Obama Makes Another Threat

[The Green Bean]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
lol @ OP. Get used to it, until they are gone. Or until you do something about it yourself.

You mean the innocent civilians? All those that are condoning the attack fail to see that ONLY INNOCENT CIVILIANS were killed!

MIRANSHAH: At least three children were killed on Friday when missiles fired by an unmanned aircraft hit a house in a Pakistani tribal border area, officials said.

Three women were also injured in the attack, the third strike in as many days in the area and blamed on Afghanistan-based international forces.

?Two drones were flying in the area. They fired three missiles,? said a witness in the region, near the Afghan border.

The strike on Friday hit the house of a tribesman in North Waziristan's Goorweck Baipali village, 30 kilometres west of the region's main town of Miranshah, an unnamed security official said.

?Three children were killed and three women were injured in the missile strike which destroyed the village home,? another official said.

At least five militants were killed on Thursday when a missile fired from a pilotless plane hit a house in the North Waziristan village of Mohammad Khel, officials said.

The missile strikes targeting militants in Pakistan in recent weeks have been blamed on US-led coalition forces or CIA drones based in Afghanistan.

Military spokesman Major-General Athar Abbas said they were checking reports of the attack.

First you disrespect our sovereignty and then kill civilians. What a bunch of brainwashed posters we have here on P&N who are supporting their government raids when they kill civilians. No better than the taliban. And the Senate and Parliament have unanimously called on the government to repulse future raids with full force. With friends like the USA who needs enemies?

ISLAMABAD: Outraged by the deadly first known ground assault into Pakistan?s tribal belt by US-led coalition forces in Afghanistan, both houses of parliament on Thursday unanimously asked the government to take measures to ?repel such attacks in the future with full force?.

After fiery debates over Wednesday?s pre-dawn helicopter-borne raid that reportedly killed at least 20 people in a village in South Waziristan agency, the demand was made in a resolution passed unanimously by the National Assembly and the Senate separately that also wanted the government to tell the International Security Assistance Force (Isaf) in Afghanistan that such violations were ?bound to force fundamental changes of foreign policy? by a key ally in the so-called war on terrorism.

This was the strongest-worded joint stance to date by both treasury and opposition benches in the parliament over any of the numerous alleged violations of the Pakistani territory by the coalition forces hunting Al Qaeda and Taliban militants and came at a sensitive time two days before the presidential election.

?The house calls upon the government of Pakistan to take all necessary measures to protect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the country and repel such attacks in the future with full force,? the resolution said.

Both Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi in the National Assembly and leader of house Raza Rabbani in the Senate said in their prepared remarks before tabling the resolution in their respective chambers that the attacks ?constitutes a serious escalation in the series of actions by the Isaf/coalition forces on Pakistani territory?.

Most of the previous attacks had involved rocketing by jets or pilotless predators or artillery shelling from across the border.

The foreign minister told the National Assembly that Wednesday?s raid, which drew renewed opposition calls for a review of Pakistan?s role in the anti-terror war, was in violation of what he called ?established rules of engagement? as well as of ?international human norms? and the UN charter.

But he did not explain ?the rules of engagement? that Pakistan might have agreed with the coalition forces in Afghanistan despite a demand from the main PML-N speaker in the National Assembly Ahsan Iqbal who, like several other members, called for a detailed debate in parliament on the situation.

A report by the US-based Associated Press news agency said the circumstances surrounding Wednesday?s raid were not clear, ?but US rules of engagement allow American troops to chase militants across the border into Pakistan?s lawless tribal region when they are attacked? and that ?they may only go about six miles on the ground under normal circumstances? and 10 miles into Pakistani airspace through aircraft.

Both the house, which took up the issue almost simultaneously, resounded with rhetoric and anti-American sentiment, mostly from opposition parties such as the Jamaat-i-Islami and the PML-N.

PPP co-chairman Asif Ali Zardari joined the chorus with a strong statement condemning what he called an ?outrageous and unacceptable violation of the territorial integrity of the country? and calling for a thorough investigation and adoption of ?foolproof measures so that such incidents do not occur in the future?.

He said that for the fight against militancy to succeed, it was imperative that any action on the Pakistani side of the border was taken ?only by Pakistani forces and not by the coalition forces in violation of Pakistan?s territorial integrity?.

But in the midst of the general rhetorical fervour in the two houses of parliament, some took courage to differ, like Senator Abdul Rahim Mandokhel of the Pakhtunkhwa Milli Awami Party who said it were foreign militants, including Arabs, Uzbeks and Chechen, who had captured Pakistani territory and compromised the country?s sovereignty which ?the government cannot defend? and accused unspecified politicians of conniving with them by not speaking against them.

Balochistan National Party Senator Abdul Malik doubted the seriousness of anti-American talk while the country was ?in the grip of American imperialism for the past 60 years? and said it must be acknowledged that Pakistan?s ?investment in Afghanistan to make it our fifth province? and also in Kashmir had gone in loss.

Senator Khurshid Ahmed of the Jamaat-i-Islami said that mere verbal condemnations of border violations were not enough and that violators, whether troops or helicopters, must be shot.PML-N?s Senator Ishaq Dar accused former president Pervez Musharraf of making a slave of an atomic power and said ?we have to change the slavish mentality? so there be no foreign stake-holder in Pakistani affairs.

?We will not tolerate incidents like this,? said Awami National Party leader Asfandyar Wali Khan, who also called for an in-camera debate in parliament.

 

[The Green Bean]

Originally posted by: Woofmeister
I'm going to keep reposting this every time The Green Bean posts to complain about the U.S. or NATO attacking Taliban and al-Qaeda operating within Pakistan's tribal areas.

By allowing the Taliban and al-Qaeda to attack Afghanistan and U.N. Mandate forces from its purportedly sovereign territory, Pakistan is in violation of Security Council Resolution 1373, which provides in part:

all States shall:

?(a) Refrain from providing any form of support, active or passive, to entities or persons involved in terrorist acts, including by suppressing recruitment of members of terrorist groups and eliminating the supply of weapons to terrorists;

?(b) Take the necessary steps to prevent the commission of terrorist acts, including by provision of early warning to other States by exchange of information;

?(c) Deny safe haven to those who finance, plan, support, or commit terrorist acts, or provide safe havens;

?(d) Prevent those who finance, plan, facilitate or commit terrorist acts from using their respective territories for those purposes against other States or their citizens;

?(e) Ensure that any person who participates in the financing, planning, preparation or perpetration of terrorist acts or in supporting terrorist acts is brought to justice and ensure that, in addition to any other measures against them, such terrorist acts are established as serious criminal offences in domestic laws and regulations and that the punishment duly reflects the seriousness of such terrorist acts;

?(f) Afford one another the greatest measure of assistance in connection with criminal investigations or criminal proceedings relating to the financing or support of terrorist acts, including assistance in obtaining evidence in their possession necessary for the proceedings;

?(g) Prevent the movement of terrorists or terrorist groups by effective border controls and controls on issuance of identity papers and travel documents, and through measures for preventing counterfeiting, forgery or fraudulent use of identity papers and travel documents;

1373 is pursuant to Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter, i.e., the Chapter that provides authority for military force.

The notion that a country 1 (or forces operating under UN Mandate in country 1) may not invade the territory of country 2 when country 2's territory is being used for attacks on country 1 by a third-party has no basis whatsoever in international law.

Your arguments are baseless. You have no proof whatsoever for that. Are your people going to fall for the WMD argument again? Another war if it comes down to that? Because now you are just provoking us to shoot down a plane or two of yours.

 

[The Green Bean]

Originally posted by: TechAZ
Another classic TGB thread. If your impotent government had any balls or integrity they would be doing the job so we wouldn't have to. What country in the civilized world just lets the most hated, violent, dangerous terrorist group operate within it's borders and stick their thumbs up their ass? You have the balls to bitch about the USA when your country would be mistaken for Somalia if you didn't have nukes. No wonder people flock here from Pakistan to open gas stations.

The most hated violent and dangerous country is currently yours. Why don't you get a grip of it first before it starts another world war? It's been meddling in the M.E, Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan and now even Russia. You people are so full of yourselves. No wonder everyone hates you.

 

[lupi]

Perhaps you should take up arms and help defend your border.

 

[The Green Bean]

Originally posted by: Dari
I'm tired of this shit. All NATO and American forces should move into the Northwest Frontier provinces now. This fucking game Pakistan and the Taliban are playing has gone on long enough.

You do realize that doing that is nearly impossible. Afghanistan is landlocked and once we cut off your supply routes there is simply NOWAY to get your troops in our out of Afghanistan. Georgia as fallen. China won't let you. And you are virtually at a state of war with Iran.

You would have to make a landing on our shores. That would be dangerous and would definitely bring about a war. That and if you go about bombing us that the terrorists would get a free haven and might even get control of our nukes.

Got stomach for this just to avenge some idiots that allegedly killed 3000 odd civilians. You must have killed atleast 10x that but your troops don't get punished for it.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
I would tend to acknowledge the validity of LL 's point before I would even care to acknowledge the complete and utter bullshit that is ...

""So what are you waiting for TGB? Retaliate already.""

Calm down Beavis, it was a response to TGB's nonstop saber rattling.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: Dari
I'm tired of this shit. All NATO and American forces should move into the Northwest Frontier provinces now. This fucking game Pakistan and the Taliban are playing has gone on long enough.

You do realize that doing that is nearly impossible. Afghanistan is landlocked and once we cut off your supply routes there is simply NOWAY to get your troops in our out of Afghanistan. Georgia as fallen. China won't let you. And you are virtually at a state of war with Iran.

You would have to make a landing on our shores. That would be dangerous and would definitely bring about a war. That and if you go about bombing us that the terrorists would get a free haven and might even get control of our nukes.

Got stomach for this just to avenge some idiots that allegedly killed 3000 odd civilians. You must have killed atleast 10x that but your troops don't get punished for it.

Georgia didn't fall, China probably would if we paid them (they don't give two shits about Pakistan), and we aren't at war with Iran. We'd have to airlift, but it would be doable.

The Taliban and the groups it has harbored are ultimately responsible for a lot more attacks than just 9/11. Not to mention creating a breeding ground for an incredibly dangerous ideology that your impotent state cannot wrest even inside your own borders.

Terrorists won't get your nukes, we'll make sure of that at least. No other country would say a peep about us neutralizing your nuclear arsenal by all necessary military force if your country is collapsing. They don't want those on the loose any more than we do.

 

[Woofmeister]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: Woofmeister
I'm going to keep reposting this every time The Green Bean posts to complain about the U.S. or NATO attacking Taliban and al-Qaeda operating within Pakistan's tribal areas.

By allowing the Taliban and al-Qaeda to attack Afghanistan and U.N. Mandate forces from its purportedly sovereign territory, Pakistan is in violation of Security Council Resolution 1373, which provides in part:

all States shall:

?(a) Refrain from providing any form of support, active or passive, to entities or persons involved in terrorist acts, including by suppressing recruitment of members of terrorist groups and eliminating the supply of weapons to terrorists;

?(b) Take the necessary steps to prevent the commission of terrorist acts, including by provision of early warning to other States by exchange of information;

?(c) Deny safe haven to those who finance, plan, support, or commit terrorist acts, or provide safe havens;

?(d) Prevent those who finance, plan, facilitate or commit terrorist acts from using their respective territories for those purposes against other States or their citizens;

?(e) Ensure that any person who participates in the financing, planning, preparation or perpetration of terrorist acts or in supporting terrorist acts is brought to justice and ensure that, in addition to any other measures against them, such terrorist acts are established as serious criminal offences in domestic laws and regulations and that the punishment duly reflects the seriousness of such terrorist acts;

?(f) Afford one another the greatest measure of assistance in connection with criminal investigations or criminal proceedings relating to the financing or support of terrorist acts, including assistance in obtaining evidence in their possession necessary for the proceedings;

?(g) Prevent the movement of terrorists or terrorist groups by effective border controls and controls on issuance of identity papers and travel documents, and through measures for preventing counterfeiting, forgery or fraudulent use of identity papers and travel documents;

1373 is pursuant to Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter, i.e., the Chapter that provides authority for military force.

The notion that a country 1 (or forces operating under UN Mandate in country 1) may not invade the territory of country 2 when country 2's territory is being used for attacks on country 1 by a third-party has no basis whatsoever in international law.

Your arguments are baseless. You have no proof whatsoever for that. Are your people going to fall for the WMD argument again? Another war if it comes down to that? Because now you are just provoking us to shoot down a plane or two of yours.

Proof of what? Are you seriously disputing that al-Qaeda and the Taliban are attacking Afghanistan from the Pakistan tribal areas?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean
Let's get things into perspective. Who is more evil. The taliban or you? You have killed far more innocents in this so called war than the taliban did. Not utilizing the intelligence you have and conducting raids that kill civilians is the same as intentionally targeting them. The world needs to get rid of American imperialism before the taliban. America and NATO are nothing but oppressors. Why shouldn't we be mad? How mad were you when the taliban were killing off your civilians?

The taliban.

 

[Woofmeister]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Which applies equally to the US, Pakistan Saudi Arabia, Israel, Columbia,China Russia, and a host of other countries. Let is know, Woofmeister, when the UN proper condemns Pakistan. If anything, its the US that is now skating on thin UN ice.

The U.S., Saudi Arabia, Israel, Columbia, China and Russia are allowing terrorists to attack other countries from their territories? Name a single instance in the last ten years.

Oh and please don't start with the anti-Castro nut jobs in Florida--those old farts haven't launched a successful attack on Cuba from the U.S. in 25 years; primarily because the Feds keep prosecuting them on weapons charges.

Lastly, what is the "UN Proper"? Are you suggesting the UN General Assembly resolutions have any legal effect whatsoever? Worse, are you claiming that a General Assembly resolution has greater legal authority than a U.N. Security Council resolution? Aside from that, are you claiming that a country (or armed forces defending that country under a U.N. Mandate) needs any permission from the U.N. to engage in attacks on forces that are attacking it from another country?

 

[Lemon law]

Lots of people are rattling sabers, but TGB, palehorse, LL, JOS, and all the posters on this forum may make noise, but they have no real saber in their scabbard. And maybe its time to identify the real deciders and the cards they can play.

1. There is Karzai, a somewhat US puppet, IMHO, not all that corrupt even though his own government is. Don't count Karzai out, he is a budding Maliki, and he on occasion is capable of swift and resolute action. He has already sent quite a few ambassadors packing. Sadly, Karzai is mainly tied up fund raising, and not very successfully.

2. There is GWB&co, who has consigned Afghanistan to the back burner. Whatever deals GWB cut with Musharraf are somewhat moot now that Musharraf has gotten the boot, but GWB is very lame duck now. But the Nato forces are now being more aggressive about the use or air power in Pakistan proper. Just a few limited strikes, lots of publicity, but no real tactical results such far. But like it or not, the real long term decisions must be made by the next President of the United States, partly because the current Nato troop numbers are totally too small to even contemplate a real unilateral incursion into Pakistan.

3. Then there is the Pakistani government, somewhat deeply divided now, but unified in opposition to Nato operations on Pakistani soil.

4. Then there is the UN, who, if nothing else, clothe the failing Nato occupation of Afghanistan, with some semi legitimacy.

In terms of what Nato now risks by playing these games, is simply the Pakistani government going to the UN and revoking the Nato permission to use supply route through Pakistan. Not an immediate revocation, but a timed one, cut a deal with Iran and other Islamic countries to replace Nato troops with Islamic troops, get some international funding to rebuild Afghanistan any oil rich and Nato unhappy nation may be happy to provide, and its a somewhat instant credible plan leaving Nato odd man out. If the UN agrees, Nato will have no choice.

 

[alchemize]

Thank FSM we have LL in his mom's basement to tell somebody who lives in pakistan, somebody with the US armed forces, and someone in the british forces operating in afghanistan how things really are over there. :roll:

 

[Lemon law]

Regardless if I live in my Mom's basement or not, GWB did not live in Iraq either, but that did not stop him telling us all about the WMD that was not there.

Like it or not, Nato is skating on very thin ice in Afghanistan, and has no track record of necessity to point to. The fact that GWB has alienated our allies and emboldened our enemies
while being the little boy who cried wolf, leaves us outnumbered 19 to 1 in the UN. If you want the most likely scenario for an end to the Nato occupation of Afghanistan, what I gave you may
just be one of them.

After 6 years of total failure, the rest of the world may be willing to try anything else. And now, on the cusp of a new POTUS, the timing is extremely risky and bad.

 

[The Green Bean]

Originally posted by: Woofmeister

Proof of what? Are you seriously disputing that al-Qaeda and the Taliban are attacking Afghanistan from the Pakistan tribal areas?

No. I'm denying the fact that we give safe haven to the taliban. Even if we did; invading our territory is nothing but bullying. And even if it was acceptable it's only making things worse. The Americans are fueling the fire not extinguishing it.

About time the Pakistani politicians decide their policies in Islamabad and not follow ones defined by Washington. We need to lodge a formal complaint at the UN security council.

What do you think would happen if we shot down a couple of your unmanned drones? For one thing it would unite Pakistan. Unite them in hatred for the oppressors.

 

[The Green Bean]

Originally posted by: K1052
Terrorists won't get your nukes, we'll make sure of that at least. No other country would say a peep about us neutralizing your nuclear arsenal by all necessary military force if your country is collapsing. They don't want those on the loose any more than we do.

The ISI and military would make sure that the nukes got to the terrorists before we collapsed. That's a valid deterrent and one reason you can't afford war against us.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: K1052
Terrorists won't get your nukes, we'll make sure of that at least. No other country would say a peep about us neutralizing your nuclear arsenal by all necessary military force if your country is collapsing. They don't want those on the loose any more than we do.

The ISI and military would make sure that the nukes got to the terrorists before we collapsed. That's a valid deterrent and one reason you can't afford war against us.

I highly doubt Pakistan would have the chance to accomplish that, regardless it would be extremely unwise. Supplying nuclear arms to terrorists would make you directly responsible for any attacks carried out with them and open to in kind retaliation.

We don't even want a war against the Pakistani government. We just need to clean up what you won't or can't deal with.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: K1052
Terrorists won't get your nukes, we'll make sure of that at least. No other country would say a peep about us neutralizing your nuclear arsenal by all necessary military force if your country is collapsing. They don't want those on the loose any more than we do.

The ISI and military would make sure that the nukes got to the terrorists before we collapsed. That's a valid deterrent and one reason you can't afford war against us.

Listen man, Pakistan supports terrorists in Kashmir, India proper, and Afghanistan. It's only a matter of time before these countries, including America, get tired of this game and carve up your country. Either take care of the problem or we will take care of it for you.

 

[The Green Bean]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: K1052
Terrorists won't get your nukes, we'll make sure of that at least. No other country would say a peep about us neutralizing your nuclear arsenal by all necessary military force if your country is collapsing. They don't want those on the loose any more than we do.

The ISI and military would make sure that the nukes got to the terrorists before we collapsed. That's a valid deterrent and one reason you can't afford war against us.

I highly doubt Pakistan would have the chance to accomplish that, regardless it would be extremely unwise. Supplying nuclear arms to terrorists would make you directly responsible for any attacks carried out with them and open to in kind retaliation.

We don't even want a war against the Pakistani government. We just need to clean up what you won't or can't deal with.

You are only making things worse.

And we probably have hundreds of dummy silos. There is no way you will be destroying them all in one go.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: K1052

I highly doubt Pakistan would have the chance to accomplish that, regardless it would be extremely unwise. Supplying nuclear arms to terrorists would make you directly responsible for any attacks carried out with them and open to in kind retaliation.

We don't even want a war against the Pakistani government. We just need to clean up what you won't or can't deal with.

You are only making things worse.

And we probably have hundreds of dummy silos. There is no way you will be destroying them all in one go.

Given that the US has long experience (50 years) at contemplating just such strike scenarios (a la the Soviet Union) I wouldn't be too confident of what you think can't be done in a limited time frame.

 

[Woofmeister]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: Woofmeister

Proof of what? Are you seriously disputing that al-Qaeda and the Taliban are attacking Afghanistan from the Pakistan tribal areas?

No. I'm denying the fact that we give safe haven to the taliban. Even if we did; invading our territory is nothing but bullying. And even if it was acceptable it's only making things worse. The Americans are fueling the fire not extinguishing it.

About time the Pakistani politicians decide their policies in Islamabad and not follow ones defined by Washington. We need to lodge a formal complaint at the UN security council.

What do you think would happen if we shot down a couple of your unmanned drones? For one thing it would unite Pakistan. Unite them in hatred for the oppressors.

So, so wrong. Signing a "peace deal" with the Taliban that allows them to continue to attack Afghanistan is giving "safe haven". A country that finds its territory being used for attacks on another country by a third-party has only two choices--it can either eject the third-party itself or ask for help ejecting that third-party from other countries. That's what being a "sovereign" nation is all about.

I can only imagine the peals of laughter at the UN that would greet a formal complaint by Pakistan to the UN Security Council about US and NATO forces attacking Taliban and al-Qaeda targets within Pakistan after Pakistan refused to make any serious effort to expel their supposedly unwanted guests.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Pakistan may have flurted with the cause of the Taliban but I see zero evidence that they support Al Quida.

But to pretend we can defeat Al-Quida by military means has already been disproved by our own NIE. And when our own tactics aid the expansion of Al Quida, I have to respectfully disagree with you.

Deny it if you will, but that is the conclusion of our own NIE.

And given that latter FACT, I ask you and those like you to join me in figuring out smarter ways to win. Because no doubt about it, we are well on the road to losing just like we lost in Vietnam.

Unless we, you know, go into Pakistan and kill these terrorists where they sleep.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: lupi
Perhaps you should take up arms and help defend your border.

I agree, if Pakistan wants more precision in our air strikes they should either aid us, or do it themselves.

 

[Lemon law]

While Woofmeister raises a semi valid point, and the UN under US pressure does have standing but under constant review declarations that the Taliban is a terrorist organization, but that still does not morph into a permission by any country to trespass on Pakistani soil.

As it is, the use of indiscriminate Nato air power is under UN review, and any Pakistani protests will be taken seriously by the larger UN. While the European block will side with the US, large segments of the UN will not. In a majority rules world of the UN, the US and its voting block has lost significant UN support in the last eight years. And its very possible that the UN will tell Nato to stay the hell out of Pakistan to settle the issue while more responsible members of the Taliban may group together, rename themselves, and break off from the older failed Taliban movement.

Much of the failures in the Afghan occupation stem from knee jerk policies from both the Nato side and the Taliban side. As each side outlaws the other and sets up an oil and water kill each other with no common ground. And while the old line Taliban leadership refuses to use any compromise either, many of the older Taliban recruits came from the Afghan people themselves , and they may be more amenable to compromise. As it is, Karzai is pushing for some way to include the Taliban into the political process, and that idea may win out in the end.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Pakistan may have flurted with the cause of the Taliban but I see zero evidence that they support Al Quida.

But to pretend we can defeat Al-Quida by military means has already been disproved by our own NIE. And when our own tactics aid the expansion of Al Quida, I have to respectfully disagree with you.

Deny it if you will, but that is the conclusion of our own NIE.

And given that latter FACT, I ask you and those like you to join me in figuring out smarter ways to win. Because no doubt about it, we are well on the road to losing just like we lost in Vietnam.

Unless we, you know, go into Pakistan and kill these terrorists where they sleep.

It is going to take a lot more than killing some of them in order for there to be much success. Al-Quida is a symbol more than it is a group of people these days for many. Strong symbols like that have a habit of showing their ugly face again and again even when military force is used to kill a bunch of them.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Way to go, guys ....

Bait and bully a guy in Pakistan into the promotion/consideration of giving one of their 50-some nuclear bombs to a terrorist organization. Good job.

btw - Pakistan's nuclear bombs were originally made to be dropped from aircraft - not shot out of 'silos' - and they have over 30 US F-16s to deliver them. They also have the capability to launch nukes by missile over 2000km with mobile platforms. They are 'portable' to the extent they could be 'shipped' into a US port.

Or they could just sit off shore in international waters and launch those 50+ nukes at the United States. Your $200 billion missile defense system won't do Americans a lot of good, there ...

(shakes head) No wonder the fucking World hates us ....