Pakistani troops reportedly fire on US helicopters

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Pakistani troops and tribesmen opened fire on two U.S. helicopters that crossed into the country from neighboring Afghanistan, intelligence officials said Monday.

The helicopters did not return fire and re-entered Afghan airspace without landing, the officials said.

...

During a recent speech to Parliament, newly elected President Asif Ali Zardari ... warned that no country would be allowed to violate Pakistan's sovereignty in the name of the war on terror.

...

A Pakistani military spokesman said ... that troops had orders to open fire in case of another cross-border raid by foreign troops.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080922/ap_on_.../as_pakistan_us

[IAMX 3,055]

The most relevant part of the article:

During a recent speech to Parliament, newly elected President Asif Ali Zardari, who is considered U.S.-friendly, warned that no country would be allowed to violate Pakistan's sovereignty in the name of the war on terror.

^-- Here's the Bush Administration foreign policy in action. Sounds exactly like their local policy too on violating American citizens rights in the name of war on terror. We're going to have a lot more enemies (and those who are willing to wait on our doorstep to fire on us) if this utterly pathetic and conflict-arising administration wants to increase tensions across the world for no reason at all.

Edited September 22, 2008 by SRVT

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Wait, foreign troops fire on our troops and we're the bad guys?

[IAMX 3,055]

Wait, foreign troops fire on our troops and we're the bad guys?

Why exactly did they fire on U.S. troops again?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Wait, foreign troops fire on our troops and we're the bad guys?

Why exactly did they fire on U.S. troops again?

Because they don't support the War on Terror.

That makes them... you guessed it! The bad guys.

[sara..... 371]

Wait, foreign troops fire on our troops and we're the bad guys?

Why exactly did they fire on U.S. troops again?

Pakistani military fired on the usa military because they crossed over into pakistani airspace and it has been a problem for pakistan government when ever our military makes a strike on any land that is pakistani land seems a lot of innocents get killed and is one of the problems in pakistan right now cuz the people are angry over it.......even mushy told the usa government they could not go into pakistan country for any type of military action as it is a solvent country

[HAL 9000 96]

Hey they're either with us or against us. You aren't allowed to be an ally and expect to have us respect your territory. Silly you if you do!

As an aside we should have sent in real intelligent ops into the country years ago. Overtly or covertly. We've done so before so why the ####### now?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Hey they're either with us or against us.

Exactly. It's the Bush Doctrine. Sarah Palin may not know ####### that means but you should!

[HAL 9000 96]

Hey they're either with us or against us.

Exactly. It's the Bush Doctrine. Sarah Palin may not know ####### that means but you should!

Shhh... lest we be labelled BDS patients. Because of course, the doctors are right.

[SpiritAlight 1]

The little I heard on NPR the other day was that although Pakistan and the U.S. are "allies", they do not want their country (their soil) to be used as a battle ground to further U.S.'s war on terror. This has nothing to do with them and so...

They said that if the U.S. will not respect their wishes as a sovereign nation, they would take action.

They have every right.

Here some interesting stuff to read and see what you can glean from it:

"How many military sites does the U.S. outside of their country?"

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/09/how-many-milita.html

a quote from the link in that site:

"given that there are only 192 countries in the United Nations, 761 foreign bases is a remarkable example of imperial overstretch—even more so considering that official military reports understate the actual size of the US footprint"

what Google uncovers:

America's Empire of Bases

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0115-08.htm

There are 195 countries on our planet, and...here's another quote:

"Currently, the United States has more than 700 military bases in 130 countries, including the Persian Gulf region nations of Kuwait, Qatar and Bahrain. Thousands of U.S. troops have been based in Germany, Turkey, Japan and South Korea for 50 years or longer. " (written in the year 2004)

from:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/200...iraq-basing.htm

Look I did not finish reading all this, although I will because it is fascinating.

I even found something linked to YouTube of all places about it.

I do not endorse all of this information and only am bringing up the obvious.

Your tax dollars at work.

But no free national health care, almost no community services, no free education for USians.

That's too bad.

You could afford it, iff...

Oops, I just went to watch that video on YouTube and it has been removed by the censors.

I bet you didn't know YouTube is censored.

Bye bye free speech...one more civil liberty dropped.

Edited September 22, 2008 by SpiritAlight

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Copyrighted material is removed upon complaint.

Unless you think violating copyright is a civil right, I'm not sure you have a point.

[Saddle Bronc 124]

The little I heard on NPR the other day was that although Pakistan and the U.S. are "allies", they do not want their country (their soil) to be used as a battle ground to further U.S.'s war on terror. This has nothing to do with them and so...

They said that if the U.S. will not respect their wishes as a sovereign nation, they would take action.

They have every right.

An argument which would be more convincing if they actually took on (without signing Chamberlainesque "peace" deals with them) the foreign militants affiliated with AQ and Taliban who cross into their territory with impunity.

[IAMX 3,055]

The little I heard on NPR the other day was that although Pakistan and the U.S. are "allies", they do not want their country (their soil) to be used as a battle ground to further U.S.'s war on terror. This has nothing to do with them and so...

They said that if the U.S. will not respect their wishes as a sovereign nation, they would take action.

They have every right.

An argument which would be more convincing if they actually took on (without signing Chamberlainesque "peace" deals with them) the foreign militants affiliated with AQ and Taliban who cross into their territory with impunity.

So your suggestion is violate any sovereign nation's borders in which case one simply believes terrorists are crossing into. Your sources are likely the U.S. government intelligence officials/sources who lied to everyone about Iraq.

Nonetheless, here's yet another ally going down the drain. Gee, I wonder what happens when we run out of allies..

[Saddle Bronc 124]

The little I heard on NPR the other day was that although Pakistan and the U.S. are "allies", they do not want their country (their soil) to be used as a battle ground to further U.S.'s war on terror. This has nothing to do with them and so...

They said that if the U.S. will not respect their wishes as a sovereign nation, they would take action.

They have every right.

An argument which would be more convincing if they actually took on (without signing Chamberlainesque "peace" deals with them) the foreign militants affiliated with AQ and Taliban who cross into their territory with impunity.

So your suggestion is violate any sovereign nation's borders in which case one simply believes terrorists are crossing into. Your sources are likely the U.S. government intelligence officials/sources who lied to everyone about Iraq.

Nonetheless, here's yet another ally going down the drain. Gee, I wonder what happens when we run out of allies..

Try dogpiling "Pakistan peace deal" on BBC--I'm sure you'll find lots of links there (none from US intel).

[IAMX 3,055]

The little I heard on NPR the other day was that although Pakistan and the U.S. are "allies", they do not want their country (their soil) to be used as a battle ground to further U.S.'s war on terror. This has nothing to do with them and so...

They said that if the U.S. will not respect their wishes as a sovereign nation, they would take action.

They have every right.

An argument which would be more convincing if they actually took on (without signing Chamberlainesque "peace" deals with them) the foreign militants affiliated with AQ and Taliban who cross into their territory with impunity.

So your suggestion is violate any sovereign nation's borders in which case one simply believes terrorists are crossing into. Your sources are likely the U.S. government intelligence officials/sources who lied to everyone about Iraq.

Nonetheless, here's yet another ally going down the drain. Gee, I wonder what happens when we run out of allies..

Try dogpiling "Pakistan peace deal" on BBC--I'm sure you'll find lots of links there (none from US intel).

Indeed. I'll check for it when I get to work.