September 30, 2010

Pakistan Blocks NATO Supply Routes After Border Attack Kills Several Soldiers (or Maybe "Soldiers")
— Ace

This isn't on Obama so much as it's just the unavoidable tension of the situation: Pakistan is a state supporter of terrorism, period, and has perhaps the most terrorist-loving population on earth. Their cooperation is bought and coerced; at some point, they're going to declare allegiance to Team Terror.

This will probably pass, as it's hopefully just a bit of diplomatic theater; if not, I don't know what.

Pakistani authorities blocked a vital supply route for NATO troops fighting in Afghanistan on Thursday after the killing of three soldiers in two NATO cross-border incursions, officials said.

Trucks and fuel tankers for foreign forces in Afghanistan were stopped at the Torkham border post in the Khyber tribal region near the city of Peshawar, hours after the raid.

"Yes, the NATO supplies have been stopped. It has been done locally," a senior security official told Reuters on condition of anonymity.


Posted by: Ace at 09:17 AM | Comments (62)
Post contains 176 words, total size 1 kb.

1
The Taliban hard at work.

Posted by: Dang Straights at September 30, 2010 09:18 AM (fx8sm)

2 Can't blame me, we're on recess. Now, watch this drive...

Posted by: Barry O at September 30, 2010 09:21 AM (FcR7P)

3 So, uh, why did Hussein go there again?

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at September 30, 2010 09:22 AM (5aa4z)

4 How's that out reach going Barry?

Posted by: nevergiveup at September 30, 2010 09:24 AM (0GFWk)

5 We're on it, sir!

Posted by: NASA. at September 30, 2010 09:25 AM (gQLr2)

6 Oh and remember Mushariff was the bad guy. The Democrats wanted this guy in power?

Posted by: nevergiveup at September 30, 2010 09:26 AM (0GFWk)

7 Pakistan wasn't so much of a terrorist loving country until Zbigniew Brzezinski got the brilliant idea to turn them into one to fight the Russian occupation.  Another of Jimmy's decisions still killing people to this day.


Posted by: crosspatch at September 30, 2010 09:26 AM (ZbLJZ)

8 Jesus where is George S. Patton when you need him? Think they would stop his trucks?

Posted by: dagny at September 30, 2010 09:27 AM (2yvas)

9 We're on it, sir! Posted by: NASA. at September 30, 2010 02:25 PM (gQLr2) Thats: SIR, We're on it, SIR!

Posted by: nevergiveup at September 30, 2010 09:27 AM (0GFWk)

10 Ahhhh. The "good" war.

Posted by: dagny at September 30, 2010 09:27 AM (2yvas)

11 you want a Coke with that tank of gas? Hey, hey....

Posted by: Pak-ek-stan at September 30, 2010 09:27 AM (zqzYV)

12 Jesus where is George S. Patton when you need him? Think they would stop his trucks? Posted by: dagny at September 30, 2010 02:27 PM (2yvas) Not unless they wanted to swim with the donkeys

Posted by: nevergiveup at September 30, 2010 09:28 AM (0GFWk)

13 Sounds like an act of war to me.

Posted by: Unclefacts, AoSHQ Pro Debate Team at September 30, 2010 09:29 AM (eCAn3)

14 The Mohammedan Mouthpiece will straighten this out. A few "gifts" (nudge nudge, wink wink) of our dollars to the right terrorists, a little "cooperation" with the Tahl--ee--bahn, a few more concessions to worldwide Muzzies and abject, groveling apologies for our criminal misbehavior, ought to make the peace-loving Pakis calm right down.

That, or unconditional U.S. surrender.

Posted by: MrScribbler at September 30, 2010 09:29 AM (Ulu3i)

15 12 Jesus where is George S. Patton when you need him? Think they would stop his trucks?
Posted by: dagny at September 30, 2010 02:27 PM (2yvas)

Not unless they wanted to swim with the donkeys

Posted by: nevergiveup at September 30, 2010 02:28 PM (0GFWk)

He's with me, we're playing "Medal of Honor" on a 72" screen. You want me to get him?

Posted by: Jesus at September 30, 2010 09:29 AM (zqzYV)

16 The US strikes on Pakistani soil are going to push the Pakistanis to the point of withdrawing all cooperation with NATO and the US out of sheer nationalist pride.  I'm going to laugh and laugh when Obama is finally forced into the position of telling Pakistan, "you're either with us or with the terrorists."    And I'll laugh even more when they tell him, "in that case, we're with the terrorists," knowing that he won't do jack shit about it.

Posted by: stuiec at September 30, 2010 09:30 AM (fgCQL)

Posted by: USAF at September 30, 2010 09:30 AM (pRKLf)

18 Thats: SIR, We're on it, SIR!

Hey..I prefer MR PRESIDENT...please.. I've worked really really hard for that title. 

Posted by: BHO channeling Barbara Boxer at September 30, 2010 09:31 AM (J5Hcw)

19 Wipe them out. All of them. Use dirty nukes and then dump in huge loads of pesticide so that even their fucking cockroaches turn tits up. Fuck'em.

Posted by: Inspector Asshole at September 30, 2010 09:33 AM (6Vkv/)

20 Thats: SIR, We're on it, SIR!

Did I hear you say "Boy", sounded like:
BOY, We're on it, BOY

Posted by: Maureen Down at September 30, 2010 09:33 AM (zqzYV)

21

Funny thing is, all Obama did during the campaign was bitch whine and moan about how if we'd just focused on getting Osama Bin Laden we'd have him by now.

Let's see, it's been two years now and... hmm.. still no Bin Laden.

If anything the situation is getting steadily worse. 

Posted by: StuckOnStupid at September 30, 2010 09:34 AM (e8T35)

22

Heard a Pakistani official say today "Are we an ally or an enemy?"

My question exactly.  

Posted by: Beagle at September 30, 2010 09:35 AM (sOtz/)

23 19 Wipe them out. All of them. Use dirty nukes and then dump in huge loads of pesticide so that even their fucking cockroaches turn tits up. Fuck'em.

Posted by: Inspector Asshole at September 30, 2010 02:33 PM (6Vkv/)

I agree

http://tinyurl.com/yg7rcs7

Posted by: Darth Sidious at September 30, 2010 09:36 AM (zqzYV)

24
Now, watch this drive...

That line just doesn't stop being funny.  I crack up every time I see it in his non-response to a crisis.

They've stopped talking about how often he plays golf though, did anyone notice?

Posted by: Dang Straights at September 30, 2010 09:37 AM (fx8sm)

25 I have an instant answer to Pakistan: threaten to sell long-range missile interceptors to India.  Poof: instant cooperation.

Posted by: AllenG at September 30, 2010 09:37 AM (8y9MW)

26 Barry just needs to make a youtube video for Pokee-sthan. That will clear things up

Posted by: TheQuietMan at September 30, 2010 09:37 AM (1Jaio)

27 Let loose the Dogs of War India.

Posted by: Grab them Nukes first, boys at September 30, 2010 09:38 AM (Zi+FQ)

28 Posted by: stuiec at September 30, 2010 02:30 PM (fgCQL)

ISI is mostly with the terrorists already, and the rest of the government isn't far behind. They know what would happen if they actually went after Al Quaeda and the other Islamists. There would be a nasty little civil war, and my money is on the terrorists.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo ( NJConservative) at September 30, 2010 09:38 AM (LH6ir)

29 I have an instant answer to Pakistan: threaten to sell long-range missile interceptors to India. Poof: instant cooperation. Posted by: AllenG at September 30, 2010 02:37 PM (8y9MW) Well because of the proximity of India to pakistan they only need short range interceptors and Israel is on it.

Posted by: nevergiveup at September 30, 2010 09:39 AM (0GFWk)

30 25 I have an instant answer to Pakistan: threaten to sell long-range missile interceptors to India.  Poof: instant cooperation.

Great idea, along with selling the Indians some other advanced weaponry. 

Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at September 30, 2010 09:39 AM (9hSKh)

31 Let loose the Dogs of War India.

We have pleased to locate all the dams and "whoosh" is like flush the toilet, yes?

Posted by: Indian General Staff at September 30, 2010 09:40 AM (5aa4z)

32 I'm going to laugh and laugh when Obama is finally forced into the position of telling Pakistan, "you're either with us or with the terrorists."    And I'll laugh even more when they tell him, "in that case, we're with the terrorists," knowing that he won't do jack shit about it.
Posted by: stuiec at September 30, 2010 02:30 PM

Don't forget Osama Obama's next line after the Pakis say that.

"What a relief, guys...so am I!"

Posted by: MrScribbler at September 30, 2010 09:40 AM (Ulu3i)

33 Great idea, along with selling the Indians some other advanced weaponry. Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at September 30, 2010 02:39 PM (9hSKh) We are, We are

Posted by: Israel at September 30, 2010 09:40 AM (0GFWk)

34 This will probably pass, as it's hopefully just a bit of diplomatic theater; if not, I don't know what. The problem is that the Paks have us by the short and curlies because they have the only viable supply route into A-stan.

Posted by: joncelli at September 30, 2010 09:41 AM (RD7QR)

35 I'll just have to add Packer stan to the list of shitholes that can kiss my ass. I say let India do what they want to do there.

Posted by: maddogg at September 30, 2010 09:43 AM (OlN4e)

36

Actaully, if Patton was in charge in Afgan... he would just consider his supplies being cut as business as usual...

In WWII, it was the Brits through Politics... now the Paikis...

Posted by: Romeo13 at September 30, 2010 09:43 AM (AdK6a)

37 The problem is that the Paks have us by the short and curlies because they have the only viable supply route into A-stan.

Iran.  It's the other center square on the chessboard.  Anybody who ever thought that victory didn't run through Tehran is an idiot.

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at September 30, 2010 09:44 AM (5aa4z)

38 The problem is that the Paks have us by the short and curlies because they have the only viable supply route into A-stan.

Posted by: joncelli at September 30, 2010 02:41 PM (RD7QR)

I am sure we can supply Afghanistan from the air.

Posted by: Zombie Hermann Goering at September 30, 2010 09:44 AM (sOtz/)

39 @nevergiveup: okay, fair enough.  But you get the point.

I don't think it would matter how rabidly anti-Western Pakistan got: if India had the capacity to knock down their nukes, and the West even _looked_ like we were going to give them permission to get to into the fight they so desperately want, the Pakis would come crying for help willing to do anything we asked...

Posted by: AllenG at September 30, 2010 09:44 AM (8y9MW)

40 I'll just have to add Packer stan to the list of shitholes that can kiss my ass. I say let India do what they want to do there. Posted by: maddogg at September 30, 2010 02:43 PM (OlN4e) ONe day it may dawn on America that it's 2 best friends are those 2 canary countries on the front lines and they both Start with an "I". As go Israel and India so goes the West.

Posted by: nevergiveup at September 30, 2010 09:45 AM (0GFWk)

41 #37  Iran.  It's the other center square on the chessboard.  Anybody who ever thought that victory didn't run through Tehran is an idiot.

Why do I need another victory?  I already won!

Posted by: Barrack (Chip Diller) Obame at September 30, 2010 09:46 AM (9hSKh)

42 Anybody who ever thought that victory didn't run through Tehran is an idiot.

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at September 30, 2010 02:44 PM (5aa4z)

Those ayatollahs have needed bombing since 1979, it's long overdue.  

I'm trying to figure out how the situtaton gets better when they have nukes and we're trying to 'contain' them.   Which seems to be the accepted trajectory of policy these days. 

Posted by: Beagle at September 30, 2010 09:46 AM (sOtz/)

43 While we are doing air strikes in Pakistan, lets swing over to Iran and scatter some ordnance around the desert. Give the Persians something to think about.

Posted by: maddogg at September 30, 2010 09:47 AM (OlN4e)

44 I'm trying to figure out how the situtaton gets better when they have nukes and we're trying to 'contain' them.

It gets a lot better if you consider "victory" as "nutting the US".  Then it makes perfect sense.

Can I repeat that Obama is the enemy?

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at September 30, 2010 09:50 AM (5aa4z)

45

He's with me, we're playing "Medal of Honor" on a 72" screen. You want me to get him?

Posted by: Jesus at September 30, 2010 02:29 PM (zqzYV)

Who's winning?

Posted by: dagny at September 30, 2010 09:51 AM (2yvas)

46 They know they can get away with it because Dick Cheney's war cock is not around. He threatened to reduce the country to ashes.

Posted by: Vic at September 30, 2010 09:54 AM (/jbAw)

47 Eventually China or India will clean up the Paki shithole. I prefer India, but China's more likely.

Posted by: Bugler at September 30, 2010 09:58 AM (VXBR1)

48

He's with me, we're playing "Medal of Honor" on a 72" screen. You want me to get him?

Posted by: Jesus at September 30, 2010 02:29 PM (zqzYV)

Who's winning?

Posted by: dagny at September 30, 2010 02:51 PM (2yvas)

Patton does... I keep turning the other cheek... then he shoots me agian... but I've got unlimited resurects...

Posted by: Jusus at September 30, 2010 10:01 AM (AdK6a)

49 Since when did it become NATO?? If a Republican were in office it would be Americans Attack Strategic Ally!! Cowboy Imperialism!!..Now it's "just" NATO? Pussy Press.

Posted by: Hill Country Texan at September 30, 2010 10:02 AM (W9HiJ)

50

We have created somthing of an alternate supply line through Russia... Caspian Sea and Turkmanistan... but its limited by what the Russians will allow through their territory.

But our logistics in that area are really complicated, due to an lack of a reasonable Road or Rail system..

Posted by: Romeo13 at September 30, 2010 10:08 AM (AdK6a)

51

It's time to make all these goat fuckers and their shit hole countries glow in the dark. Why the HELL are we fuckin around with these assholes? Back in my day we shot, bomber, and everything else first and then if we gave a shit we would ask questions....and we didn't give a shit. We were trained to kill and that's what the hell we did, end of story.

Fuck this pussy crap, I'm goin to a 7-11 and kick the shit out of a clerk.

Posted by: Old Hippie Vet at September 30, 2010 10:16 AM (OefT/)

52 Time to open a new supply route through Iran.

Posted by: crosspatch at September 30, 2010 10:24 AM (ZbLJZ)

53 Actually what we should be doing since the turd hamper in chief has decided to not win is pull the fk out now and not worry about a supply line.

Posted by: Vic at September 30, 2010 10:29 AM (/jbAw)

54

The problem is that the Paks have us by the short and curlies because they have the only viable supply route into A-stan.

Anybody in the Belochistan region want independence? Gwadar would make a swell capital and port I hear.

Posted by: Curmudgeon at September 30, 2010 10:35 AM (ujg0T)

55

I think this is a bit of theater -- Pakistan is on the verge of imploding and the government is certainly unstable.  They would very much like to stay straddling the fence as they are now. I think they will pull stunts like this as long as possible just to continue riding the fence.  As for their nukes -- well, there are ways of neutralizing those which I don't think the Paks want to find out about.

 However, this does point to a problem that we have: our supply lines are vulnerable, and a deal with Russia is not a completely great option (plus Clinton is all for it -- which means it's probably a very bad idea for us) -- it would likely involve money payments and technology/hardware sharing, traditionally a good way to get royally screwed by Russians; India is our most safe bet, but it is not an ideal one either -- they are not really on our side or even all that amenable, as the budding relations with that country have been squandered to a certain degree in the last 2 years; we also have a problem with our EU allies (I don't know if this is the EU as a singularity or EU plural, but it is coming from the EU and it is a problem they are foisting on us) not wanting the U.S. to have access to flight passenger information from third countries (like Pakistan) -- this leaves us very wide open to domestic attack, and without intelligence coming from Waziristan we could very much be left in the dark (moreso than we are now).  So...we are stuck in Afghanistan, conducting missions into Pakistan, with allies that have no qualms about stabbing us in the back and would be allies that cannot be trusted as far as you can kick them.

As for unleashing total war...if we're going to do that, then we'd better save that for a more worthy target than freaking APak.  So, I doubt that's going to happen either -- not right now at least.

Posted by: unknown jane at September 30, 2010 11:08 AM (5/yRG)

56

The Red Cross was puzzled by the lack of American donations after the recent Pakistan floods. 

The Germans were equally puzzled by the lack of American aid after the fire-bombing of Dresden.

Some people can't find a pattern in a dress shop.

Posted by: MarkD at September 30, 2010 11:52 AM (YhZfg)

57

Let me be clear. As I've said before...

Pock-eeee-stan.

 

Posted by: President Simpleton at September 30, 2010 11:55 AM (QoR4a)

58

An extended blockade of Pakistani supply routes would leave 50,000+ American soldiers stranded and subject to rapidly dwindling inventory of food, water and ammunition, limited exits, and possible annihilation by Taliban->Pakistani->Saudi(financed) forces.

China has a mutual defence pact alliance with Pakistan and is the principle supplier of their nuclear weapons arsenal.

"Total War" with Pakistan, or a even a collapse of the Pakistani government will quickly draw China and India into the vortex.  If we go with such action it must involve immediate and overwhelming destruction of the Pakistani forces before the Chinese can react, followed by ruthless and relentless control over land routes to Afganistan.

I cannot see the Obama administration engaging in such a commitment.  It appears to me that they are on the side of America's enemies.

Rock <-(USA) ->Hard Place

October surprise?

Posted by: MEP at September 30, 2010 01:28 PM (/PYJj)

59

59  Yeah, pretty much could be how it plays out.  Although I don't think it's as bleak a picture in reality (there are other things at work here) -- I think this is primarily going to be used to get the American public clamoring for a pull out...which gives the Dems (or at least one Dem) a boost at the polls if they do it (which is what they want on all counts).

Of course, there are consequences to this.

Posted by: unknown jane at September 30, 2010 01:53 PM (5/yRG)

60

We put up with this shit in Korea and Viet Nam - ENOUGH ALREADY!

If President Numbnuts had a pair he'd call Pakistan and tell them 'no sanctuary'. If anyone attacks NATO troops and runs for it we'll chase them down right to the steps of the Presidential Palace and gut them in front of G*d and everybody. If you get in the way you get dead. Period.

But then we've got Barry... oh well, it was a nice dream while it lasted.

Posted by: chuck in st paul at October 01, 2010 05:08 AM (adr25)

61 I'm worried; this has Serbia/1914 written all over it... Sincerely, Tsar Nicholas II

Posted by: PSGInfinity at October 01, 2010 06:03 PM (7Gcxu)

Posted by: Ray Ban Sunglasses at July 05, 2011 05:13 PM (q1dbV)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
102kb generated in CPU 0.08, elapsed 1.1429 seconds.
62 queries taking 1.0877 seconds, 298 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.