Yea! Gen knows how to defend himself against any intrusion/strike...after all he got imported technology from US....hmmm... that preemptive strike by Gen Kayani did not work then??

Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Yea! Gen knows how to defend himself against any intrusion/strike...after all he got imported technology from US....hmmm... that preemptive strike by Gen Kayani did not work then??

You might be able to answer my question in my last post if you first try and determine what US objectives in the region currently are - outline those objectives, and then try and answer how military aggression against Pakistan would help achieve them.
Again, you are talking around my question, what will US military action against Pakistan accomplish? What will unilateral military action against the Haqqani network (by the US) accomplish, other than driving them deeper into Pakistan and potentially making them even more powerful and earning them more support in Pakistan?After what happened during suicide attack on 73 US soldiers (thats the turning point) who were luckily unharmed. But my gally if they would have been dead. Hell would have let loose. US is doing everything it can for these kind of attacks to not take place again, and for that Haqanis are supposed to be restrained. Now, to restrain Haqani, its obvious that US would force Pakistan, who has leverage with Haqanis.
The other factor that excerbated this is Mullens remarks. Remember, Mullen is no politico, he is a real man of action, and Americans heard him, its election time too, why would Obama ruin his chances of relection?
Prominent Pakistanis are on the record saying these people are our soldiers without uniform.
US wont take anything lying down on this - this is something that I know, and thats why high level delegation is due for Islamabad.
Sir,I think the apologists for the US position need to ponder why it is that the US has so far not even tried to publicly pressure karzai and the GoA into officially accepting the Durand Line as a formal border and/or sign a 'non-aggression pact' with Pakistan.
I mean here we have US officials berating Pakistan every day, despite Pakistani public opinion becoming more and more anti-US, and yet the US stays completely mum on some of Pakistan's legitimate demands from Afghanistan in terms of respecting Pakistani sovereignty.

Sir,
If they were our true sincere friends they would have respected our legitimate demands but time and again we are getting betrayed and bullied against our sovereignity and freedom by the Champions of freedom , Civil rights and liberties. Looks like we are facing a great tradegy of our times...![]()
And they will do what, with whose help, and accomplish what exactly?I think one more large scale attack/attempt on US, the US Public's attitude will change towards the Afgan war.
And they will do what, with whose help, and accomplish what exactly?
Rhetoric like yours plays well, but means nothing.
Yes! absolutely right.Absolutely - the lack of pressure on Karzai, at the same time as lecturing Pakistan on 'not worrying about India or this and that', speaks volumes to the duplicity of the US policy in the region. When US officals or commentators are questioned about this lack of pressure on Afghanistan to officially respect Pakistani sovereignty, the answer is that 'it is not politically feasible for karzai or the GoA to accept the Durand line as the permanent border' - well, under that argument it is not 'politically feasible for Pakistan to do what the US demands it to do either'.
Bunch of hypocrites and duplicitous liars is what we have in the US establishment.

Again, you are talking around my question, what will US military action against Pakistan accomplish? What will unilateral military action against the Haqqani network (by the US) accomplish, other than driving them deeper into Pakistan and potentially making them even more powerful and earning them more support in Pakistan?
As I said earlier, Pakistan's position is 'either talk, or fight' - if the US wants to keep targeting the Taliban leadership and insurgents, then it should not be complaining about the Taliban targeting US soldiers and the US embassy - the US/Taliban need to agree to a ceasefire for a limited period of time to get negotiations started.
Clinton arrives in Pakistan, meets Gilani, Kayani
![]()

All other wars were fought for alleys, but here they have to make sure that there is no more attack on US, which makes things interesting.
I think one more large scale attack/attempt on US, the US Public's attitude will change towards the Afgan war.