Jason's Ultimatum
Member
Wait, General Zia had a secular agenda? AHAHAHAHAHAHA. Zia made sure Pakistan was the epicenter of the global islamist movement.
You are truly delusional.
You are truly delusional.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Pakistan demands US vacate air base within 15 days
- Thread starter Escape Goat
- Start date
- Status
Opps... Wrote the wrong thing... lol. Zia forced Islam on everyone but kept his life as corrupt individual.
theignoramus
Member
the logic behind Pakistan`s nuclear doctrine is to send a message to an adversary that a devastating, crippling attack against its armed forces would or could be answered with a nuclear response. this is the backbone of nuclear deterrence.
Pollux
Member
Yea there would be consequences to the US if there were a war with Pakistan. But those consequences are trivial compared to the consequences to Pakistan.
Yes the US military could cub stomp the Pakistani military. There is no debate on this.
You talked about what a NUCLEAR CAPABLE country could do to US troops and interests. and yes you did mention by conventional methods, but the thing you fail to discuss....how the hell are they going to get to US troops all across central asia and the middle east?
The only place in that area that US troops are, is Afghanistan. They can't get to any other troops. Maybe they could get to US naval assets in the Arabian sea. You go on and on about consequences to the US, but as soon as I bring u that you fail to mention consequences to Pakistan you throw a hissy fit.
So you're saying that Pakistan could effect US interests, troops, and national security. The thing that your fail to mention and that I've been saying is that there would be consequences for Pakistan as well.
Pakistan doesn't want those consequences. Because anything like what you're talking about is an actual attack on the United States that would lead to actual attacks inside of Pakistan.
Pakistan doesn't want that.
So first you say that I got fired up at the mere suggestion of consequences. I never got fired up about that. I got fired up because the way people were talking was as if Pakistan would be able to actually conventionally fight against the US.
When I specifically bring up your lack of response about the consequences to Pakistan you throw a hissy fit. Stop trying to act as if YOU'RE being so rational when you've already said
and
Well I already proved you were being a child about accusing me that I was making stuff up. I proved that the only thing I ever accused you of was ignoring consequences to Pakistan, which you said that I never accused you of.
You lied twice. Now you're trying to twist indirect posts. You made a post about hot/cold war.
I did say that Pakistan would get curb stomped in a war. that's true. try and argue that. you can't win that argument. However that post had nothing to do with your hot/cold war post which is what you're implying above.
To the hot/cold war comment I did say:
I'll admit I thought you were referring to a conventional war. So when I say that Pakistan can't reach America that's true. As you can see I said they only way the could do so is with terrorism and since they are a nuclear power and that terrorist attack was nuclear then the US would retaliate in kind.
So when I said that if Pakistan ever tried anything and that the US would end it fast that was referring to a conventional war.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=32980673&postcount=68 -- To which you respond with this, accusing me of not having any analysis. Well if your best argument for Pakistan effecting US interests is from a comment made by Joe Biden then you're going to have to do better than that. He's practically senile. This is the guy that said FDR did his fire side chats by television.
I thought we already covered that I never falsely attributed anything to you, but that was you throwing a hissy fit.
I believe i've already covered that.
Show where I falsely attributed a position to you again.
So now lets talk about consequences if PAKISTAN ATTACKS US TROOPS
Tell me that geo-political consequences that Pakistan can cause for the United States.
Well how about this - People are arguing that China won't allow the US to go to war with Pakistan. That's a horrible argument. China is worried about other things right now. They have more pressing concerns. Those can be seen earlier in this thread...HERE.
China won't go to war with the US. We're insanely in debt to China. They're not going to risk that much money just disappearing and not being paid back. The US and Chinese economies are very closely intertwined, and a war between these two countries would be a global economic catastrophe.
An argument could be made that Pakistan could make Afghanistan even more of a hell for US troops than it already is. If we're going with your argument of an actual attack by PAKISTAN against AMERICAN troops that would be suicidal and they won't do it. They, as you said, can't win a war and they know it. they would never openly attack the US or US troops. So let's say they do it indirectly. The US is already withdrawing and plans to be out of Afghanistan soon. If a Republic wins this next election the troops will be out even quicker.
This could weaken US ties between Russia and China as someone talked about. China I already talked about. Russia isn't going to do anything because they too have bigger things to worry about. They have a sick population, they have a rapidly declining population, they have to worry about the economic situation in Europe. Pakistan is not at the top of their list.
So let's talk about consequences for Pakistan.
Economic sanctions - the US could impose economic sanctions, and considering these 25 deaths were caused by NATO troops, who may or may not have even been American, then the US could pressure NATO to impose sanctions on Pakistan as well. For a country that is already hurting that would be potentially crippling.
Cutting off aid - This ties in with the economic sanctions but would also cause Pakistan to feel some hurt.
Now if we're going under the idea that Pakistan would attack the US, then the US could absolutely decimate Pakistan's ability to wage war. Considering the region they're in, and the fact that they need to keep a strong military to oppose India (not that India would do anything without any cause).
The logic behind Pakistan's nuclear doctrine works great if they can actually hit the country they're fighting with. In the argument you and I were having, that is the United States, or United States troops/interests in the region.
this is a map of the Pakistan missile range.
They have a newer missile not included on the map but that's still only able to go a little farther. They can't hit the US.
Shahreen III -- Not pictured on map
If they were to attack any US interests or troops in the region then China wouldn't be happy, India wouldn't be happy, and the US wouldn't be happy. Russia and others would also be pretty pissed off. Needless to say, Pakistan would be on the overall losing end of that decision.
So if they're logic is that a crippling attack by an enemy against Pakistani armed forces would be answered with a nuclear response, that still only works if they can hit the country that attacked them.
US Troop Levels and Fatalities in Afghanistan
Huge increase in troop levels and fatalities in Afghanistan under Obama. Repeated intrusions into Pakistani airspace to bomb Pakistani lands/people. No consultation with Pakistani authorities before launching an assassination mission to kill bin Laden. Despite how corrupt parts of the Pakistani government may be, these events are embarrassing for them and they are justified in being upset over that and the loss of their soldiers and innocent civilians. Might there be better ways to deal with these problems?
We've traded Iraq for Afghanistan, only now we're pissing off a nuclear state.
Where is the outrage?
Huge increase in troop levels and fatalities in Afghanistan under Obama. Repeated intrusions into Pakistani airspace to bomb Pakistani lands/people. No consultation with Pakistani authorities before launching an assassination mission to kill bin Laden. Despite how corrupt parts of the Pakistani government may be, these events are embarrassing for them and they are justified in being upset over that and the loss of their soldiers and innocent civilians. Might there be better ways to deal with these problems?
We've traded Iraq for Afghanistan, only now we're pissing off a nuclear state.
Where is the outrage?
Lamel
Banned
Pollux
Member
CHEEZMO;32985159 said:
Oh I get nuclear deterrence just fine thank you. However we're not talking about nuclear deterrence with Pakistan's neighbors. We're talking about nuclear deterrence with the US.
What you don't seem to understand is that even a nuclear power like Pakistan wouldn't use nuclear weapons if they can't hit the country who is attacking them. If they used nukes against invading troops, which would be the only thing they could if fighting the US, then wtf was the point?
Thus, if they can't hit US soil, there is no point in using nukes, thus nuclear deterrence isn't going to matter in that particular conflict.
Pakistan would never use nukes on their own soil or on any of the neighboring countries just to take out US troops/interests which is what I was talking about.
Of course their possession of Nukes would work against India or any other regional powers.
zmoney, I don't think that anyone here, even your nemesis, implied that Pakistan can win a war against the mega, all powerful militarily, war mongering beast that the US has become. You just seem to have an extreme hard on explaining over and over how powerful America is and how it would squash Pakistan, when that was never an issue.
Consequences does not mean 'loosing the war', it means loss of lives (US troops died in Iraq, you think Pakistan would be bloodless?), huge hit for the economy (good business for some though), possible violent riots in the US, relations with other countries turning to shit etc.
Consequences does not mean 'loosing the war', it means loss of lives (US troops died in Iraq, you think Pakistan would be bloodless?), huge hit for the economy (good business for some though), possible violent riots in the US, relations with other countries turning to shit etc.
PhoenixDark
Banned
You mean, because Obama has escalated the Afghanistan war while it was largely small-scale under Bush.
Pollux
Member
I wouldn't exactly call him my nemesis. I have nothing against him personally, we're just clashing in this thread. I'm sure he doesn't think it's personal.
I never said that anyone implied Pakistan would win, just that everyone is talking about the consequences to the US and not those to Pakistan.
I'm explaining that the US could squash Pakistan because that is the exact reason that Pakistan would never start something that could even lead to that end. The US isn't going to start a war with Pakistan. So if a war occurred then Pakistan would be the one starting it.
I've already talked about some of those consequences. Loss of lives, yes. That would be inevitable. However if this war was occurring due to Pakistani attacks on US troops/bases then there would be few riots in the US. Relations with other countries wouldn't turn to shit if Pakistan attacked first.
Look at the first post I made in this thread. I said I dare Pakistan to try anything. If Pakistan asks the US to leave, then they should leave. I never said they shouldn't. I said that if Pakistan tried anything militarily *and then the rest of the thread leads to where we are now*.
There would be far more negative consequences for the US if they refused to leave and just stayed as an occupying force. But this is the first time I talked about that since I felt that the thread needed to look at this from the other angle, and not be full of indignation about American imperialism.
So my hard on for American power as you put it, isn't because I'm just saying it for no reason. the fact remains that depending on how the war starts then Pakistan would have far more to lose than the United States.
That's the whole point. You'd think we would have learned from Iraq that a nation-building exercise is a long, drawn-out process that's going to cost Americans significant lives and money. In this case, it's straining relations with really the only country that can help us with the problem over there, who also happens to have nuclear weapons. We didn't need to have a surge in Afghanistan. The public outcry against the Iraq war was absolutely tremendous. Why is Obama getting a free pass? Shouldn't we expect more from a Nobel Peace Prize winner?
I think that no one is mentioning the consequences for Pakistan over a war with the US because they're pretty obvious...
As for Pakistan starting a war with the US, assuming they insist on their demands (which I don't think they will), and the US decides to stay anyway, would you consider action taken against the illegal presence of foreign military within their country to be them starting the war? Or the US starting it?
Because that's the only scenario of Pakistan starting something I can think of, which it won't. If war was to be initiated it's much more probable that the US would start it, calling Pakistan an addition to the axis of evil/terrorist country/bad people or something and then proceeding to destroy them. Which I don't think will happen either at this point of time because of said consequences.
Pollux
Member
First of all he should never have won the Noble Peace Prize since he never did anything to warrant it.
Second his campaign promise was to decrease Iraq and increase Afghanistan, since you know, that's were AQ was.
Third, regarding strained relations with Pakistan, that was inevitable after he turns up in a mansion in one of their largest cities. When we found out he was there we went in and took him out. Should we have told the Pakistanis? Yes. However considering that the Pakistani military and ISI is compromised by those who are very supportive of OBL it was probably the right decision.
The relationship has been fraying for a while. (This isn't directed at just you) People need to stop acting like everything thats causing this relationship to fray is the US's fault. Pakistan is just as much to blame in this as we are. They actively support the Taliban and AQ as well as other Islamic terrorist groups. We know this, they know this. They take few steps to stop that support. The ISI is basically a rogue agency and the military has more power than the civilian government. Anyone in the last 10 years who had the ability to actually implement change was assassinated.
As someone before mentioned there are a number of up and coming potential leaders who actually do have Pakistan's best interest at heart. I wouldn't mind if they kicked us out of their country were they elected. However, all I would ask of them is that they end government support of terrorist networks. The US doesn't need to be there, and Pakistan should take care of their own problems.
Pretty obvious, US starting it. If Pakistan asks us to leave and we stay then we have no excuse were they to do anything. That would be the type of scenario that would end horribly for the United States.
With that being said (and I agree with you that Pakistan wouldn't start anything) if Pakistan didn't ask the US to leave, but then a rogue element within the military or ISI carried out some sort of attack against the US/NATO forces traveling through Pakistan, would you say that Pakistan had started it?
I don't think a war would happen, and I agree that it is obvious that the consequences for Pakistan would be pretty obvious, but when you're throwing out comments saying that it would destroy US foreign policy you have to look at it from the other angle. It would only destroy US foreign policy if there were to be a war. The US isn't going to just attack Pakistan. (As I said if Pakistan asks them to leave and they don't and then that starts something, the US would deserve every bit of international condemnation that they would get as well as any negative consequences that would happen). However, the consequences to Pakistan in both hypotheticals (US starts it, Pakistan starts it) need to be examined since Pakistan is going to be weighing those consequences against any action they take against the United States.
That's why I've been harping on it. Even if Pakistan asks the US to leave, they still probably wouldn't try any sort of military action because the consequences against them are just too great. Because of that the rest of the discussion about negative consequences towards the US are moot, because in that scenario there wouldn't be any negative consequences towards the US (minus the international shit storm that would happen if they refused to leave Pakistan after being asked by the Pakistanis) since there wouldn't be any conflict and Pakistan wouldn't be hurting US interests/assets/troops etc.
However, if a rogue element attacks the US then those negative consequences people were talking about wouldn't necessarily count either because in that circumstance the US would have been seen as the victim. Maybe not by the "Muslim World" but by the majority of the West.
So the consequences to Pakistan can't just be ignored "because they're obvious". They have to be factored in, because no matter what consequences to the US you want to talk about, you can't talk about them "realistically" without first analyzing the potential negative consequences/positive consequences for Pakistan in each of the hypothetical scenarios.
Choke on the Magic
Banned
pffft. I'll believe when I see it. I hope it happens and we come home. We've killed bin laden, lets take our troops, and our aid money home.
theignoramus
Member
I refuse to read that fucking novel by zmoney above. verbosity is his man, obfuscation his plan.
I can barely make sense of the bullshit he`s attributed to me. all my posts in here put together wouldnt equal half the length of his posts, which all seem to boil down to the same thing: team American can kick Pakistans ass, Pakistans nukes are useless against America because they cant hit the US mainland and using them against US troops and assets in southeast asia would piss off India, China and Russia.
someone get this guy a desk at the State department, he`s just a fountain of insight.
I can barely make sense of the bullshit he`s attributed to me. all my posts in here put together wouldnt equal half the length of his posts, which all seem to boil down to the same thing: team American can kick Pakistans ass, Pakistans nukes are useless against America because they cant hit the US mainland and using them against US troops and assets in southeast asia would piss off India, China and Russia.
someone get this guy a desk at the State department, he`s just a fountain of insight.
Dreams-Visions
Member
Choke on the Magic
Banned
This one is your fault NATO.
Pollux
Member
And yet again you sound like a child.
The bullshit I attributed to YOU? You're the one telling me I'm making stuff up, yet when I show you evidence I'm not making anything up, well, that's when I'm just bullshitting and obfuscating the real issue.
The argument about nukes is dead on. If you're Pakistan and the US is invading you (at this point it really doesn't matter who started it because you're contemplating using nukes) are you going to launch a nuke on YOUR OWN SOIL? No. That would end any chance of popular support for the war and make you just as hated as the invading army for killing your own people.
If you decide to strike at the massive US force sitting outside Pakistan in Afghanistan, nobody in the international community is going to support you since you just NUKED A FOREIGN COUNTRY. In that case how are you any better than the American invasion force?
If you use nukes and fallout drifts into India or China, that's not a good idea either. That would piss off the real big boys on the block in your neighborhood and you can kiss any beneficial relationship with either power goodbye.
Not to mention a nuclear strike against US forces would most likely result in one in kind. Although I doubt it because nobody wants to start WW3. However even if the US were to respond and nuke Pakistan, they have nothing to lose. Pakistani nukes can't respond against American civilians, which is the point.
The fact is that you're spouting off theories about nuclear deterrence with regards to Pakistan's neighbors, who they can hit with nukes, as if that actually has any bearing on nuclear deterrence with a nation on the other side of the world that they can't even come close to hitting. Whereas that other power can reduce every major city in Pakistan to rubble with a single submarine.
Brilliant scheme there buddy.
It's absurd for sure. Any conversation we're now having about potential consequences, nuclear weapons, strategies, international opinion, etc. is all war-game stuff. It's all hypothetical.
Vicetrailia
Banned
Pakistan wants that oil too you know...they are fighting for money and power as much as we or afghan clans are. It's all about money...so inevitably....
There is no doubt a war between United States and Pakistan would be more detrimental to Pakistan. However, why are you understating the repercussions of such a war and it's impact on the United States.
What happens when the 7th largest military in the world dissolves? A fairly modern military too. Before you even talk about nuclear weapons, there is the massive amounts of arms, munitions, training. They would fall into the hands of the militants, and that alone would increase the terror threat to the West by an order of magnitude.
Add in a hundred or more nuclear war heads, and you really do have a terrible situation for the West to deal with.
Regardless, Pakistan would not be stupid enough to directly attack the United States. But these operations conducted by the United States are really testing Pakistan's stability.
The framework of the Pak Army is being stressed by these constant incursions by the United States. It could lead to a mutiny within the Pak Army. A mutiny within the Pak Army would also lead to a situation I described earlier in this post.
Actually, I think theignoramus was trying to suggest that Pakistan could put up a good fight.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=32979313&postcount=23
theignoramus: Attack Pakistan and face the consequences. (A fair but vague statement)
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=32980420&postcount=52
zmoney: What consequences? The fight would be one-sided. (A somewhat ignorant statement/question)
But then...
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=32980673&postcount=68
theignoramus: America doesn't attack because Pakistan could fuck them up.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=32981222&postcount=97
theignoramus: Pakistan has nukes, and their army can get into skirmishes with whatever troops are already deployed across Asia/Middle East.
speculawyer
Member
Yeah, I don't understand why people bothered to respond to the posts. Such a war is not going to happen and it doesn't take a military genius to compare two countries militaries.
If Vietnam has thought America anything, it is that it does not matter how powerful a nation is. There could be situation where Pakistan holds on long enough that popular support for a war dwindles.
Pollux
Member
This would all be bad for the West, I agree with you on that. Catastrophic even. A collapse in the Pakistani army would leave Pakistan in the same boat as any number of failed states around the world. The thing is, at that point, if a nuclear failed state came into being, as you said, that wouldn't just effect the US. That would effect the world. At that point it becomes a global issue, meaning China is going to intervene, Russia is going to intervene, the Europeans are going to intervene, etc. So we agree that a nuclear armed failed state, or nuclear armed terrorist group is disastrous? More on that in a minute.
With regards to these soldiers joining militias and trying to wage war on the US. How exactly do they plan on doing that? US is leaving Iraq, which they can't get to without a great deal of difficulty. Are they going to attack us in Afghanistan? Some might, but if we're to the point where the Pakistani military has collapsed and is attacking NATO targets in Afghanistan the rest of the world would step in. China and India do not want a failed state right next door.
The incursions by the US? I agree with you that the drone strikes in Pakistan by the US are ridiculous. The attack earlier today was ridiculous. But as far as today's attack, we still don't have the facts.
There could be a mutiny by the army leading to the rogue military angle I was talking about before. But, while that would effect the region, it would effect Pakistan far more than the US. The US could just pull troops out of the region, they could focus on an actual force if they were attacked, or any other number of possibilities.
The scary idea is a terrorist organization with a single nuke. However if the above scenario played out and even a single one of those nukes was lost, there would be a global search for that weapon. It would become increasingly difficult as time went on to get that weapon to the US mainland which would probably be the group's goal. So the consequences for the region are far more dire than the United States in the scenario you describe.
And just an extra point to mention, if the army mutinies and leads to that scenario simply because of the US presence after the US and the government have worked out an arrangement for the US to stay. The US would not be the bad guys in that scenario. But the military and the ISI.
Yes. Look at Iraq. The issue is that with Iraq, Afghanistan, and Vietnam we were attempting to rebuild a country. If this hypothetical war were to take place (and you must say who started it by attacking first etc.) then the US might not even try to rebuild the country in the same way as Iraq/Afghanistan. They best course of action were this to happen would be to simply destroy any ability for Pakistan to pose a threat to the US mainland and leave.
However, that whole strategy depends on which scenario for conflict we're discussing.
Vicetrailia
Banned
Yeah I think that talk about Pakistan and the US warring is lame.
The point is that Pakistan will not be controlled by the U.S and they have much better relations with Afghanistan than we do. If you look at it in every angle, whatever we are fighting for they are fighting for the same thing and have a much greater advantage than we do.
The point is that Pakistan will not be controlled by the U.S and they have much better relations with Afghanistan than we do. If you look at it in every angle, whatever we are fighting for they are fighting for the same thing and have a much greater advantage than we do.
Pollux
Member
Nice contribution to the overall discussion. Well done.
Read the above analysis on Pakistan using nukes against the US and you'll see why it doesn't matter that they're a nuclear state or not.
And the sooner ISI stops funding radical Islamic groups that want to attack the West the better.
CHEEZMO
Obsidian fan
What are you getting at here?
Eh, you could. Maybe it's not the whole story, or lacks meaning, but whatever.
I don't think Pakistan would have a chance. But I think that if America were to destroy Pakistan, the vague "consequences" of such an action on the world stage would be staggering. At the point when theignoramus first suggested "consequences", you should probably have just let it slide.
Uh, yeah. I was agreeing with you. I was summing up theignoramus' posts, and suggesting that you had reason to post your earlier posts.
Pollux
Member
CHEEZMO™;32986875 said:
I'm not advocating that, I'm saying that if you wanted to avoid the problem that stopped the US in Vietnam/Afghanistan/Iraq, you just avoid the problem.
If the problem was nation building you just don't nation build. That would never happen of course since there hasn't been an actual total war that doesn't involve nation building. The problem is that the US is trying to build these countries like the US, when they're not.
They have their own identity, culture, religion, history that will make their journey towards whatever government they choose radically different from the United States. A democratic Iraq is going to look extremely different than a democratic America. The problem is that our politicians don't seem to understand this and are trying to put a square peg in a round whole.
The problem we have in the Middle East is that we don't belong there. We're trying to tell the Egyptians they're doing democracy wrong when they elect "pro-islamic leaders". Well guess what, the country is Muslim. That would be like telling any number of Western countries, "You're doing it wrong, you're electing pro-christian leaders". It's stupid. The more the US stops meddling in the affairs of the Middle East the less they'll hate us.
The problem is that we feel like we're dependent on their oil which leads to a whole different discussion about energy independence and how we should develop that.
1. But for the complete discussion to take place you can't just leave out important facts like who started what or whose doing what. But ok.
2. Depends on the circumstances and who did what when and if Pakistan were using nukes or not, etc.
3. My apologies, sorry about that.
EDIT: I just feel like I should get this out in the open, I'm not supporting the US' current idea of democracy in the Middle East. The Middle East is nothing like the US and has their own way of doing things. Religion is something that goes to the very fibre of personal and national identity there. You can't ask for a secular government from the people of these countries, and then when they give you a religious one because that's what they want tell them they did it wrong.
The US should not try to tell countries it doesn't understand how to do things when we can't even keep our own house in order. We're led by hypocrites who claim to be Christian yet everything they say and do shows how they are not. In the words of the Gospels which our leaders claim to read they are doing the exact opposite of what Jesus says to do.
We have so many issues in our own country that we have no right telling another country how to get their shit together, let alone how to run an election.
However, since this entire thread devolved (largely my fault) into bitching about a US Pakistan war (I'm not saying I'm wrong and someone else was right, since there is no right point of view on a hypothetical scenario), the main message has been lost, and I'm sorry for that. I'm no longer going to discuss this hypothetical war. If anyone wants to discuss it with me shoot me a PM and we can continue talking bout it. But the main point of this thread should be about the soldiers who lost their lives today, and about the future development of the region.
Again I apologize for completely derailing the thread.
Vicetrailia
Banned
*claps* you finally said something good.
Ditto those sentiments...
TacticalFox88
Banned
Well, then. This thread is certainty all over the place.
speculawyer
Member
Yeah, don't bother.
Your "analysis" made no sense what so ever. US went to war with Germany during WW1 over action like this. Pakistan will fight foreign invaders to defend its sovereignty no matter the cost, is never about what you get to gain when your people are getting killed.
On top of that, your naive input on geopolitical fallout is astonishing. You think other nations in the region are just going to sit on their ass when Pakistan is attacked? Do you even know which country is Pakistan's closest ally? Does SCO sound familiar to you?
This is the type of stuff that triggers world wars, entire Eurasia continent is going to light up all because of US imperialistic meddling.
theignoramus
Member
I meant Pakistan could kill Americans, civilian or soldier, and many of them. I dont think there`s been a single person in this thread, myself included, who said what you seem to think i said. I thought it was a given Pakistan wouldnt win in a fight with the US. the whole point of the discussion was to talk about how Pakistan can dramatically impact US interests and security, which is why the US gives it so much aid and tries to maintain leverage over it, even as it arms groups fighting US soldiers. I mean, Pakistan is doing equal or more to harm Americans than US arch enemy Iran (and unlike Iran it actually has WMD) but the US gives Pakistan money and f16s, while it talks about bombing Iran.
To understand this dynamic, we have to examine Pakistan`s capacity to harm the US, which will inform our understanding of the US aid package to Pakistan.
Chittagong
Gold Member
It's true in a way though - look at Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan - the world doesn't give a flying fuck of what's going on in there. It's only because of what originated as a Soviet vs USA proxy war gave birth to international terrorism that the region is interesting. Had this not happened even the India border conflicts Pakistan has would not interest anyone in the West. It's the prospect of a nuclear country being destabilized my extremists that makes the region interesting to the world - and USA has exactly itself to blame for the mess.
theignoramus
Member
Also, Pakistan`s nuclear deterrence vis a vis the US is that it could give a terrorist group a nuclear weapon, not so much that it could nuke troops amassed near its borders. (although it may be able to hit Diego Garcia with a nuclear tipped missile)
demigod
Member
Why yes, lets tell Pakistan that we found Bin Laden before killing him so they can warn him to GTFO. BRILLIANT IDEA!!!
No, but at that point maybe you need to accept that you are not wanted in the country, and should get out?
I agree with the US about not telling them about the bin laden attack. They were hiding him in the fucking country! Pakistan knew his ass was there.
Joel Was Right
If you smell burning, it's probably the generators acting up. Report it anyway.
What would the reaction be if 28 NATO soldiers were accidentally killed by a Pakistani air raid?
Judging by the amount of US hate going on in this thread.... people would say we deserved it.
Joel Was Right
If you smell burning, it's probably the generators acting up. Report it anyway.
There seems to be two distinct attitudes towards the US (the country, its people) and US foreign policy.
True, and since I'm former Army, I'm biased.
- Status