Would the United States be justified in unilaterally striking terrorist targets inside Pakistan?

  • They hurt others

    We should intervene before things get out of hand. If we sit back and let the Pakistan government "take care of it", some would say this is a good idea. If this is true, does this mean that if a guy is getting mugged, we just let the government take care of it? Let they guy go until the police get there? Most people that I know would step in or speed up the process of getting the police there. I think we could take this same kind of thinking and apply it to what is happening in Pakistan. We should step in, and help where we can.

  • They have nuclear weapons and are not scared to use them

    Pakistan has been a threat to us for a long time. It is true they hid bin laden from us and they DO have nuclear weapons. If something isn't done soon WE will be victims to their terrorist attacks and it will once again be our fault for not preventing a preventable terrorist attack

  • Pakistan never going to stop terrorist traing in their country.

    Pakistan provided shelter to Bin Ladin, at the same denying his existance in the country. When finally he was killed, they punished the Docotor who provided the information to USA. It proves their sincearity in fight against terrorists. Instead of attacking one terrorist training camp ar a time, US, India, Russia and China (if willing) conduct co-ordinated attack on all known terrorist centers at one go. This may also provide warning to other countries harbouring terrorists.

  • If they believe that there is an imminent threat to innocent people, they are justified in stopping it.

    It is always best to try and reason with opponents to solve disagreements, peacefully. However, terrorists have proved, time and time again, that they are unwilling to reason with Western powers in a way that does not include the capitulation of the West to their demands. They want to destroy Western culture and will stop at nothing to do it, including killing innocent people. If there is an imminent threat, the U.S. would be derelict in its duties if they did nothing to stop it.

    Posted by: ErvinAnime
  • I support unilaterally striking terrorist in Pakistan because they are sitting over there planning strikes against American armed forces.

    We have seen on the news that several armed forces units in Pakistan have been attacked with out provocation while on patrol in that area. Many terrorist organizations have stepped up to claim responsibility for these attacks but yet none are being prosecuted, so maybe it is time for American armed forces to take this matter into their own hands.

    Posted by: MaterialisticSherwood29
  • The United States has the right to defend itself from all enemies foreign and domestic.

    Now sending in a massive strike force like was used in Iraq would not be the correct route but using intelligence operatives and special forces backed up by airpower to strike at targets of opportunity would provide us with a really viable option. We would minimize civilian casualties when possible and be able to bring terrorists to justice. Im not saying we put soldiers on corners and scare the general population with military might but remain ever vigilant against a tough and determined opponent. US special forces will provide a constant reminder that the United States not be threatened and will hunt down those who would use our compassion for innocents against us. We are not savages, nor do we wish to fight but we have a duty to stand up to those who would kill innocents and use the cloak of religion to mask their horrible acts as a holy war. In my personal opinion terrorist targets should be hunted down wherever they take refuge, at all hours, any day no exceptions. Never back down because someone threatens you, if you let up just once they will walk all over you.

  • The United States would be justified to unilaterally strike terrorist targets inside Pakistan, because we have a right to protect our interests.

    The U.S. government has an absolute right, as does any sovereign nation, to attack its perceived enemies finding shelter in Pakistan, or any other nation, whether it is Pakistan or Great Britain, where people who have carried out terrorist attacks that could be perceived as endangering American interests reside. The U.S. should set the standard for preemptive unilateral strikes, and completely endorse such actions by other nations who feel threatened. The U.S. would then have no qualms or objections if Pakistan launched unannounced attacks within the U.S. against terrorists hiding in America.

    Posted by: FLindsay
  • Yes, because Pakistan must step up and aggressively pursue terrorists, or step aside.

    I would like to see the Pakistani government become more active in pursuing terrorist outposts within their boarders. Failure to aggressively target the well-known sites would be indicative of supporting the terrorists and harboring them. The U.S. could make clear a plan to move on these locations and actively involve the Pakistan government, all the while, monitoring any activity that may indicate that the Pakistani government has involvement in communicating with these people in the locations being targeted. For example, after selecting a target and discussing the actions with the Pakistani government, watch for any exodus from the location. If there is, use this evidence to argue the exclusion of the Pakistani government from future actions.

    Posted by: OmeroAnnon
  • If Pakistan is unable to fully assert control over its own territory, and it is being used for terrorism, it has sacrificed some of its sovereignty.

    The U.S. has a right to protect itself from people who are plotting to kill its citizens. If Pakistan does not address the terrorism problem in its borders adequately, the U.S. or any similarly threatened nation has the right to act. Pakistan's limitations in this regard have long been evident. Insurgent forces even came within 60 miles of Islamabad in recent memory. All this has no bearing on whether drone strikes and the like by the U.S. are wise or moral in practice. Civilian casualties seem like a serious risk, although their extent is contested. Another important question concerns the extent to which the U.S. presence in Afghanistan and Pakistan is generating more hostility and terrorist organizing against us, compared to the terrorist actors and plots it is addressing.

    Posted by: M4I4cFeIine
  • If we have direct information that terrorists are being harbored in the country then I think it is within our right to strike those targets because they are actively seeking to do us harm.

    This is a sensitive subject because of a countries sovereignty but if terrorists are being harbored in a country I believe we have the right to strike those targets in response to attacks they have made against us. Especially when we have information that they are continuing to pursue further attacks against us.

    Posted by: TasticBran
  • This should be done with the permission of the Pakistani government, first.

    There are too many mistakes and risks with unilaterally striking terrorist targets. Osama Bin Laden was an exception, as he was the most wanted, and it was a Seal team strike that could identify him first. Drones are not reliable, as they kill innocent civilians, and this should not be done without permission, first.

    Posted by: DisillusionedGilberto67
  • The United States should stay out of Pakistan, because it is none of our business what they do in their own country.

    I believe that we should stay out of Pakistan, because they are not currently attacking our country. Just because we think that they are going to start a terrorist attack, it gives us no reason to go and attack them. If they attacked us like that, we would call it terrorism. So, we are technically being terrorists in their country.

    Posted by: BestGreg
  • No

    it would be an invasion and the pakis would arm the insurgents in both countrys.

  • No, instead the United States needs to have cooperation and diplomacy with countries where we want to carry out military operations.

    As long as the United States Government tries to bypass cooperation with foreign countries in its quest to fight terrorism, it is only going to create more enemies and threats due to a lack of respect towards foreign countries' policies and laws on the part of the United States.

    Posted by: BrianDj
  • Unilaterally striking terrorist targets is not a justifiable action.

    Such a blanket statement of approval for actions involving the death of many possible "innocents" does not sit well with me. I believe that each possible target should be carefully considered for a course of action to avoid impulsive attacks that may have been deemed unnecessary if considered more carefully.

    Posted by: Kri5Java
  • No, the United States is not justified in striking any place unless they strike first or have an extremely valid reason.

    I disagree that the US should be able to strike Pakistan. It is bad enough they attacked Iraq and still have an ongoing war based on what many consider to be a lie or false evidence.

    Afghanistan is justified because we were attacked on 9-11, but the US needs to stay out of other countries as much as possible. We have our own problems.

    Posted by: I33Iess
  • I don't think the US doing the right thing by striking terrorist targets inside Pakistan because as an international incident they should show more patience and follow procedure before operating Pakistan's area.

    Though Pakistan has given permission to the US government to operate inside their country, it is clear that the Pakistan government was forced do take such a step. It is causing internal chaos in their country and tearing it apart. If the terrorist problem was their domestic matter they should be left alone to handle it without US interference and if not then the US government should be more formal about the whole situation and stop bombing here and there like its their own backyard.

    Posted by: SocialGalv
  • War on terrorist with weapons won't change anything; it's the mentality.

    Weapons against terrorists will produce more violence, but we need to declare that we can fight. The main threat to terrorists is to preach among them, to show them what they believe in is not human and change the mentality from fighting for Allah for the 72 virgins to peacemakers.

    Posted by: R0xbarm
  • The United States would not be justified in unilaterally striking terrorist targets inside Pakistan.

    The United States would not be justified in unilaterally striking terrorist targets inside Pakistan. Most countries do not support the United States current attack on terrorism so to unilaterally strike inside Pakistan, who has been a supporter of the United States, would be a disaster. The United States needs to let other countries take care of issues instead of being judge, jury and executioner in one and should give Pakistan the information on these terrorist and make them deal with them.

    Posted by: SilverMathi
  • The United States would not be justified in unilaterally striking terrorist targets in Pakistan because it would be unsupported by the global community

    The United States would not be justified in unilaterally striking terrorist targets inside Pakistan because the move would be considered yet another war. Such an act would not be supported or applauded by the larger global community and would only lead to the country being viewed in a negative light by other countries.

    Posted by: SandDari

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.