US begins vacating Shamsi airbase

[Bosonic]

Source: Tribune

QUETTA: An American aircraft reached Pakistan on Sunday to carry US nationals who are vacating the Shamsi airbase in Balochistan.

Sources said that the aircraft landed in Pakistan today (Sunday), and the passengers were shifted to the aircraft amongst strict security. Officials from the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) were also present at the site.

Residents living around the area were told not to leave their homes while the American nationals were being shifted to the aircraft.

Pakistan demanded that the US leave the remote airbase used for drone flights within 15 days and blocked ground supply routes to US forces in Afghanistan, following the Nato attack on a military outpost on November 26 that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers.

Read more: http://tribune.com.pk/story/302087/us-begins-vacating-shamsi-airbase/

[MADem]

1. I imagine they'll miss the billions in aid, before too long. nt

[SkyDaddy7]

3. They should not be getting any aid from us anyway! nt.

[MADem]

10. Who knows how much of that money ole Pervez sashayed off with before he

exited stage right?

I'll bet it didn't all go for the purposes for which it was intended.

[Charronxyz]

12. They will get much more from China...

Without all the death and destruction.

[MADem]

15. Time will tell. nt

[atreides1]

16. Agreed

As well as some our Arab "allies"!

[plumbob]

13. $2 billion or so per year in an economy of around $500 billion.

4/10 of per cent. The general population will never miss it, although the friends of American politicians who stick it in their own pockets probably will.

On the other hand, they can know that the US will have to fly further to kill more of their citizens, so that's something.

I wish I could get US politicians and their flunkies further away from me.


This whole thing has the grace of Dick Cheney shooting someone in the face, and then they have to apologize to the drunk bastard.

[MADem]

14. Well, I wasn't really talking about the "general population." nt

[Gringostan]

21. Spot on!

Spot on! Which is why it never had or was intended to have an impact?

[cosmicone]

28. Pakistan's economy is not that big.

It is $134 billion by purchasing power parity (PPP) and the $2 Billion by PPP are equivalent to $47.3 billion -- thus our $2 Billion a year is equivalent to 35.3% of Pakistan's GDP.

[plumbob]

31. Got a link? Mine is from the CIA Factbook.

GDP (purchasing power parity):

$464.9 billion (2010 est.)
country comparison to the world: 28
$443.6 billion (2009 est.)
$429.2 billion (2008 est.)
note: data are in 2010 US dollars


https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/pk.html

[quakerboy]

19. Like we are going to stop giving them money for weapons

just because we start having hostilities with them. That would cut into the MIC pocketbook.

[MADem]

29. It's happened in the past.

Usually we gain a customer when we lose one--everyone has an adversary. Or two. Or three.

[DCBob]

2. This is good news.. may be an indication we are getting out of Afghanistan sooner than thought.

I hope so. I think the mission is done, in fact over-done.

[demicritic]

4. Run out of options?

Pakistan thinks US will run out of options going to Afghanistan.

[FreakinDJ]

5. Pakistan is not our ally

In fact Pakistan played a role in the Pre 911 attack of the Twin Towers

[Historic NY]

6. Time to cut off the the PAK gravy train.

[cosmicone]

7. With Americans out of Pakistan,

let the bombing of Pakistani military bases, assets and ISI headquarters begin ... The only way for peace in Afghanistan is to castrate the Pakistani military and intelligence apparatus which serves no purpose other than terrorizing its neighbors.

[atreides1]

17. How much blood

Is enough for you? How many tens of thousands will have to die before your appetite for death is sated? Or do you really believe that civilian casualties won't be suffered by this bombing that you have a hard-on to start?

Destroying Pakistani military and intelligence assets will not bring peace to Afghanistan, killing Pakistani civilians will only make the problem worse! But I guess you don't really give a shit about any of that as long as the blood flows like a river and innocent people die along with the guilty ones!!!

[cosmicone]

18. I disagree.

The whole Taliban menace was founded, funded, organized, armed and trained by Pakistani military and ISI to further Pakistan's "Strategic Depth Policy" (google it) and it was wrong for us to fund and arm Pakistan in the first place.

The only way there can be peace in Afghanistan is if Pakistani military and ISI are defanged. Fewer Pakistani civilians will die in the end than if the status quo is maintained, not to mention thousands of Indians, Russians, Americans and British who may die because of Pakistani state terrorism.

[plumbob]

33. So we must destroy the people in order to save them?

About right?

Gawd, it's right on the tip of my tongue, seems so familiar...

[cosmicone]

35. We don't have to destroy the people

Just the tanks, APCs, planes, radars, ships, harbors, airports and other infrastructure.

[plumbob]

36. Not what you said at all. "Fewer Pakistani civilians will die in the end"

That means some Pakistani civilians dying is fine with you.

You said it. Own it.

Now defend it.

[cosmicone]

37. Over 10 years, fewer civilians will die

by stemming the terrorism cancer on Pakistan. Since Pakistan funded, armed and trained terrorist groups, Pakistan's average life expectancy has gone down. You may check the CIA World facts again :)

[plumbob]

38. So we must destroy the people in order to save them.

Wow.

[cosmicone]

40. You're misstating what I wrote.

However, if the spin makes you happy, more power to you! I shan't complain.

[quakerboy]

20. Because thats worked soo well the other times we've tried it?

The essence of Bush-like "American" idiocy is exemplified quite well by this simplistic statement favoring the murder of many thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands of fellow human beings for no real reason.

[cosmicone]

22. The main difference is ...

Bush attacked Iraq which was pretty harmless and contained.

Pakistan is actively engaged in attacking its neighbors and committing terrorist acts around the world.

There is a difference between putting down an aging, sleepy Rottweiler and an aggressive pit bull who is mauling babies.

[quakerboy]

34. The main difference is time, no more

There is virtually no doubt that Saddam was a state sponsor of terrorism, although never at the nuclear. He actually invaded neighboring countries, as well as using chemical weapons and providing terrorists with support. Or have we forgotten gulf war I?

The answer is the same as it was in Iraq or Afghanistan. 1: learn a lesson, Providing dictators money and support to stay in power backfires in the end. Don't do that in other countries, so we can stop having these problems. 2: stop paying the current regime. 3: invest in things that will actually prevent terrorists and supplies for terrorists from entering our country, rather than flashy, annoying things like hassling old ladies and brown people who need to use the transit system. 4: work to help our allies do the same 5: accept that the world is an uncertain place, and we are not the boss of it, nor can we control it.

Their neighbors are Afghanistan, India, Iran and China. Hardly "babies" to be mauled. If they make too much a pest of themselves, One of those can deal with them(with the exception of Afghanistan, and even there, I wish the Pak's would try invading. They are welcome to fall on that sword as have many a would be empire before them). It is not our job nor even our prerogative to stick our noses in this, unless they happen to start attacking us.

[Xithras]

24. Yes, let's start indiscriminately bombing a nuclear armed nation with a population...

...nearly three times the size of Afghanistan and Iraq COMBINED. Let's just ignore the fact that India, another nuclear armed nation with the third-largest military force on the planet, and with a conscriptable combat force that is larger than the entire population of the United States, has fought a half dozen wars against them already, and in return has seen the threat ESCALATE in response. And lets just forget about the fact that, while Pakistani missiles are incapable of carrying their nukes and conventional warheads to the continental United States, that there are plenty of U.S. military bases that ARE in range, and would be perfectly legitimate military targets. Oh, and let's conveniently overlook the close alliance that has formed over the past decade between Pakistan and China, a nation that could devastate us simply by closing their port to U.S. bound ships.

Sure. Let's go to war with Pakistan. That's a GREAT idea :eyes:

[cosmicone]

27. Specious arguments...

The Pakistani threat escalated despite India kicking their ass simply because we kept rearming Pakistan and kept giving massive aid. Pakistan was close to bankruptcy and a balkanization numerous times, only to have our government come to its rescue. This time, there will be no rescue.

Pakistani generals will not dare to attack the US military bases even if they were capable. Remember how Musharraf wet his pants and agreed to every one of our demands when Richard Armitage read him the riot act after 9/11?

Lastly, China won't sacrifice its relationship with the US over Pakistan. That would be like fighting with one's boss because he doesn't like your dog.

[The Stranger]

25. Holy shit, am I reading this right?

You are on here advocating the gratuitous bombing of another country and "castrating" its military?

Where the fuck am I?

[Hardrada]

39. We need to bring to trial a few of our own war criminals to give these warmongers

like above poster something to think about.

[plumbob]

32. War is peace, eh?

Hmmm, seems like I've heard that one before.

Afterward, will the general population greet us with flowers?
And will the war pay for itself?

[Arctic Dave]

8. Good. Now kick the rest of the US/contractor personnell out now.

Shut down all the border crossing in/out of the AFPAK region to the also. This "war" was a waste of time, money and lives from the beginning.

[ThomThom]

9. we need to stop giving money to military dictators

Pakistan should be first
Egypt next

[Charronxyz]

11. "we need to stop giving money to military dictators"

we need to stop giving money to our own military

[Xithras]

26. You do know that Pakistan is a democratic Parliamentary Republic, right?

Musharraf was ousted years ago. The Pakistani parliament is currently dominated by, and the President and Prime Minister are both members of, the Pakistan Peoples Party, a leftist Islamic-socialist party that is officially affiliated with the Socialist International. While it may be politically convenient to assume that every nation that disagrees with us is run by tin-pot dictators, in the case of Pakistan it's a dead wrong assumption.

[AngryAmish]

23. Let us be quit of that foul country

Let them soil their own nest.

[The Northerner]

30. U.S. forces begin leaving Pakistan drone base

Source: Reuters

Dec 5 (Reuters) - U.S. personnel have taken steps to evacuate a remote airfield in Pakistan that had been used for staging classified drone flights directed against militants, U.S. and Pakistani sources said on Monday.

Following a NATO airstrike last month during which 24 Pakistani troops were killed accidentally, Pakistan ordered U.S. personnel to vacate the airfield at Shamsi in its Baluchistan region by Dec. 11.

After receiving this ultimatum - which initially was transmitted to the Obama administration in the form of a press release - the United States began preparing for a possible move of American personnel out of the facility.

On Monday, a Pakistani military official, who requested anonymity because he is not authorized to speak to the media, told Reuters: "There is some activity happening at the base because of the deadline given to the Americans. They are moving some equipment and vacating personnel."

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/05/usa-pakistan-drones-idUSN1E7B40U220111205

---

If this is an actual departure then what about leaving Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Uganda, etc. altogether? Must the US military presence remain everywhere until who-knows-how-many people are killed?

Does ANYONE have a justification for the continued and expanding U.S. military presence worldwide?