Whose turn is next, Syria, Iran or Pakistan ?

[emkhan]

All the anti america Muslim leaders are on target of america and its allies.
What do you think whose turn is next after Afghanistan and Iraq ?

[Karachi]

Pakistan/Iran are too powerful to be fully attacked, but maybe Syria could be next

[کیش]

Anybody is next. Libya was prime time example of how NATO can and will fight the next wars. Fund and train an army of thugs and rebels, while providing precision airstrikes. NATO doesn't really need to send a massive ground operation, when they can pay and train others.

So Syria, Iran/Pakistan are/will probably be next in that order.

[Talal]

doubt its pakistan, clinton clearly said that there was "no possibility of US boots on pak ground"

[کیش]

doubt its pakistan, clinton clearly said that there was "no possibility of US boots on pak ground"

What about the possibility of bombing Pakistan from the sky like Libya? They already bomb via drone, what's stopping them from bombing with an F-16?

[Admin Khan]

doubt its pakistan, clinton clearly said that there was "no possibility of US boots on pak ground"

US boots don't have to be on ground to put Pakistan in check. Remember, the US has many ways of getting it's job done.

[Talal]

i doubt it man, despite the fact that everyone here would like to see pakistan get bombed back to stone age..the reality is different, aint gon happen..drones do violate pakistan's sovereignty but would you call these as a full blow war ? i dont think so..

Despite all that crap that gets published about Pakistan, you would think that there would be a worldwide consensus on invading pakistan, but even Obama wouldnt back up his commander when he says that ISI is linked to haqqanis..Karzai whose right hand man and brother were "supposedly" killed by "ISI backed" elements said he would actually fight with pakistan against US if they decided to invade Pakistan..Even India would be against US invasion in Pakistan, china saudis, iran which pumped free oil to pakistan during every conflict.

its not something to brag, id rather wish pakistan wasnt involved in this conflict at all but we are and we gotta make due with what we got..Pakistan like i said is the only country among all the stakeholders that is pushing for a Pashtun centric agreement to end this war..because they know that no other solution will work for Afghanistan

[Talal]

WASHINGTON: Pakistan’s army chief has a point when he says that Afghanistan has to deal with its problems, instead of blaming Islamabad for them, says US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.



Her comments, in an interview to Fox News, follow US media reports that the Obama administration is warming up to Islamabad’s idea for holding direct talks with Fata-based Afghan militants.

Secretary Clinton concluded a two-day visit to Pakistan on Friday and according to US media reports the visit has helped Washington better understand Islamabad’s position.

After her talks with Pakistani leaders, Secretary Clinton seemed to acknowledge that “help with a negotiated settlement is perhaps the best the US can hope for from Pakistan”, the US media reported.

The United States, however, has also asked Pakistan to launch a military operation against Afghan militants, particularly the Haqqani network, which it says operates from the country’s tribal belt.

But during a news conference in Islamabad, Secretary Clinton publicly acknowledged direct contacts between US officials and representatives of the Haqqani network.

“This shift in the US stance could give Washington and Islamabad new room to cooperate on ending the Afghan war,” the US media commented.

In her interview with Fox News, Secretary Clinton, when asked to comment on Army Chief Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani’s recent statement that instead of blaming Pakistan for all its problems Afghanistan should try to deal with them first, appeared sympathetic to Islamabad’s position on this issue too.

“I think that he is saying it because, to some extent, Pakistan does believe that Afghanistan has to deal with its own problems and that they have problems,” she said.
[COLOR="rgb(139, 0, 0)"]
“I mean, if you’re sitting on the Pakistani side of the border, you say, ‘Look, we’ve lost 30,000 people to terrorism in the last 10 years, so we know what it’s like. We’re trying to deal with the many different forces at work in our society, so don’t blame us for all your problems’.”[/COLOR]

She added: “Nobody would be fair to say that all of either problems are anybody else’s fault. There do have to be decisions made in both Pakistan and Afghanistan to strengthen democracy and democratic institutions to deal with the security challenges.”

The United States, she said, was asking the Pakistanis to step up their cooperation in shutting down the safe havens because “it’s very hard to have a successful military campaign if the people you are seeking are constantly moving back across the border”.

[Soldat_Amir]

Hopefully Pakistan because Iran and Syria are not as dangerous.

[tor_khan]

^Pakistan, however, are more pliable and cosy with the US.

[Soldat_Amir]

^Pakistan, however, are more pliable and cosy with the US.

I agree to some extent, but the US does not want to leave Afghanistan with out some success which Pakistan has been preventing since day one.

If you can recall, operation airlift of evil, whereby Pakistan withdrew 100s of ISI officers and Talib figures from kunduz before the Yanks came into Afghanistan.

America has warned Pakistan on a number of occasions.

Pakistan will not be able to pull out the innocent card, and the issue of being cosy with the US will not be taken seriously by the Nato forces as more and more prominent figures of the US administration with Nato have warned Pakistan to stop supporting proxies in Afghanistan.

Members of the American congress have already requested the US to cut all ties and aid to Pakistan but as usual the Democrats are very soft on this and still forgive Pakistan for its role in Afghanistan.

Everyone in the region has had a problem with Pakistan, even recently the Iranians accused the ISI of supporting Baloch Sunni extremists in Iran.

The list is never ending.

[Haris]

Anybody is next. Libya was prime time example of how NATO can and will fight the next wars. Fund and train an army of thugs and rebels, while providing precision airstrikes. NATO doesn't really need to send a massive ground operation, when they can pay and train others.

It's certainly not a new strategy, America has been involved in many such operations of that nature in the past.

[KhyberKhan]

All the anti america Muslim leaders are on target of america and its allies.
What do you think whose turn is next after Afghanistan and Iraq ?

Hopefully Syria - the ruling elite are filthy secularist shias dominating a majority of sunni's.

[KhyberKhan]

doubt its pakistan, clinton clearly said that there was "no possibility of US boots on pak ground"

There's been US boots on Pakistan soil since the 60's and there has been a number of operations conducted by US special forces since 2001 inside Pakistans NWFP whilst embedding and training up F.C.

In Feb 2010 3 US soldiers died in Pakistan.

[Khyber Pass]

Pakistan IMO, its already getting there slowly.