Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
#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||
2012-06-08 15:17||
Front PageTop
#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||
2012-06-08 17:54||
Front PageTop
#3 Which remarks, the one about Shutting the F. Up?
Posted by swksvolFF 2012-06-08 18:25||
2012-06-08 18:25||
Front PageTop
#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||
2012-06-09 00:26||
Front PageTop
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
