NYTimes: Pakistan has lost control of Taliban tribal regions

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by whitecity, Jan 22, 2006.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Hmmmm!

    I thought the NYT was only good for printing scurrillous untruths to discredit the Bush Administration. Suddenly you've started waving their articles to support your agenda. Is this a scurillious untruth that you like? Funny that.


    Oh. And another point.

    If "Pakistan has [truely] lost control of Taliban tribal regions", it seems more like an argument for a US invasion of Pakistan than a justification to lob a PGM into a house here and a house there. Now, are you going to invade Pakistan before or after Iran? Before or after Syria?

    Let's just look at Pakistan's credentials in the US 'reason for war' tick-card:
    Tick - Islamic state?
    Tick - Possessor of WMD? (Irrefutably and current not projected)
    Tick - Un-democratic leadership?
    Tick - Direct connection with 9/11?
    Tick - Safe haven for al-Qaida?
    X - Oil rich state?

    Bar the last one, looks like an open and shut case for invasion to me.

  2. Believe it or not they came out today for striking Iran. Must be because Hilary said we should yesterday. Its all politics. If we hit Iran tonight, tomarrow they would be berating Bush for doing it.
  3. Tomahawk6;

    I took a look at the NYT website and found an editorial. It presumes to lecture the Russian and Chinese governments that they must oppose Iranian control of the nuclear fuel cycle in word and deed. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/22/opinion/22sun2.html

    I couldn't find anything in the NYT online that explicitly advocated a strike on Iran. Have you got a link?

    NYT and the Washington Post, it seems to me, are "semi-official" voices of the Washington establishment somewhat similar to, say, Pravda during the Brezhnev years.

    If either of them openly come out for an assault on Iran we could then infer that the attack would soon follow.
  4. Andy Pipkin
    I think that Crab was refering to American Dominiion as the Troll.
    Although AD being an Opinionated idiot most of the time, would that exclude, or make him a Troll?

    Personally I find his rants more boring than anything else.
  5. ID, my comment was a bit tongue-in-cheek, coming after papercut's listing of various tin-foil hat conspiracy sites.
  6. NYT link. One point of fact NK did not unfreeze its program in 2003, rather they never had it frozen which is how they came up with a nuclear weapon.


    Hillary's speech.

    Published: January 19, 2006

    Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton last night criticized the Bush administration for its response to Iran's nuclear program, saying it had chosen to "downplay" the crisis over the past several years.

    In a speech at Princeton University, Mrs. Clinton, a New York Democrat, joined the Bush administration's call for sanctions against Iran, and also said that the threat of military action against nuclear sites should not be ruled out.

    But she was critical of the administration for letting European nations take the lead in negotiations over the last several years.

    "I believe that we lost critical time in dealing with Iran because the White House chose to downplay the threats and to outsource the negotiations," Ms. Clinton said, according to a transcript of the speech published by The Daily Princetonian. "I don't believe you face threats like Iran or North Korea by outsourcing it to others and standing on the sidelines."

    Since 2002 Britain, France and Germany have led talks meant to assure that Tehran's nuclear program would not give it the capacity to build weapons. The three countries last week declared that Iran's decision to resume nuclear research had brought the talks to an end, and, with the United States in support, asked that the matter be sent to the United Nations Security Council for possible action.

    The Bush administration has long favored sanctions, but had deferred action at the request of the European nations, who convinced Iran in 2003 to suspend its nuclear program. Mr. Bush last week said that he would pursue a vigorous diplomatic push to get as many countries as possible on board for possible United Nations action. On North Korea, the Bush administration has refused that nation's request for direct talks over its nuclear program and instead has worked in concert with China, South Korea, Russia and Japan.

    Iran today continued to give mixed signals in reaction to the push for a United Nations referral. Its oil minister, Davoud Danesh-Jafari, told the official Iranian news agency that "in case of sanctions, other countries will suffer as well as Iran."

    "One of the consequences will be the unleashing of a crisis in the oil sector and particularly a price hike," he said, according to Reuters.

    At the same time, Iran's top nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, told the BBC that his country wanted a compromise and hoped to resume the European talks.

    "They should not ask a brave nation with very good scientists not to engage in nuclear research," he said. "If they want guarantees of no diversion of nuclear fuel we can reach a formula acceptable to both sides."

    The United States and Europe have made clear that they will not accept any program that includes research that would give Tehran the know-how to develop weapons.

    In her Princeton speech, Ms. Clinton spoke of the gravity of Iran's program in terms similar to those used by the Administration.

    "Let's be clear about the threat we face," Ms. Clinton said. "A nuclear Iran is a danger to Israel, to its neighbors and beyond."

    "We cannot and should not - must not - permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons," she said. "In order to prevent that from occurring, we must have more support vigorously and publicly expressed by China and Russia, and we must move as quickly as feasible for sanctions in the United Nations."

    The United States and the European nations have called for an emergency meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency on Feb. 2, and have begun circulating a draft resolution that would refer Iran to the Security Council.

    Russia and China have both expressed opposition to sanctions, at least at this point, and are reluctant even to support a Security Council referral. The United States and the European nations have sought to reassure Russia and China that, for now, referral to the Security Council will not necessarily lead to sanctions.

    Last week, Senator Evan Bayh, an Indiana Democrat, said that the Bush administration was correct in not ruling out possible military action to block an Iranian nuclear weapons program, but stressed that force should only be used after every other measure had been exhausted.

    In general, Democrats have been supportive of the administration decision to take a back seat to the Europeans in negotiations, and many have expressed alarm whenever the conservative Republicans engaged in a more aggressive posture toward Iran.

    Ms. Clinton's speech last night laid out a markedly tougher approach. She has already been under fire from many liberal activists in the Democratic party for her support of the war in Iraq and refusal to call for an immediate American pullout.

    Iraq also figured in Ms. Clinton's speech, as she so drew a link between the Iranian conflict and events there. Shiite parties with close links to Iran appear to have been the biggest winners in last month's Iraqi elections, whose final results are to be released soon.

    "Part of the problem that we confront with Iran today is, of course, its involvement in and influence over Iraq," she said.

    Ms. Clinton said she was against an immediate military pullout, but said the American military commitment should not be "open ended."

    "If last December's elections lead to a successful Iraqi government, that should allow us to start drawing down our troops during this year while leaving behind a smaller contingent in safe areas with greater intelligence and quick-strike capabilities," she said.

    "That will help us stabilize the new Iraqi government," Ms. Clinton said. "It will send a message to Iran that they do not have a free hand in Iraq despite their considerable influence and personal and religious connections there."
  7. ViroBono

    ViroBono LE Moderator

    So, American Dominions wouldn't have minded if we'd launched rocket attacks against various places in the US where IRA fugitives had gone to ground, then.

    As for the Pakistani Army not controlling the border, perhaps AD can explain how the US bombing their countrymen is likely to encourage them?
  8. Take your pick, Andy. :lol: I say the rest of us should step back and let A_D and Papercut go at it- it might be quite interesting for a while- then we can just throw it in the Arrsehole.
  9. That's a very unfair question. It's a grey question that requires more than a yes/no answer and some original thought. If you would kindly reword it in a fashion that AD and his ilk understand, black and/or white, then maybe you will get a response.
  10. I've read, and reread, both texts - the one you posted and the one you linked. Based on those two texts alone, there is NOTHING to suggest that Hilary Clinton is in favour of a military strike. Her words are, "the threat of military action against nuclear sites should not be ruled out." And, "We cannot and should not - must not - permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons," she said. "In order to prevent that from occurring, we must have more support vigorously and publicly expressed by China and Russia, and we must move as quickly as feasible for sanctions in the United Nations." In effect, she is advocating collective sanctions NOT (unilateral) military action.

    And as regards to the NYT, well, I accept that just writing on the subject may encourage others to assume tacit approval, they (the NYT) also do NOT advocate a miltary strike. In fact, the way I read the 'tone' of the piece, it suggest to me that a military strike, especially a unilateral one by the US or Israel, would have far greater negative consequence than any possible positive accruing from a military operation.

    On the whole, they both seems to be advocating current Bush Adminstration policy. But there again, the NYT is infamous amongst some circles for its scurillous half-truths - so it can't be in agreement with the White House, can it?
  11. I think the NYT article and AD miss something fundamental here. No one, most especially the Pakistani government has ever managed to pacify this region. For a bit more detail try looking at these websites



    Given the numbers of British troops who have died there in the past I find AD's remarks (below) somewhat offensive

    "But then, there are very few British soldiers who know right from wrong without sticking a rod of PC up their backsides."

    What is it with some of our American "allies" who post on this site, they read an un-balanced right wing polemic without taking any time to think about it critically and then dump it on this site with the expectation that it will convert us pasty skinned lily livered Brits into All Americans. Perhaps AD and Neo_Con could meet up one day, hold hands and create their very own synapse.
  12. Same could be said for the unbalanced-leftwing polemic that some here are fond of.
  13. John Masters explained in his work Bugles and a Tiger, why the Tribal areas where never brought under effective control back in British times.
    If we couldn't be bothered then no chance Pakistan would take the trouble.
    PTP please waste the anti social element. Ya knows Etreme Predudice.