Freebird Games Community

Community (Misc.) => General => Debates/Serious Discussions => Topic started by: Reives on October 31, 2008, 12:04:47 AM

Title: Cross-border attack in Pakistan without the consent of the Pakistanian governmen
Post by: Reives on October 31, 2008, 12:04:47 AM
Should U.S. allow itself to perform cross-border attacks to Pakistan without the Pakistani government's consent, given that intelligence states that leaders of terrorism groups are hiding within the borders of Pakistan?
Title: Re: Cross-border attack in Pakistan without the consent of the Pakistanian gover
Post by: Sizzle on October 31, 2008, 11:11:59 AM
Yep, how are they going to stop us?
If they wanna harbor Terrorist, fine we'll invade your border and get the Terrorist without your permission, it's not really like there gonna say; "Hey we're gonna invade the US now." Umm sure goodluck...

I'm tired of those terrorist thinking there so brave that they blow themselves up to kill innocent people, if they were really brave they'd stay and fight and not hide in the Pakistan Mountains, what a bunch of -cuss- 's I hope their all executed by the US and UK.

Edit:I mean, I hope their all executed by the US and UK on live television just so we can all laugh at them.
(I hate them with a passion)
Title: Re: Cross-border attack in Pakistan without the consent of the Pakistanian gover
Post by: Sarkilas on October 31, 2008, 01:03:30 PM
I think you somehow misunderstood the question. He stated whether the US should allow themselves to enter without their consent. Of course they can if they want, cause they have a low chance of being stopped, but that doesn't exactly answer the OP.

Personally I have no direct opinion on this, as I don't know much about it. Just thought I'd point that out.
Title: Re: Cross-border attack in Pakistan without the consent of the Pakistanian gover
Post by: Reives on October 31, 2008, 01:23:11 PM
I'll be arguing against it for the sake of discussion then. c:

First of all, it's not a resolution about whether or not they can stop us, but whether or not we should enroll ourself in such an act to begin with. And second of all, they may not be(are not) harboring terrorists voluntarily, but rather the terrorists could have entered the region themselves.

Here are my arguments against the notion that the U.S. should pass this resolution:

1. Antagonizing not only the Pakistani people, but the U.S. as well.
Pakistan itself is not an entity of terrorism to US, and by performing direct attacks to its region without consent is an unfair portrayal of association with antagonism to the third party Pakistani people. But to the U.S., that's not as important as the sole interest of U.S. itself - which this also affects negatively. Stomping around and violating the sovereignty of other countries without consent for one's own interest can be categorized along with the past muscle-ruled actions as the kind of decisions that has inflamed the fundamental root of terrorism to begin with. This can be evidenced by the fact that since 2000, the reputation of the U.S. as perceived around the world has declined steeply - one of the biggest drop-points was the war in Iraq. And hence, by passing the resolution, it is spraying oil on the fire of the fundamental cause of the problem, in a simple attempt to deal with the same problem at a much less significant face-value.

2. The uncertainty and failure of Intelligence.
So the Intelligence Department says that certain terrorists are hiding in Pakistan - but this is far from "fact". The most prominent example is the case of Weapons of Mass Destruction; Intelligence said it's there, but where is it? And needless to say, its failure has contributed largely to the drop of reputation of US on the world-stage. By passing the topic's resolution, this would only open up the potential for a wound in the similar aspect all over again.

3. Hypocritical to U.S.'s internal policies.
The goal of this resolution is to retrieve wanted persons within another country. But what is the U.S.'s own internal policy on people wanted by other nations who are taking refuge within the U.S.? The leader of a certain spiritual cult in China has escaped to the U.S., and has been wanted. The details is unnecessary as the main point stands that it is one who is wanted by a nation, just as the ones potentially hiding within the borders of Pakistan who are wanted by the U.S.. But yet, while wanted by another nation's government, the U.S. refuses to hand out persons wanted by other nations who were hiding within its border; yet it is pursuing the very same goal to another nation (Pakistan) itself.

4. An international affair that results in the casualty of a third party, unsubjected to the source of evil.
While it is true that U.S. is affected by terrorism, it is also important to note that the Pakistani people will be affected by an U.S. attack to within its borders as well. Thousands of innocent people have been killed in the Iraqi war, who is to say that it won't happen to Pakistan? It is also important to note that unlike Iraq, Pakistan is not the direct target of the goal of the attack to begin with. Not to mention that Al-Qaeda is an organization spanned across over 50 nations (forgot the exact number, may be higher) around the world - to violate a third-party country's sovereignty in order to stab an elephant's toe is highly questionable in its net-benefit (or net-loss, rather) to begin with. 

5. The relations with Pakistan, and the co-operation that is necessary is to be harmed
Needless to say that such an act would harm the relations between the U.S. and the Pakistani government. Now, let's look at this problem in the core - even if the terrorists are hidden within Pakistan, what would the effect of the loss of cooperation from the Pakistani government? Atrocious. I think it is fair to say that no nation knows of a nation more than that nation itself - this especially applies to an extremely terrain-complicated region of Pakistan itself. The relations with Pakistani government is an essential component to the success of operations of the targets' captures, and it is counter-productive to trot within its borders without consent and harm this highly valuable relation to begin with.

All these points goes to show that on the base level where the root of the problem lies, it is an immensely ineffective and counter-productive move in more than an alarming amount of perspectives; not only to Pakistan but also to U.S. A crisis does not call for a quick back-hand solution, but rather a closer examination of the problem from its very fundamentals; that of which would be further inflamed by the passing of this resolution.