I'm not sure if many of you have been paying attention to this story that has huge implications for the U.S.-Pakistani relationship.

Last month, Raymond Davis was, we learned yesterday, part of a contracted out CIA team looking over an area for recon and technical experts, was ambushed by guys on motorcycles. He and the U.S. argues he fought for self defense and killed the two guys. Davis also has a diplomatic passport, making him immune, in theory.

Pakistan on the otherhand, says the two guys were shot execution style, and that the US SUV acted recklessly, with over 100 shells fired and killing in a collision another person.

Pakistan arrested Davis and is holding him. The U.S. wants him released and suspended Pak-Afg-U.S. strategic meetings earlier this month as well as send Senator Kerry over.

The U.S. acknowledged he was working for the CIA yesterday, not helping the PR campaign. Pakistan is up in arms and does not want him released. One of the guys that was killed widow poisoned herself because she feared Davis was going to be released. This is a nightmare for U.S. efforts in Pakistan, where the real terrorists are located.

This is a lose-lose situation for the U.S. On the one hand, Davis defended himself, albeit maybe too much firepower, but the law is a little grey on diplomatic immunity for a contractor. On the other hand, Pakistan would explode if he is released and American's essential ally to counter al Qaeda. A real FUBAR all around.

NYT Story: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/22/world/asia/22pakistan.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper&pagewanted=all

Pakistan response: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/22/AR2011022204650_pf.html

BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12528848

This just solidifies my belief that we should just GTFO of the middle east. When your "ally" is essentially working against you, you can't win. There is no winning over there, it is like the war against drugs. I truly believe that if we pulled out military out of the region and also didn't meddle in the affairs of the nations in the Middle East (including our staunch support for Israel), a lot of the hate for the US would ease up.

Now, IMO, is the perfect time to do all of this. There is so much inner-turmoil in the ME right now, let them fight each other and pull out now. Then once the dust has settled, possibly start strictly diplomatic relationships with the newly elected governments. JMO

What a mess! Sooo glad that it's not MY job to deal with all that crap. I'd probably have to go into business selling glass and mirrors by the time I was done with it.

Don't know if Kerry is the man, but oh well; I don't know who would be better/worse.

What a mess. There are times I agree completely with dw's stance.

The fucking Obama Administration turned a team player in "The U.S. acknowledged he was working for the CIA yesterday" who the fuck gave it directive.
Weakness and incompetency… I thought Carter was a failure …

Belly35;687603 wrote:The fucking Obama Administration turned a team player in "The U.S. acknowledged he was working for the CIA yesterday" who the fuck gave it directive.
Weakness and incompetency… I thought Carter was a failure …

I'm not sure what you are trying to say, but if you are saying that they shouldn't have confirmed it, they didn't have much choice. I think The Guardian broke the story.

Belly35;687603 wrote:The fucking Obama Administration turned a team player in "The U.S. acknowledged he was working for the CIA yesterday" who the fuck gave it directive.
Weakness and incompetency… I thought Carter was a failure …

Kind of hard to deny it when EVERYONE in Pakistan knew it. The ISI, Pakistani Intelligence especially knew it.

Dwcrew: If it were that easy, I would be for it. But, unless you can ensure that the region would be more stable with the U.S. gone, and that al Qaeda would not have the ability to grow even more, than we can pull out. Until then, we stay.

The relationship with Pakistan is one of most complex in the world. It involves all the dirty items: terrorism, nukes, China, India, and Afghanistan.

ptown_trojans_1;687960 wrote:

Dwcrew: If it were that easy, I would be for it. But, unless you can ensure that the region would be more stable with the U.S. gone, and that al Qaeda would not have the ability to grow even more, than we can pull out. Until then, we stay.

That region is not stable right now, so what is the difference? I can't guarantee it, but it isn't guaranteed that the U.S. can stabalize it either. It is pretty much the most unstable it has ever been in my lifetime with the US being there now. Let's try a different approach. Why does the US continually try to use the same approach that has been ineffective for years? AQ has been growing since we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, I'd say we are being counter-productive.

To quote Ron Paul, "when doctors mis-diagnose a patient, they don't continue to treat that patient with the same treatment". We have made too many errors, let's try something else.

Yes but would a doctor start a different surgery if the one he is conducting is having mixed success and the prognosis is not clear one way or the other? The patient would surely die.

ptown_trojans_1;687960 wrote:Kind of hard to deny it when EVERYONE in Pakistan knew it. The ISI, Pakistani Intelligence especially knew it.

Dwcrew: If it were that easy, I would be for it. But, unless you can ensure that the region would be more stable with the U.S. gone, and that al Qaeda would not have the ability to grow even more, than we can pull out. Until then, we stay.

The relationship with Pakistan is one of most complex in the world. It involves all the dirty items: terrorism, nukes, China, India, and Afghanistan.

Just because they knew it ..doesn't mean the Obama Administration has to announce it ... What Obama never lied before?

Caught a partial blurb this morning on the radio... did I hear right that Kerry was unsuccessful?

CenterBHSFan;688178 wrote:Caught a partial blurb this morning on the radio... did I hear right that Kerry was unsuccessful?

.... That was a no brainer... Saw that coming a mile away...

Tobias Fünke;688149 wrote:Yes but would a doctor start a different surgery if the one he is conducting is having mixed success and the prognosis is not clear one way or the other? The patient would surely die.

I think the difference is that doctors and surgeons execute due dilligence far better than the government. Also, if a doctor continued with a surgery in which the prognosis was not clear (possibly the wrong diagnosis) and the patient died, I am pretty sure they'd lose their medical license and a shitload of money.

Belly35;687603 wrote:The fucking Obama Administration turned a team player in "The U.S. acknowledged he was working for the CIA yesterday" who the fuck gave it directive.
Weakness and incompetency… I thought Carter was a failure …

Once again, Belly, you ignore the fact that we have been in bed with these players for decades.

Belly35;688177 wrote:Just because they knew it ..doesn't mean the Obama Administration has to announce it ... What Obama never lied before?

ISI already knew he was CIA. If the US had just said no, someone in the media or some idiot in the government would have leaked it. (Our government is awful with leaks). So, they decided to get ahead of the curve and admit he was a contractor for the CIA. He was not under the CIA, just a contractor (I think what used to be Blackwater). But, he was not a NOC CIA agent.
Also, the issue is about which diplomatic immunity he has. One law says that he cannot be touched by Pakistan, and the U.S. is fighting for that one. The other law says that if he is simply staff at the embassy that he can be tried and expelled from Pakistan or sentenced. That is what the Pakistanis want apparently. It is just diplomatic crosspeak right now. Thing is, I don't see the U.S. giving this guy up.

dwccrew;688379 wrote:I think the difference is that doctors and surgeons execute due dilligence far better than the government. Also, if a doctor continued with a surgery in which the prognosis was not clear (possibly the wrong diagnosis) and the patient died, I am pretty sure they'd lose their medical license and a shitload of money.

We disagree, which is fine. I hate being there myself, and would love to see less troops there. But, until there is a viable option where Afghanistan does not fall to the Taliban and create another al Qaeda have, while Pakistan is threatened, we stay. The alternative too me is not appealing at all and outweighs us leaving.
If there is a viable option to still use force in the region, drone strikes and even Marines if things go bad, then perhaps we can withdraw. I do know that Petraus has been saying things are improving slowly.

All is well. Turns out is was nothing that a couple million bucks couldn't fix.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110316/ap_on_re_as/as_pakistan_detained_american

While I think we should have "feelers" all throughout the Middle East, I don't understand the obsession with trying to bring "peace" there.

Some of the people groups there have been fighting for over a thousand years. Why would any country think they could come in and somehow resolve the conflict?

O-Trap;714124 wrote:While I think we should have "feelers" all throughout the Middle East, I don't understand the obsession with trying to bring "peace" there.

Some of the people groups there have been fighting for over a thousand years. Why would any country think they could come in and somehow resolve the conflict?

ding ding ding ... nail meet hammer! So true. Most of the middle east doesn't actually know how not to fight. It's everyday life there.

tsst_fballfan;714164 wrote:ding ding ding ... nail meet hammer! So true. Most of the middle east doesn't actually know how not to fight. It's everyday life there.

Seriously, they've been fighting for 4 times the number of years that the US has even been a country ... and possibly more than that (some of them, anyway). I always thought it was so strange.

Tongue-in-cheek, of course, I say we chalk up some of their compulsion to fighting as a "cultural difference." We should, after all, "respect their cultural differences," right?

if caught or apprehended, the Secretary will disavow any knowledge of your actions...this tape will self-destruct in 10 seconds.......

O-Trap;714170 wrote:... We should, after all, "respect their cultural differences," right?

Correct you are sir.

The problem here boys and girls is that as per usual, the Feds get into these situations and then lack the balls to get the job done. We're always too friggin worried about pissing off the indigenous people and the American lefties rather than going in and using the tools necessary to subdue the bad guys and then get the hell out. Starting with Korea, then Vietnam, and now the Middle East we use the military to play politics rather than win wars.

Generalities? Sure but I think everyone knows precisely what I mean.

believer;714313 wrote:The problem here boys and girls is that as per usual, the Feds get into these situations and then lack the balls to get the job done. We're always too friggin worried about pissing off the indigenous people and the American lefties rather than going in and using the tools necessary to subdue the bad guys and then get the hell out. Starting with Korea, then Vietnam, and now the Middle East we use the military to play politics rather than win wars.

Generalities? Sure but I think everyone knows precisely what I mean.

If a bigger country (should one ever exist) came into the U. S., should they not care about our laws and pissing us off? Suppose that country was heavily Muslim, for example.

The "job" was to end the threat posed, and quite honestly, I've never heard a military man who didn't do his job over there because he didn't have the balls to piss someone off.

My point is that if there is no immediate threat ... if it's something taking place within the Middle East itself ... then just let them be, because any attempt we make at forcing peace is only going to last as long as our firepower is chilling out over there.

O-Trap;714325 wrote:The "job" was to end the threat posed, and quite honestly, I've never heard a military man who didn't do his job over there because he didn't have the balls to piss someone off.

I don't think his problem is with the military men. It's the political rules they have to follow that hand cuff them.

FatHobbit;714336 wrote:I don't think his problem is with the military men. It's the political rules they have to follow that hand cuff them.

DING!