Reply #40: respectfully, sir, you are incorrect

[Scriptor Ignotus]

Pakistan IS a battlefield, whether we want it to be or not. We've also been operating in coordination with Pakistan since 2002 INSIDE THEIR "SOVEREIGN" BORDERS. So half of your argument is rendered meaningless right there. We've already been there. We're already there. In your terms, WE'VE ALREADY INVADED. Maybe it's not being broadcast on the nightly news, but it's true.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/9514/#5
Have U.S. personnel operated in Pakistan?

Yes. U.S. soldiers have joined Pakistani troops on raids in the tribal border regions, and the FBI is contributing information and agents to the pursuit of al-Qaeda holdouts. U.S. officials say they need Americans on the ground because the Pakistani military is not doing enough on its own, and Pakistan-watchers say the government remains reluctant to pursue terrorists at home because it fears an internal political backlash. Moreover, Pakistan has not wanted to launch large-scale military operations against al-Qaeda while many of its troops have been amassed along the Indian border due to tensions over Kashmir, a festering conflict that has flared up several times since India and Pakistan gained independence.

also see page 21 at this link.
http://www.fas.org/man/crs/RL31624.pdf

Obviously, this is a sensitive issue. No one denies that. But the foundation of your argument is factually incorrect. If you don't like how he said that, that's another thing. But that's semantics and we're talking substance.