• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Pakistan is next country being set up for war, China not pleased

Status
Not open for further replies.

Dude Abides

Banned
ROFL said:
Actually I did say I'd be up for discussing the actual issues the article raises after all the larking about. A couple of you did bring up some genuine questions so I'll try to oblige in due course.. Off out now, cheers, etc.

Ok, let's discuss. The sourcing on the China ultimatum seems highly doubtful (times of india reporting something from "The News daily"). The other statements from China are fairly standard for them. On the US side, there's absolutely nothing to support the claim that the US wants to go after Pakistan other than baseless speculation.

Fire can't melt steel!
 

Hartt951

Member
That article is pure comedy. CIA Drone Strikes are meant to cause a civil war in Pakistan. The Osama Bin Laden raid was meant to start a war with Pakistan. The US and India have created a new version of the Taliban whose goal is to destabilize Pakistan that way the US has an excuse to invade the country and take over their nukes. And all of this is going to end in WW3 with China-Russia-Pakistan vs USA-India. Good stuff, OP, good stuff.
 

Zaphod

Member
So I still don't understand the point of the OP's article. It seems to assume that all the US and China are concerned about is posturing for some kind of world war 3. Why would China want a war with us? The real world is not some game of Civ where the only victory setting is domination. It's not like every word power sits around trying to figure out which country to invade next to increase their territory.
 
Zaphod said:
So I still don't understand the point of the OP's article. It seems to assume that all the US and China are concerned about is posturing for some kind of world war 3. Why would China want a war with us? The real world is not some game of Civ where the only victory setting is domination. It's not like every word power sits around trying to figure out which country to invade next to increase their territory.
It's playing off the fear that our president might do something stupid like the last one and piss off a country that might actually fight back, which is horseshit because nobody wants a war with the US there's no profit in it and you're likely to lose anyway
 
ElectricBlue187 said:
It's playing off the fear that our president might do something stupid like the last one and piss off a country that might actually fight back, which is horseshit because nobody wants a war with the US there's no profit in it and you're likely to lose anyway
Change that to "Will"
 

slade

Member
Rubenov said:
Don't you think that given Pakistan's highly religious population, cultural and historical similarities with Afghanistan and Iraq, they would be hesitant to drop a nuke in any of those countries just to target the US?

Pakistani missiles are not that accurate; they may miss their mark. Even without missing, nuclear fallout would affect innocent fellow Muslims.

Nuking largely homogeneous Hindu India is one thing, but launching a nuke against US troops located WITHIN any other state, moreover "friendly" ones is totally different.

If you think Pakistan would ever launch a nuclear weapon against a country other than India just to attack US forces then please enlighten me with your scenario.

Edit: Think of it as nuking fellow SUNNI states if it makes a difference. That shit matters.

Israel is a better target.
 
slade said:
Israel is a better target.
Iran. The ISI's backing of the Afghani Taliban was partly about Iranian influence in Afghanistan. Iran's nuclear program is far more about Pakistan than it is about Israel.

Recent wikileaks stuff seems to indicate that the Pakistani government is very involved in the US missions in the tribal areas. They aren't saying it publically, but they need the US's help.
 
About halfway through I started raising my eyebrow at some of the wording. Shortly after I was laughing. Interesting article ruined by blatant hyperbole and bias.

Someone skipped a few professional writing courses.
 
"Washington’s planned attack on Pakistan"

Ridiculous conspiracy theory. We certainly have differences with Pakistan but we are not going to attack them. We give them aid money & weapons.
 

RiZ III

Member
Pakistan won't attack Israel as that country isn't a neighbor or has any real influence in Pakistani politics. The only country Pakistan would go to war with is India. Pakistan isn't going to go to war with America. The politicians are all greedy self serving assholes who don't really give a shit about sticking up for any ideals. Going to war would ruin their way of life. The Pakistani army wouldn't want to go to war with America either as they know that'd be a losing battle, and their biggest threat is from India anyways. If America actually went after Paki nukes, the yea there'd be a shit storm and Pakistan would probably kick America out at that point. If America was dumb enough to do that, then yea, there'd be another war. I don't think China would care enough to join the war besides perhaps just giving some aid to Pakistan under the table. The thing is though, America just too broke. We CANT afford another huge conflict. We don't have the money, and we wouldn't have international support (besides India). If anything America will shift all their aid and focus on India and turn a blind eye as India invaded Pakistan over some issue or another. Then I think the Pakistani army is crazy enough to nuke India at which point India would do the same and basically wipe off Pakistan from the face of this planet. Pakistanis all over the world would go crazy seeing their country being destroyed and shit would go crazy. Point is, nothings going to happen.
 
RiZ III said:
Pakistan won't attack Israel as that country isn't a neighbor or has any real influence in Pakistani politics. The only country Pakistan would go to war with is India. Pakistan isn't going to go to war with America. The politicians are all greedy self serving assholes who don't really give a shit about sticking up for any ideals. Going to war would ruin their way of life. The Pakistani army wouldn't want to go to war with America either as they know that'd be a losing battle, and their biggest threat is from India anyways. If America actually went after Paki nukes, the yea there'd be a shit storm and Pakistan would probably kick America out at that point. If America was dumb enough to do that, then yea, there'd be another war. I don't think China would care enough to join the war besides perhaps just giving some aid to Pakistan under the table. The thing is though, America just too broke. We CANT afford another huge conflict. We don't have the money, and we wouldn't have international support (besides India). If anything America will shift all their aid and focus on India and turn a blind eye as India invaded Pakistan over some issue or another. Then I think the Pakistani army is crazy enough to nuke India at which point India would do the same and basically wipe off Pakistan from the face of this planet. Pakistanis all over the world would go crazy seeing their country being destroyed and shit would go crazy. Point is, nothings going to happen.
Good post. Really, anyone thinking Pakistan will attack Israel/America is delusional. Pakistan will not bite the hand that feeds. There's absolutely nothing to gain out of such mad, fantastical actions but despair and total chaos. Pakistani leadership might be incompetent, but they're not stupid.
 

XMonkey

lacks enthusiasm.
Really hope the OP didn't abandon this thread after promising to debate the "actual issues" presented in the article...
 

GavinGT

Banned
I fooled this Chinese guy into talking to Cleverbot for over two hours on Omegle. I don't think we have much to worry about.
 

Qwomo

Junior Member
Neuromancer said:
So, OP... Who do you think was really behind 9/11?
popcornwufa.gif
 

Zenith

Banned
ROFL said:
I do agree with the overall the thrust of this article, but it's always up to any reader to make of it what they will. "Pick truth out of nonsense" if you will - if YOU happen to think it's a load nonsense, which I don't.

Not only do you believe that Al Qaeda is controlled by the CIA and is being used to start WW3 with China (over Pakistan at that, lol), you believe it from an ostentatiously unreliable source.

This is not being "open-minded" and objectively anaylsing facts, this is a warped perception of reality commonly diagnosed in tinfoil hatters. Seek professional psychiatric help immediately.
 

mavs

Member
RustyNails said:
Good post. Really, anyone thinking Pakistan will attack Israel/America is delusional. Pakistan will not bite the hand that feeds. There's absolutely nothing to gain out of such mad, fantastical actions but despair and total chaos. Pakistani leadership might be incompetent, but they're not stupid.

The scenario the OP's fantasy grew out of is not that Pakistan would attack the US (or anyone else), it's from the growing sense that Pakistan's nukes are now the most significant threat to the US today.

Pakistan is responsible for initiating the nuclear weapons programs of North Korea and (supposedly) Iran, the two countries most hostile to the US out of the entire international community. North Korea then attempted to supply nuclear technology (probably for weapons) to Syria and Burma, and both Pakistan and North Korea helped Libya with a weapons program before they gave it up.

If any other country attempted or managed to arm this many of our enemies with nukes, and none have, not even the Soviet Union or China, that country would be at the very top of our hit list. And to some extent, that's exactly where Pakistan is.

Now the idea of colluding with India to start a hot war with Pakistan is pretty far out there, but there's no disputing that disarming/"securing" Pakistan's nukes is one of if not the most important US security goal, and it definitely is the most important for India by a very long distance.
 
mavs said:
Pakistan is responsible for initiating the nuclear weapons programs of North Korea and (supposedly) Iran, the two countries most hostile to the US out of the entire international community.
Are you serious? Do you know how crazy that assertion is? I can't think of anything more detrimental to Pakistan's regional security than aiding their second biggest rival in getting nuclear weapons.
 

Zapages

Member
I got juniored for posting something like this. :|

US will never openly attack Pakistan because of the supplies to Nato go through Pakistan. Plus what RizIII said.
 

Zaphod

Member
Zapages said:
I got juniored for posting something like this. :|

US will never openly attack Pakistan because of the supplies to Nato go through Pakistan. Plus what RizIII said.

At least you had the decency to discuss the things you posted. This guy just did a drive by and refused to discuss anything of substance.
 
Zaphod said:
At least you had the decency to discuss the things you posted. This guy just did a drive by and refused to discuss anything of substance.

Isn't that how these conspiracy "theorists" operate for the most part?
 

xbhaskarx

Member
OttomanScribe said:
mavs said:
Pakistan is responsible for initiating the nuclear weapons programs of North Korea and (supposedly) Iran, the two countries most hostile to the US out of the entire international community.
Are you serious? Do you know how crazy that assertion is? I can't think of anything more detrimental to Pakistan's regional security than aiding their second biggest rival in getting nuclear weapons.

I'm not sure how anyone can deny this...

AQ Khan

Iran and Libya

In August 2003, reports claimed that Khan had offered to sell nuclear weapons technology to Iran as early as 1989. The Iranian government came under intense pressure from the United States and the European Union to fully disclose its nuclear program and, finally, agreed in October 2003 to accept tougher inspections from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The IAEA reported that Iran had established a large uranium enrichment facility using gas centrifuges based on the URENCO designs, which had been obtained "from a foreign intermediary in 1987." The intermediary was not named but many diplomats and analysts pointed to Khan, who was said to have visited Iran in 1986. The Iranians turned over the names of their suppliers and the international inspectors quickly identified the Iranian gas centrifuges as Pak-1's, the model that Khan developed in the early 1980s. In December 2003, two senior staff members at Khan Labs were arrested on suspicion of having sold nuclear weapons technology to the Iranians.
Although he was not arrested, Khan was summoned for "debriefing". On 25 January 2004, Pakistani investigators reported that Khan and Mohammed Farooq, a high-ranking manager at KRL, had provided unauthorized technical assistance to Iran in the late 1980s and early 1990s, allegedly in exchange for tens of millions of dollars. Pakistan Army's former Chief of Army Staff General Mirza Aslam Beg was also implicated. The Wall Street Journal quoted U.S. government officials as saying that Khan had told the investigators that General Beg had authorized the transfers to Iran.[31]
In December 2003, Libya announced that it had agreed to abandon its undisclosed weapons of mass destruction program. Libyan government officials were quoted as saying that Libya had bought nuclear components from various black market dealers, including Pakistanis. U.S. officials who visited the Libyan uranium enrichment plants reported that the gas centrifuges used there were very similar to the Iranian machines. The IAEA officials also visited the Libyan nuclear plant where they found models of Paksat-1. Interpol arrested three Swiss nuclear scientists, who were Khan's close associates.

Note that although it was supposedly "unauthorized" according to the Pakistani government's investigators, AQ Khan was the head of the Pakistani nuclear program, and that the Chief of Army Staff was also implicated (note: CoAS is the most important/powerful position in Pakistan, currently held by Kayani, and held by Musharraf before Kayani)...

Shopping for Bombs: Nuclear Proliferation, Global Insecurity, and the Rise and Fall of the A.Q. Khan Network
 
xbhaskarx said:
I think there is a clear distinction between 'Pakistan initiating Iran's nuclear program' and a single man accepting payment for providing secrets to Iran. It is indeed possible to assert that Khan did so with help from some people within the Pakistani government, but in terms of a Pakistani attempt to provide Nuclear Weapon's tech to Iran, such a thing would be insane. Iran and Pakistan have long been regional rivals, that seems unlikely to change.
 

xbhaskarx

Member
OttomanScribe said:
I think there is a clear distinction between 'Pakistan initiating Iran's nuclear program' and a single man accepting payment for providing secrets to Iran. It is indeed possible to assert that Khan did so with help from some people within the Pakistani government
Note that although it was supposedly "unauthorized" according to the Pakistani government's investigators, AQ Khan was the head of the Pakistani nuclear program, and that the Chief of Army Staff was also implicated (note: CoAS is the most important/powerful position in Pakistan, currently held by Kayani, and held by Musharraf before Kayani)...

Pakistan Army's former Chief of Army Staff General Mirza Aslam Beg was also implicated. The Wall Street Journal quoted U.S. government officials as saying that Khan had told the investigators that General Beg had authorized the transfers to Iran.[31]



Also: lol @ "possible to assert":

Confession

In early February 2004, the Government of Pakistan reported that Khan had signed a confession indicating that he had provided Iran, Libya, and North Korea with designs and centrifuge technology to aid in nuclear weapons programs, and said that the government had not been complicit in the proliferation activities. The Pakistan Government officials who made the announcement said that Khan had admitted to transferring centrifuge technology and information to Iran between 1989 and 1991, to North Korea and Libya between 1991 and 1997 (U.S. officials at the time maintained that transfers had continued with Libya until 2003), and additional technology to North Korea up until 2000.[37] On 4 February 2004, Khan appeared on national television and confessed to running a proliferation ring.

On 5 February 2004, the day after Khan's televised confession, President Musharraf pardoned him. However, Khan remained under house arrest.[33
 
D

Deleted member 1235

Unconfirmed Member
wtf obama was just on tv talking about the importance of Pakistan/US relationship. How is this about to be a war? Also, pakistan has nukes..
 
xbhaskarx said:
Note that although it was supposedly "unauthorized" according to the Pakistani government's investigators, AQ Khan was the head of the Pakistani nuclear program, and that the Chief of Army Staff was also implicated (note: CoAS is the most important/powerful position in Pakistan, currently held by Kayani, and held by Musharraf before Kayani)...

Also: lol @ "possible to assert":
And Musharaf pardoned him, I know. Pointing out Pakistani government corruption doesn't lead to a conclusion of unified Pakistani policy on arming Iran. It would make their proxy war with Iran in Afghanistan seem kind of odd.
 

xbhaskarx

Member
OttomanScribe said:
Pointing out Pakistani government corruption doesn't lead to a conclusion of unified Pakistani policy on arming Iran.

So the head of the government's nuclear program engaging in nuclear proliferation activity with the authorization of the head of the military in a nation where the military is the most powerful part of the government (with the elected civilian government being third behind both the military and ISI) is "government corruption" and not "Pakistani policy"?

Also of note: the original comment said that "Pakistan is responsible" (which you said was a crazy assertion), not that it was "unified Pakistani policy" (your words)... how exactly is Pakistan NOT responsible here??

And of course YOUR definition of what is a "crazy assertion" may not be the one held by most rational people around here, considering you just said it is "possible to assert that Khan did so" when Khan signed a confession and admitted doing so on national television!

OttomaScribe is to anyone of the muslim faith accused of wrongdoing as Dave Chappelle is to R Kelly.
 
xbhaskarx said:
So the head of the government's nuclear program engaging in nuclear proliferation activity with the authorization of the head of the military in a nation where the military is the most powerful part of the government (with the elected civilian government being third behind both the military and ISI) is "government corruption" and not "Pakistani policy"?
The idea that it was authorized by Beg was not in the confession, and even were it true, was arguably part of internal Pakistani politics (Beg's main rival, whom he had just taken the job of, was tight with Saudi). It is clear that the policies of Beg towards Iran and his opinion regarding America were part of his political downfall and his replacement as army head. The fact that he was replaced rather speaks to the fact that we can't see him as supreme ruler of Pakistan, that is for sure.

Also of note: the original comment said that "Pakistan is responsible" (which you said was a crazy assertion), not that it was "unified Pakistani policy" (your words)... how exactly is Pakistan NOT responsible here??
I think this relates to what I said above. I think that in order for 'Pakistan to be responsible' we need to see it as a foreign policy goal of the Pakistani regime, which it is not.

And of course YOUR definition of what is a "crazy assertion" may not be the one held by most rational people around here, considering you just said it is "possible to assert that Khan did so" when Khan signed a confession and admitted doing so on national television!

What I said was:
It is indeed possible to assert that Khan did so with help from some people within the Pakistani government
maybe my grammar was wrong. What is implied is that the 'possible assertion' relates to the Pakistani government, not Khan himself.
OttomaScribe is to anyone of the muslim faith accused of wrongdoing as
What are you talking about. I am far from a fan of Pakistan. My wife is from Bangladesh! I believe that Pakistan is a horrid and corrupt regime, full of hypocrites and murderers. That doesn't mean that I will support conspiracy theories about the Pakistani regime attempting to back a rival and give them nukes.
 

Cheech

Member
Pissed. At first I thought it was a serious article, and then realized by about paragraph 6 that I'd been had.

It's like one of those Onion articles that you don't know is an Onion article at first. OP needs to take a World Affairs class, stat.
 

xbhaskarx

Member
OttomanScribe said:
That doesn't mean that I will support conspiracy theories about the Pakistani regime attempting to back a rival and give them nukes.

Where is the conspiracy theory? How about you now provide some evidence that it's NOT the case? Because just repeating that "Pakistan and Iran are rivals" isn't really enough to disprove it given that there was undeniably nuclear proliferation from Pakistan to Iran, as you have admitted.
Who says to what extent they are rivals, and what they wouldn't do with each other because they're rivals? Sure the two countries backed different sides in Afghanistan back in the 90s and Shia are sometimes persecuted in Pakistan, but they also cooperate on many matters:

The Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline is currently under discussion. It could be a major development between all three nations. India has been pressured by the US not to go ahead with the deal and appears to have headed American policy after it signed the US-India nuclear deal. In addition international sanctions on Iran due to its controversial nuclear program could derail the project altogether.

Trade between the two countries has increased by £1.4 billion in 2009. The Iranian governor general says that President Ahmadinejad remains keen to strengthen ties between the two countries.[15]

Tehran has provided 50 million euros for laying of 170 kilometer transmission line for the import of 1000MW of electricity from Iran (2009). Pakistan is already importing 34MW of electricity daily from Iran. The imported electricity is much cheaper than the electricity produced by the Independent Power Producers (IPPs) because Iran subsidizes oil and gas which feed the power plants.[16]

Iran has also offered to construct a motorway between Iran and Pakistan connecting the two countries.[17]

Since Iran has no diplomatic relations with United States, Iranian interest in the United States is represented by the Pakistan embassy in Washington. Iranian nuclear scientist, thought to have been abducted by CIA from Saudi Arabia, took sanctuary in the Pakistan embassy of Washington.[18]
 
Why does him being a truther make anything he says wrong?

Yes I think the feds are lying about 9/11. They lied about Afghanistan & Iraq, so naturally they lied about 9/11.

If that makes me crazy then I'll be that.
 
This part is my favorite.

Especially since Obama’s West Point speech, the CIA has used Predator drone attacks to slaughter civilians with the goal of fomenting civil war inside Pakistan, leading to a breakup of the country along the ethnic lines of Punjab, Sind, Baluchistan, and Pushtunistan. The geopolitical goal is to destroy Pakistan’s potential to be the energy corridor between Iran and China. Selig Harrison has emerged as a top US advocate for Baluchistan succession.

Oh so especially since Obama's West Point speech we have been slaughtering civilians with the intent of causing a civil war that will be a massive pain in the fucking ass for the entire planet. That makes perfect sense!

I believe the US already has agreements in place so that we can secure their nuclear weapons in case of insurrection?

If that makes me crazy then I'll be that.

It makes you something for sure.
 

xbhaskarx

Member
supabrett said:
Why does him being a truther make anything he says wrong?

Yes I think the feds are lying about 9/11. They lied about Afghanistan & Iraq, so naturally they lied about 9/11.

If that makes me crazy then I'll be that.

Wait, how did they lie about Afghanistan? Can you elaborate on that particular lie?

I mean, I can understand that they lied about Afghanistan IF we know they lied about 9/11, because then OBL and the rest of Al Qaeda being harbored by the Taliban in Afghanistan wouldn't be relevant to 9/11 presumably. But you have it going the other way, the lie of Afghanistan proving that 9/11 was a lie.....

Also, if we accept that the US government lied about both Afghanistan and Iraq, and conclude that they also lied about 9/11, does that mean they have lied about every other war as well? Other terrorist attacks? What about the current situation in Libya, are they lying about that? World War 2? The Civil War? The bombing of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania? The bombing of the USS Cole? Are they lying about everything? The moon landing? Area 51? Elvis and Tupac?
 

Zenith

Banned
supabrett said:
Why does him being a truther make anything he says wrong?

Yes I think the feds are lying about 9/11. They lied about Afghanistan & Iraq, so naturally they lied about 9/11.

If that makes me crazy then I'll be that.

Because it is crazy and factually wrong.
 
supabrett said:
Why does him being a truther make anything he says wrong?

Yes I think the feds are lying about 9/11. They lied about Afghanistan & Iraq, so naturally they lied about 9/11.

If that makes me crazy then I'll be that.
That logic is impeccable, isn't it?

You realise following that, if the government have told the truth at times then they always tell the truth on a related matter.

You might be crazy.
 
In other more serious e-mail lists and forums it's common practice to work by the caveat lector principle in order to be open to all sources of information, leaving it up to the reader to judge / filter the content for themselves.

I think it has been filtered enough.
 
xbhaskarx said:
Wait, how did they lie about Afghanistan? Can you elaborate on that particular lie?

I mean, I can understand that they lied about Afghanistan IF we know they lied about 9/11, because then OBL and the rest of Al Qaeda being harbored by the Taliban in Afghanistan wouldn't be relevant to 9/11 presumably. But you have it going the other way, the lie of Afghanistan proving that 9/11 was a lie.....

Also, if we accept that the US government lied about both Afghanistan and Iraq, and conclude that they also lied about 9/11, does that mean they have lied about every other war as well? Other terrorist attacks? What about the current situation in Libya, are they lying about that? World War 2? The Civil War? The bombing of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania? The bombing of the USS Cole?


In the pre Afghan war media blitz they told tales of the many super caves & weapons factories that the Taliban had. Why lie about shit like that? Everyone was on board at that point they just had to make shit up for no reason.


9/11, Irag, & Afghanistan are all directly connected. If they lied about those wars I don'put it past to to lie about the cause of the wars.
 

xbhaskarx

Member
supabrett said:
In the pre Afghan war media blitz they told tales of the many super caves & weapons factories that the Taliban had. Why lie about shit like that? Everyone was on board at that point they just had to make shit up for no reason.

How do you know they lied about Taliban / Al Qaeda super caves? Couldn't they just have been mistaken? How do you know they knew super caves didn't exist but deliberately made them up in order to deceive?
That makes even less sense given that, as you say, everyone was on board and there was no reason to make shit up. You answered your own question above: "They had no reason to lie about shit like that." So now they're not even lying for a purpose, but just for kicks?

And there were definitely caves in the mountainous regions like Tora Bora, so now we're quibbling between caves and super caves?
You realize intelligence isn't perfect, right? Especially as to whether the insides of caves are complex enough to be considered "super caves" or not, in a country that is under the control of a hostile regime?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom