Pakistan, where is your sovereignty?

gambit

Professional
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
91
Likes
47
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.
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.
 

mayfair

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2010
Messages
6,032
Likes
13,109
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?
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.
 

amitkriit

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2009
Messages
2,463
Likes
1,927
Pakistan has a price to pay

ISLAMABAD - United States officials modified their narrative on Osama bin Laden's killing on Monday in the Pakistani town of Abbottabad to protect Pakistan's broader interests against threats from militants, saying that the Pakistanis had little involvement.

However, well-placed security sources maintain that the operation in Abbottabad - just a two-hour drive north of the capital Islamabad - was without a doubt a joint Pakistan-US effort and that all logistics were arranged inside Pakistan.

All the same, while Pakistan's military command was aware that the operation targeted a high-value suspect, it was completely unaware that it was in fact Bin Laden until this was announced by the Americans after the al-Qaeda leader had been shot dead by US Special Forces.

The operation to get Bin Laden was similar to the one that netted Indonesian al-Qaeda operative Umar Patek - the mastermind of the Bali bombings in Indonesia in 2002 that killed more than 200 people - from Abbottabad in late January.

So when Pakistani intelligence gave the approval for American gunship helicopters to fly from Tarbella Ghazi, 20 kilometers from Islamabad and the brigade headquarters of the Pakistan army's elite commando unit, to capture a high-value target in Abbottabad, the Pakistanis assumed it was for the seizure of Umar Patek's companions.

Once permission had been granted to the helicopters, Pakistani security forces were put on high alert in Abbottabad to provide necessary assistance to the American operation, which was led by American Navy Seals.

Limited bases were granted to the Americans in Tarbella Ghazi in 2008 under an agreement for high-profile operations.

After a 40-minute operation, the Americans had the body of Bin Laden - later buried in the Arabian Sea - and Pakistani authorities were informed. Their forces then entered the compound where Bin Laden had been found and took control.

News of Bin Laden's death broke like a bombshell among military bigwigs as well as on the political leadership. On the international diplomatic front, Pakistan has already lost its argument against allegations that it perpetuates terror. Now, militant groups are expected to turn their guns on the Pakistan state for its complicity in Bin Laden's death.

Before Bin Laden's killing, hardly 10% of pro-Taliban militants were fighting against Pakistan. That is, 90% disagreed with Pakistan's policy of aligning with the US in the "war on terror", but they chose to keep their focus on fighting foreign forces in Afghanistan. Bin Laden's death has invited the wrath of all groups.
For example, the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP - Pakistan Taliban), immediately announced it would avenge his death and declared Pakistan the number one enemy and the US as number two. On Monday evening, a suicide attack was carried out against police in Khyber Pakhtoonkhwa province, in which Abbottabad is located. The TTP claimed responsibility.

While all information was coming out of Washington, Pakistan - where the entire operation was conducted - behaved like an extremely terrified child and did not utter a single word. Only by noon did the Pakistani Foreign Office issue a statement that declared that the operation was exclusively conducted by American forces.

American forces claimed to have buried Bin Laden at sea so that people could not eulogize his grave and that he would not continue to be an icon of anti-Americanism. However, al-Qaeda is a completely different beast.

The world without Osama

Bin Laden, a rich Saudi prince-like figure, was in many ways the brainchild of Dr Ayman al-Zawahiri and his Egyptian camp to bolster a movement that in the 1990s had mostly failed and was rapidly losing popularity in the Muslim world.

When Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, the September 11 mastermind, who was not an al-Qaeda member, approached Zawahiri with a plan to strike the US mainland with hijacked aircraft, Zawahiri saw a huge chance to orchestrate broader friction between the Muslim and non-Muslim world, and in the process organize anti-American sentiment in the Muslim world under a single banner. He approved the plan despite intense opposition from several top al-Qaeda commanders who thought the American reaction would not be sustainable for the Taliban in Afghanistan or for al-Qaeda.

However, Zawahiri was planning a different world after 9/11. Therefore, following the 9/11 attack and the subsequent US invasion and defeat of the Taliban, al-Qaeda migrated to Pakistan's South Waziristan tribal area where it succeeded in regrouping by 2003.

That was a turning point at which time it was decided to preserve the iconic figure of Bin Laden as a jewel while Zawahiri worked on a different strategy - to engineer a new leadership of al-Qaeda.

A careful use of material and human resources and the maximum exploitation of circumstances by 2004 brought forward leaders like commander Nek Mohammad and Haji Umar and as each one of these was killed off, another would be ready to step into the position. These included Abdullah Mehsud, Baitullah Mehsud and Hakeemullah Mehsud, and now the highly effective Sirajuddin Haqqani and commander Ilyas Kashmiri.

Al-Qaeda's regrouping helped the Taliban make a comeback by 2006, at which time Bin Laden went very quiet - like a precious stone that was buried deep inside the Earth with safety and care. He didn't have much of a role in decision-making, but his name and stature often brought in money for al-Qaeda.

By 2010, the Americans came up with a formula for their withdrawal from Afghanistan and al-Qaeda began to place more emphasis on people like Haqqani and Kashmiri to replace the older generation of al-Qaeda in the action in the mountains of the tribal areas. These older men would return to the Middle East to take over the command of Arab revolts.

Under the same arrangement, Central Asian fighters in the tribal areas were asked to make preparations to set up fronts in Central Asia.

In essence, by 2011 al-Qaeda had turned into a kind of hornet's nest capable of opening war fronts in different places at the same time, or focusing its energies on a single front. Bin Laden's killing has frozen all previous plans and according to sources in North Waziristan, schemes have morphed into two parts: immediate reaction against Pakistan and a long-term scheme against the West and India.
 

SHASH2K2

New Member
Joined
May 10, 2010
Messages
5,711
Likes
730
Sudden shift: For US, Pakistan is new enemy


After getting rid of Osama bin Laden, the US finds itself facing a new enemy: Pakistan. No one here believes the Pakistanis didn't know the world's most wanted terrorist lived a short distance from their premier military academy. US President Barack Obama's counter-terrorism chief John Brennan refused to give his country's top anti-terror ally a clean chit, despite statements emerging out of Pakistan claiming they — as a trusted partner — knew of the raid. "We are looking right now at how he (bin Laden) was able to hold out there (in Pakistan) for so long, and whether or not there was any type of support system within Pakistan that allowed him to stay there," Brennan said at a briefing.
US lawmakers are raising questions, too. Republican senator Bob Corker has written to secretary of state Hillary Clinton, asking for details — "whether or not the Pakistanis had knowledge that he was there and did not share that knowledge". Two other senators — Republican Ted Poe and Democrat Frank Lautenberg — want further aid to Pakistan linked to its role.
There seemed no takers here for Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari's claim that Islamabad wasn't aware of bin Laden's hideout in Abbottabad, 60 km from Islamabad.
"Some in the US press have suggested that Pakistan lacked vitality in its pursuit of terrorism, or worse yet, that we were disingenuous and actually protected the terrorists we claimed to be pursuing. Such baseless speculation may make exciting cable news, but it doesn't reflect facts," Zardari said in Abbottabad on Tuesday."
Bin Laden was killed with his son and his two protectors on Sunday by a team of 79 US Navy Seals in Abbottabad. Americans are convinced Pakistan knew.
Relations between the two countries have been edgy already, over the CIA's drone attacks and one of its operatives killing two Pakistanis. And now, the revelation that Bin Laden was not hiding in the caves of the ungovernable Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) of Pakistan.
"It's worth bearing in mind that he was more or less hiding in plain sight," said an intelligence officer at the department of defence.
Experts and administration officials mention previous instances in which intelligence shared with Pakistan was found to have travelled to the Taliban and even Bin Laden. Pakistan has few friends here today. In fact, it is the new enemy.



 

Kunal Biswas

Member of the Year 2011
Ambassador
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
31,122
Likes
41,042
" Pakistan, where is your sovereignty? "

Should we really care ?
 

Kunal Biswas

Member of the Year 2011
Ambassador
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
31,122
Likes
41,042
We should not. Some do. The gentleman who opened this thread is not from India. ;)
It's a question to express my concern and disappointment of Pakistan's current status. Pakistan makes her own destiny.
It is very unfortunate that Pakistan is itself responsible for its own Condition..

Dispite, such situation they still think abt rearm their country, And wage War..

Innocent and Brain washed are the one used in such mess..

Sad, Indeed !
 

Virendra

Ambassador
Joined
Oct 16, 2010
Messages
4,697
Likes
3,041
Country flag
I believe the transactional nature of US Pakistan relationship will still linger on somehow, but the last remaining trace of TRUST IS GONE.
US government may not openly abandon this so called WOT ally but they know it damn well, what just happenend and what their lessons are.
Suddenly, the period before US exit becomes as interesting and crucial to watch as the time after US exit. Lot of drama ahead !!

Regards,
Virendra
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,834
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.
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 '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!!

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'.


No one is disputing that, however, rights are accompanied by responsibilities as outlined on previous page.
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.

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.

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.
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.

What is sauce for the goose should also be sauce for the gander.

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.
 
Last edited:

pankaj nema

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2009
Messages
10,079
Likes
37,507
Country flag
Sovereignity is a relative term and concept. drone attacks are also loss of sovereignity .

Blackwater and CIA agents running loose is also a loss of sovereignity

When Pakistan depends on US aid for its survival and also feed the taliban and Al qaida , it is common sense , that it will be kicked around, if it does nt do US bidding

The kicking was limited to drones in the border areas Now the kicking has been done close to Islamabad
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,834
If a nation allows foreign players in their country and allows them to raise a riot, or allows them to Drone attack their wayward country men, then that is complicity.

Because of complicity, maybe it would not be violation of sovereignty.

On the other hand, they howl every time there is a Drone attack, but thereafter they do nothing! Does smell of complicity.

Therefore, one wonders what is going on.

Appears violation and yet does not appear violation!

Crazy!
 

pankaj nema

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2009
Messages
10,079
Likes
37,507
Country flag
There is always a first time . When the first drone attacks happened Pakistan complained of loss of sovereignity but soon got used to it .

This recent helicopter raid is being called as a loss of sovereignity simply because it was DEEP inside pakistan

But NOW US pressure will be so high for doing what the US wants in Afghanistan and what Pakistan has all along refused to do ie take out Taliban and Al qaida inside Pakistan

The Taliban and al qaida inside Pakistan are VERY Dear to Pakistan

And when Pakistan does eventually succumb to US pressure and acts against its WILL ; against its own self created monsters THAT in my view will be the real loss of sovereignity
 

RPK

Indyakudimahan
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
4,970
Likes
229
Country flag
No 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.
 

p2prada

Senior Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,015
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.
Political Science textbook definition.

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.
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.

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.
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?

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.

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.
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.

If your foreign policy and it's consequences impinges on sovereignty of another country then the definition does not change.

Let's just say if the world is a High School then the Americans and NATO are the football team while the rest are dog food. You get the girls, we get our butts kicked. We live with the fact that the Americans can change a lot of things dramatically in the world and have the power to get their way by hook or crook. So, there is no particular need to act differently with honey coated words, especially in a forum that studies foreign policy everyday, however childish it may seem to you.

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.
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.

When we were supposed to attack Pakistan after 26/11, the PAF had supposedly managed to get 32 birds flying in the air in minutes and they were mostly the old blocks F-16s and F7PGs. However, when the US Navy Seals entered Pak airspace, killed their target and exited with the body taking a good 40 minutes, also let's not forget all this happened only a few kilometres away from a military academy, PAF had only just scrambled aircraft, maybe the new Block 52s.

It does not matter what you do to Pakistan as long as you don't touch their nukes. They are satisfied with regime changes, drone attacks, psy ops, special ops etc as long as they have safe nukes, protection from big bad India and soft loans for their weapons.
 

gambit

Professional
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
91
Likes
47
Political Science textbook definition.
And from what I have seen of your arguments so far about this, you need a refresher.

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.
Taiwan is not US possession. Neither is Japan. You are confused between an alliance and a possession.

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?
Support for insurgencies does not constitute violations of sovereignty, which usually mean physical incursions.

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.
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.

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.
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.

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.
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.
 

Dark_Prince

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2010
Messages
374
Likes
81
No 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.
Hahhhahahhahahah Shameless pakistanis, truely a Beggar nation :D
 

gambit

Professional
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
91
Likes
47
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).
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.

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!!
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.

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'.
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.

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.
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...

First...When we use the word 'United States of America' we do not restrict that label to the US government but also include the recognized borders that indicate to us the cartographic 'United States of America'.

- Nation: A group of people who shares a common bond.
- State: A political body that governs the nation.
- Country: A geographical locale.

Second...Before the establishment of Israel, world Jewry is a nation, in effect a people without a government and a territory. Today, we have something similar with the Gypsies in Europe. The American Indian tribes are highly autonomous nation-states but they are without territories. The reservations are only parceled out for them and their rule over the reservations are at the convenience of the US government. The word 'country' has at least dual meanings, a distinct region such as Africa or America or Asia, and to mean a territory that is claimed by a nation-state. In other words, Africa is a country that contains many 'countries' or 'nation-states'. Same for Asia or Europe or America.

Third...In inter-states relations, the response by one nation-state to a crime committed against it that harmed that nation-state in some ways is preferably proportionate to the crime itself. For example, we do not go to war against France if a Frenchman swindled an American bank out of some money. We would prefer to let our respective law enforcement agencies apprehend the criminal in a collaborative manner. However, if we look at Mexico and the internal turmoil that threatens US citizens on American soil, then the Mexicans should be glad that they are not living next to the Russians for the Russians would have invaded and established control of parcels of Mexican territory a long time ago.

We are not talking about a con man out for some money. We are talking about someone who claimed to speak for a nation -- the muslims -- and who declared that a state of warfare exists between the US and this nation. One country or nation-state -- Afghanistan -- sponsored this non-state organization in this war. The organization is al-Qaeda and its moral leader is Osama bin Laden. His charismatic hold over this nation is good enough that many members of the nation became active sympathizers. The muslim nation transcends political borders such as Pakistan, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Europe and even America. Many of them acted on their own as we have recently seen with the many al-Qaeda 'franchises' in many countries, like a fast food franchise. Its greatest combat action was the attack on US soil on Sept. 11, 2001 that netted the organization nearly 3000 enemy killed-in-action (KIA). Osama bin Laden did not do it for monetary but political gains.

Police agencies responds to crimes that are of monetary gains in natures. Nation-states responds not to crimes but to acts of warfare that threatens its citizens and even existence.

So when we say that Pakistan harbored Osama we do not need to specifically mean the Pakistani government but to include the Pakistan territory itself where members of the muslims nation, civilian and military, in Pakistan and Afghanistan, actively assisted Osama to elude US pursuit of an enemy combatant. Allowing that the Pakistani government did not know Osama was living inside Pakistani territory for the last several years and free enough to send his followers moral and spiritual exhortations to continue the war, we can say that this is a clear case of incompetence on the part of the Pakistani government. Incompetence by one nation-state to enforce its rule over its territory justify sovereignty violations by another nation-state when an act of war was committed and a threat continue to exist.

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.
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.

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.
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.

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.
I have not denied that the US violated Pakistani sovereignty, but you and the others have refused to acknowledged Pakistani responsibilities.
 

p2prada

Senior Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
10,234
Likes
4,015
And from what I have seen of your arguments so far about this, you need a refresher.
You cannot change facts with what suits your agenda.

Taiwan is not US possession. Neither is Japan. You are confused between an alliance and a possession.
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.

Support for insurgencies does not constitute violations of sovereignty, which usually mean physical incursions.
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.

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.
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.

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.
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.

Taliban is not recognized by the US Govt. Please read up on your history text book. Taliban regime was not part of the UN and was only recognized by the govts of Pakistan, UAE and Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Afghanistan did not have a constitution and nor is it a sovereign state. As of September 22, 2001 only Pakistan recognized Taliban as a govt. US recognized the Taliban as renegade fundamentalists and were dealt with as such. Or are you going to suggest otherwise just to win over an argument?

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.
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.

Pakistan isn't fighting the war on terror because they had a choice. War was inevitable. They only had the choice of picking the side.

Your arguments have no substance at all.

As of 2011, US is the most sovereign state in the world and perhaps the only sovereign state. Nobody dictates to the US, not even NATO.
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top