be the final arbiter of those issues. You need to study up on how the UN operate.The 'formalised practice' of the theory wherein interventions are 'justified' are the interventions sanctioned by the UNSC. Technically, even this is morally flawed. These UN interventions are actually sanctioned by just 05 Nations of the world. In other words, it is not a democratic decision. There are 192 countries in the UN General Assembly and their opinion does NOT count!!
Neither was the Kuwait invasion by Iraq. Neither was the Soviet invasions of assorted Eastern European countries that created the once Soviet empire. I did not bring those up to justify US actions in Pakistan but to point out the truth that when nation-states are in conflicts that could threaten their existence, UN blessings are irrelevant. Certainly al-Qaeda did not seek UN sanctions. But your entire argument still does not explain how Pakistan is not a sovereign nation-state.It maybe noted that neither Iraq nor the SEAL raid in Abbotabad was sanctioned by these 'wise' 05 of the UNSC!! Therefore, both Iraq and the SEAL raid in Abbotabad falls outside the 'moral high ground' that the UNSC approval gives and hence it means that these actions are well beyond the parameters of the debatable 'formalised theories that one is comfortable with'.
Are you really that naive? But let us grant that Pakistan really does not know Osama was living in comfort right next a Pakistani military academy...Rights are indeed accompanied with responsibilities.
However, Pakistan claims that it had no clue as to where Osama was. They claim that all known Taliban and AQ leaders were captured by them and handed over to the US.
Therefore, if one cannot for sure prove that Pakistan knew where Osama was, one cannot justifiably pin Pakistan down.
Never denied it. But it is curious that you and others continue to avoid the justification issue. A firefighter is fully justified in seriously damaging a car that is in his way. A damaged car can be repaired or replaced in short order but not a destroyed neighborhood or even a city. Do we prosecute the firefighter? No. We excuse his action as fully justifiable in the face of the greater threat and the insurance company will pay for the damages to the car or even replace it. Even though there was no higher authority to sanction the US raid into Pakistani territory, no country that has ever suffered a war can legitimately condemn said US action. Yes...They will know and say it was a violation of sovereignty, but that it was fully justified by either Pakistani convenient ignorance or incompetence.Notwithstanding, there is not even the UNSC resolution that intervention in Pakistan is permitted. Therefore, any foreign actions, right or wrong, without informing Pakistan and their accepting that such an action can be done, tantamount to violation of Pakistan's territorial integrity and sovereignty.
Absurd. There are many rights and their corresponding responsibilities. For this discussion, some of them I have outlined. For your argument to be valid for this discussion, you must show how the US have been negligent in exercising authority over US territories and corrective actions when proved incompetent. You must show how the US was either negligent or refused or incapable of exercising authority over a parcel of US territory when that territory was illegally used in a war that the US has no interests in.If one finds that Pakistan has lost its right to sovereignty and territorial integrity because they have tossed out their responsibility to the world, then the same can be said of the US and their action around the world, Iraq, Central America, Panama, Granada, Cuba and so on and so forth ad infintum.
I have not denied that the US violated Pakistani sovereignty, but you and the others have refused to acknowledged Pakistani responsibilities.While one is not questioning the killing of OBL and good that he is gone, yet, on the issue of violation of Pakistan's territorial integrity and sovereignty, with the facts available in the open space, there can be no doubt that it has been violated and that the Pakistan Govt is incompetent or is subservient to US freewheeling and dictates.
You cannot change facts with what suits your agenda.And from what I have seen of your arguments so far about this, you need a refresher.
I am talking about Chinese claim over Tawang, Taiwan and over the Japanese islands in the South China sea. Add the disputed Philippines islands as well.Taiwan is not US possession. Neither is Japan. You are confused between an alliance and a possession.
Like I said, you cannot argue with what suits you best. We walked into Sri Lanka in 1987. We walked into Portugese held Goa and asked the French to leave their territories(Pondicherry) as well. It was your aircraft flying over the Bay of Pigs, not some random mercenary air force.Support for insurgencies does not constitute violations of sovereignty, which usually mean physical incursions.
We don't know entirely. However reports have indicated infiltration. Let's not forget there are border violations reported over the Indo-China border every other day. Suffice to say the 60s and 70s is too old for open source info.Electromagnetic emissions that travels beyond one's borders are fair game for interceptions and analysis. This is a very weak argument. But if you are going to charge that the US entered Tibet, which is under China's controls, for such purposes, you need to bring supporting evidences, even circumstantial ones.
Iraq was sovereign and as Ray sir put it, the action was illegal. You did not even have UNSC mandate over the invasion on Iraq.Absurd. Both Afghanistan and Iraq were sovereign nation-states regardless of the nature of the government, disparate tribalism or centralized institutions. It is clear now that you have no idea of these basic political concepts.
Sorry but you have't brought forward anything meaningful to the entire discussion. All you have given is meaningless definitions on what a Sovereign state should be. You have passed over Drone attacks and special ops as something that is very usual in the American context and must be overlooked because of circumstances. All of it impinge on the sovereignty of another nation no matter how you put your points forward.This is a nonsensical argument. It make no point and does not illuminate any existing ones.
I see no reason to continue with the rest of your arguments.