• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Was Pakistan's sovereign a lesser concern?

Should have Pakistan's sovereign been a lesser concern for the US?


  • Total voters
    22

kaya'08

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 25, 2008
Messages
6,363
Reaction score
1,318
Location
British Turk
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
The Pakistani's are very unhappy that the American's flew into their airspace, landed on their turf and shot up a building for 40 minutes (and then left behind a downed helicopter and a blazing mansion).

There is no doubt much criticism will be made against America in the way of Pakistan, and the anti-American axis will probably just try and use it as an example of America's "imperialism" and "disregard for national sovereign".

The question here is however, was Obama right in deeming a clear violation of Pakistani sovereign and international law as a lesser concern considering the importance and scope of the mission at hand?
 
Last edited:
America has been running airstrikes into Pakistan territory with candid approval for quite a while, I think this was justified.
 
The Pakistani's are very unhappy that the American's flew into their airspace, landed on their turf and shot up a building for 40 minutes (and then left behind a downed helicopter and a blazing mansion).

There is no doubt much criticism will be made against America in that respect especially in the way of Pakistan and the anti-American axis will probably just try and use it as an example of America's "imperialism" and "disregard for national sovereign".

The question here is, was Obama right in deeming a clear violation of Pakistan and international law as a lesser concern considering the important and scope of the mission at hand?

This definitely falls under the old adage:

Sometimes it's much easier to apologize than to ask permission.
 
It is different, but it also shows that there is a precedent there.

One could argue that Osama just wasn't worth the violation into Pakistan and the political risk associated with doing that because of his marginalization in Al Qaeda and subsequent irrelevance after 9/11, and that the air strikes are targeting real and current threats. What do you think?
 
It was justified.
 
Yes, it was justified. Pakistan couldn't be trusted with the information. Given the double game they've been playing for a decade, I'm not especially inclined to care about their sovereignty when it comes to killing the world's most wanted man.
 
When it comes to this, **** Pakistan!
 
Public statements aside, the Pakistani government is tacitly allowing strikes on their soil. The U.S. pays a fortune in bribes for said privilege. The problem is that Pakistan is a highly disorganized country and many parts of the government are not in agreement with there so called leaders. These other elements probably were propping up Bin laden. Frankly, the Pakistani military has the power to prevent such incursions and as long as they take no action, one can get away with such attacks.
 
The Pakistani's are very unhappy that the American's flew into their airspace, landed on their turf and shot up a building for 40 minutes (and then left behind a downed helicopter and a blazing mansion).

The Americans are very unhappy that the Pakistanis let bin Laden build a fortress outside of Islamabad, surrounded by official Pakistani military installations, and allowed him free reign in their country for five freaking years while swearing to Allah that he was never inside of their borders.

There is no doubt much criticism will be made against America in the way of Pakistan, and the anti-American axis will probably just try and use it as an example of America's "imperialism" and "disregard for national sovereign".

The anti-American axis would point to an American with a loud shirt and a tourist visa as an example of America's "imperialism" and "disregard for national sovereignty"... so frankly nothing we do or don't do would change their views. Besides, we've done a lot of disregarding national sovereignty with Afghanistan and Iraq. Pakistan isn't special. :mrgreen:

The question here is however, was Obama right in deeming a clear violation of Pakistani sovereign and international law as a lesser concern considering the importance and scope of the mission at hand?

Yep, just as any nation would have been justified in orchestrating a snatch-and-grab mission for Slobodan Milošević or any other globally wanted terrorist. Countries that harbor terrorist leaders and war criminals have been put on alert.
 
This definitely falls under the old adage:

i have to disagree; i see no need to apologize. Musharraf released a statement claiming that it was an inexcusable violation of pakistani soveriegnty etc. for us to pull off the raid. well musharraf, you know what else is inexcusable? THE ISI PROTECTING OSAMA F'ING BIN LADEN. :)
 
One could argue that Osama just wasn't worth the violation into Pakistan and the political risk associated with doing that because of his marginalization in Al Qaeda and subsequent irrelevance after 9/11, and that the air strikes are targeting real and current threats. What do you think?

Well history shows he was a huge threat, and there's the possibility he could be again, so I guess it all goes back to precedent again.
 
i have to disagree; i see no need to apologize. Musharraf released a statement claiming that it was an inexcusable violation of pakistani soveriegnty etc. for us to pull off the raid. well musharraf, you know what else is inexcusable? THE ISI PROTECTING OSAMA F'ING BIN LADEN. :)

Damn right will. If you can't straighten up your own house, we'll come in and do it for you.
 
The Pakistani's are very unhappy that the American's flew into their airspace, landed on their turf and shot up a building for 40 minutes (and then left behind a downed helicopter and a blazing mansion).

There is no doubt much criticism will be made against America in the way of Pakistan, and the anti-American axis will probably just try and use it as an example of America's "imperialism" and "disregard for national sovereign".

The question here is however, was Obama right in deeming a clear violation of Pakistani sovereign and international law as a lesser concern considering the importance and scope of the mission at hand?

It was absolutely worth it. Pakistan has been unreliable ally at best, a treacherous one at worst. Their soveriegnty was clearly a secondary concern to bringing America's worst mass murderer to justice, especially considering Pakistan has no real ability to retaliate. They need us far more than we need them.

There may be some fallout and criticism over our violation of their soveriegnty, but a message was sent. If you want your soveriegnty respected, don't harbor terrorists. Another message was sent by Osama's death, no one can escape American justice. If you attack us, we will find you. Even if it takes ten years, we will track you down, find you, and kill you. I'm not a Obama fan at all, but he absolutely made the right call to go in and get bin Laden. I applaud him for making the right call on a tough decision.
 
It was necessary, but it was poorly handled.
 
America has been running airstrikes into Pakistan territory with candid approval for quite a while, I think this was justified.

That Pakistan did not know that a wanted mass murderer was openly(more or less) residing in a "mansion" in the suburbs of their major city is very hard to believe.
That they support(to an extent) terrorism and killing against us is more pausible.
Just what the hell did they expect ?
Pakistan - grow up !
 
The Pakistani's (when i say "Pakistani's" i mean their government, no insult intended) are very two faced. I just DO NOT believe they are wholly committed to rooting out terrorism.
 
The Pakistani's are very unhappy that the American's flew into their airspace, landed on their turf and shot up a building for 40 minutes (and then left behind a downed helicopter and a blazing mansion).

There is no doubt much criticism will be made against America in the way of Pakistan, and the anti-American axis will probably just try and use it as an example of America's "imperialism" and "disregard for national sovereign".

The question here is however, was Obama right in deeming a clear violation of Pakistani sovereign and international law as a lesser concern considering the importance and scope of the mission at hand?

If Pakistan was all that worried about their sovereign then they would not be letting the US fly predator drones or conduct military operations in their country. I know if I was a Pakistani I would be wanting my government's head on a silver platter for allowing that kind of **** to go on. How many Americans would be in a uproar if our government allowed the British,Israel or any other country to fly armed predator drones and conduct military operations in our country? Of course Pakistan allowing us to basically **** on their sovereignty works out of for us seeing how one of the worlds' most evil SOB is now dead.
 
If anything Pakistan should be ashamed of themselves for not finding osama living in such an obvious place. They weren't the ones who had a hiding criminal plan a terrorist attack against them that killed thousands of people.
 
Pakistan is a failed corrupted state full of Islamists and other morons, no one should have any interest for supposed "sovereignty" of this Banana Republic. Obama is gradually getting more right, that's good.
 
Pakistan is a failed corrupted state full of Islamists and other morons, no one should have any interest for supposed "sovereignty" of this Banana Republic. Obama is gradually getting more right, that's good.

Head's up for Mr Bush too.
 
Back
Top Bottom