Pakistan stops NATO supplies after raid kills up to 28 (Pakistan cuts supply lines)

Reuters ^

[quesney]

NATO helicopters and fighter jets attacked two military outposts in northwest Pakistan on Saturday, killing as many as 28 troops and plunging U.S.-Pakistan relations, already deeply frayed, further into crisis.

Pakistan retaliated by shutting down vital NATO supply routes into Afghanistan, used for sending in just under a third of the alliance's supplies.

[quesney]

We need to reassess our relationship with the PRIC's (Pakistan, Russia, Iran, China)...to put it mildly.

[Cringing Negativism Network]

“NATO”.

What does that mean exactly? Turkey? What?

[Roklok]

“NATO”.

What does that mean exactly? Turkey? What?

NATO really means US forces.

[ClearCase_guy]

Don’t worry. Obama will make some phones calls to POCK-i-stan and after some serious discussions, he will make the situation much worse.

[ßuddaßudd]

Good reason for Øbama to invade and free the oppressed people there. . .
F U B O

[EGPWS]

We need to hurry up and give them a few billion more in aid before they become our enemy and it’s too late.

[Cringing Negativism Network]

Are you sure?

I don’t believe for a moment our intelligence is so incompetent as to bomb a Pakistan base.

Is it?

[servantboy777]

We also need to re-assess crossing into sovereign airspace with drones and firing off missiles.

I'm not against eradicating scum bag terrorist, but time after time...we miss, we hit wrong targets, act on flawed intelligence.

Not to mention we're pissing these people off, then expecting them to cooperate in regards to their nukes.

Might I add, these same nukes are in danger of being captured or controlled by the same scum bag terrorist we are attempting to bomb.

We killed 28 Paki troops, not counting civilians in or around ground zero. How many were wounded?

I imagine how we'd react if say Mexico fired off missiles from drones...in Texas. We would be outraged and ready to stomp a freakin mudhole in whoever was responsible.

The scenario is not too far fetched. The Mexican drug lords are indeed working with enemies of this nation and heaven forbid we ever have a smuggled nuke enter this country.

I say, bring these drones home to protect our borders and stop stirring up the bees nest.

[kearnyirish2]

Stop being even-handed & rational.

: )

[Berlin_Freeper]

Pakistan was hiding OBL.

We need to kill a few thousand more just to even the score.

[servantboy777]

Damn, I expected the first post back to be vitriol as all get out.

You’re a cut and runner, why you’re anti-military...you, you, you Paul supporter. lol

[mikey_hates_everything]

Yeah Santorum, we HAVE to make these people our friends. Dope.

[SunkenCiv]

IOW, the Pakistan troops were actually working on behalf of jihad and had already closed the border crossing, which is why they were hit in the first place. Naturally the purported government of the purported nation of Pakistan sided with the jihadists. Thanks quesney.

[BagCamAddict]

From the bottom of the linked article:

Other analysts, including Rustam Shah Mohmand, a former ambassador to Afghanistan, said Pakistan would protest and close the supply lines for some time, but that ultimately "things will get back to normal."

Paul Beaver, a British security analyst, said relations were so bad that this incident might have no noticeable impact.

"I'm not sure U.S.-Pakistan relations could sink much lower than they are now," he said.

[Future Snake Eater]

Every single one of your points is based on the assumption that the Pakistani troops were sitting around, minding their own business, and we bombed them.

That’s a terribly flawed assumption.

[Doe Eyes]

We also need to re-assess crossing into sovereign airspace with drones and firing off missiles.

The attack was carried out with NATO helicopters and fighter jets, not drones.

[kearnyirish2]

Don’t worry, it’s coming, you Occupy Wall Street whacko! /s

[Navy Patriot]

NATO really means US forces.

Likely, yes, but more accurately NATO means US permission and backing.

NATO has several masters and therein lies the problem.

Western European EU nations gladly use NATO to subjugate Eastern European nations economically and protect the flow of oil that would go to China in a free market.

In doing so NATO has sided with the worst kind of Islamic terrorists and criminal elements, and against traditional Christian allies and friends of western culture.

Now they find out about the double cross planned from the start by their new "friends".

[tcrlaf]

“NATO really means US forces. Likely, yes, but more accurately NATO means US permission and backing.”

Calling it a “NATO” attack means framing the debate so as not to attach it to OBAMA and the DEMOCRATS.

Had this been just 3 short years ago, the headline would read:
“George Bush Attacks Pakistan, Kills 24 Paki Troops, Troop Supplies Cut Off”

With breaking updates on the hour.
I remember articles on KOS from 2008/2009 about how the war would be “Framed” to avoid attachment to Obama, like it was to Bush.

Sounds crazy, I know, but that’s how these people THINK, and we forget that, at our peril.

[ThermoNuclearWarrior]

Pakistan is our enemy, and will just try to use this to get money, when it was more than likely their fault. I would like to negotiate with them by telling them to get in line or we will kill their family. Treat them like they treat their people even if it isn't pretty. We can do it without having our guys personally do all the dirty work we wouldn't have shied away from in the past. That's how a weak Saddam controlled Iraq a lot better than our much more powerful military. We should have sat up a puppet regime their who controlled through brutality, and just turned a blind eye to it like we use to in the interest of our nation, and we would be better off now.