| Submit your comments on this article |
| India-Pakistan |
| Pakistan: Panetta's remarks 'unhelpful' |
| 2012-06-08 |
| Pakistan's ambassador to the United States branded as "unhelpful" US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta's latest stab at Islamabad's failure to tackle militant safe havens, saying it would make it harder for the two countries to narrow their differences. Panetta, speaking in Kabul on Thursday, said the United States was reaching the limits of its patience with Pakistan because of the safe havens the country offered to insurgents fighting in neighboring Afghanistan. |
| Posted by:tipper |
| #4 Pakistan is again again reieterating its deamnd for formal aopology from the US before the NATO Supply routes will be reopened. * INDIAN DEFENCE FORUM > CIA GETS [Obama Admin] NOD TO STEP UP DRONE STRIKES IN PAKISTAN, including for strikes US command authorities may not had allowed to occur previously. versus * DEFENCE.PK/FORUMS > [The Nation.PK] RELATIONS SOUR: PAKISTAN TO BAR CIA OPERATIONS FROM ITS COUNTRY/TERRITORY. * SAME > ISLAMABAD: US HAS NOT PROVIDED INFORMATION ON HAQQANIS, ergo Pak Govt cannot authorize, + Pak Army cannot initiate, any serious Pak MilOp = offensive agz same. The US counterargument is that it has shared info wid Pakistan vee the Haqqanis, + that the Pak Govt knows fully well the locations of the Haqqani Network + other MilTerr camps inside Pakistan. * NEWS KERALA > US MILITARY CHIEF, LAWMAKERS BACK PANETTA ASSERTIONS OF LOSING PATIENCE WID PAKISTAN. Lest we fergit, Pak BFF IRAN = has stated or inferred that what happens in Pakistan is widin Tehran's "core interests", + will not allow Pak sovereignty to be threatened by Zionist Crusader infidels. ------------- As per IRAN ... * DEFENCE.PK/FORUMS > WSJ: UN NUCLEAR TEAM REPORTS FAILED IRAN TALKS. * SAME > IRAN PRESIDENT AHMADINEJAD [again] URGES RESTRUCTURING OF GLOBAL ORDER. * TOPIX > A "SMALL" WORLD WAR [Regional, Trans-]. ARTIC = potens up to 25-30 international countries are or could be directly involved iff a US-Iran war = major Iran-centric Mil Crisis broke out in the Persian Gulf, andor in the ME where Iran has established strategic footholds e.g. Syria, Lebanon. * SAME > IRAN CAN [effectively]FIGHT TWO-FRONT WAR, to its South-SW, + NW into Caucasus. IMO Artic again shows Iran is possib "shaping the Battlefield" vee the US = US-led Coalition by attempting to make those areas of the Persian Gulf beyond the Straits of Hormuz too dangerous for US, Coalition Seapower + Amphibious Forces. IOW, THE MULLAHS WOULD PREFER THAT ANY DETONATION OF NUKES-WMDS BY IRAN ON IRANIAN SOIL AGZ FOREIGN GROUND FORCES BE A "LAST-RESORT/ WORST-CASE" OPTION. However, for its strategy to work, Iran cannot allow any major buildup of forces either inside the Gulf or on the Saudi side - IMO, presuming that the current Govts in Bahrain, Qatar, Yemen + Oman are NOT overthrown by the "Arab/Muslim/ Ilsamic Spring" protests, THIS INFERS IRAN MAY PREEMPTIVELY STRIKE THE US FIFTH FLEET BASE AT BAHRAIN + ANY US MILFORS IN KUWAIT + IRAQ. DITTO FOR SAUDI, GCC MILBASES ON SAUDI SIDE??? |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2012-06-09 00:26 |
| #3 Which remarks, the one about Shutting the F. Up? |
| Posted by: swksvolFF 2012-06-08 18:25 |
| #2 It's diplo-speak (no sarcasm intended). Actually a rather strong statement in that context. Means the Paks are quite... upset. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2012-06-08 17:54 |
| #1 Unhelpful? As in harboring INK unhelpful? Allowing military convoys to be attacked unhelpful? Playing both sides unhelpful? Harboring the Taliban unhelpful? Spreading nuke tech unhelpful? |
| Posted by: gorb 2012-06-08 15:17 |