Give this guy a medal

Page 14 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

The Green Bean

Diamond Member
Jul 27, 2003
6,506
7
81
Average per capita income in Pakistan as of 2010 is $2,400, making it the 181st richest country of 229. Figure into that US aid of roughly a billion a year or about $5.50 per head; however 2/3 of that is military. Compare that to India, whose average income is $3,400 with roughly the same resources and population base, for what it's worth.

Where did you get those figures? You have both under and overestimated... According the the IMF Pakistan's per capita GDP is $2800 and India's is $3300. That makes Pakistan 133rd on the list and India, 127th.

This thread is about Raymond Davis... please stick to the topic.
 

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,018
37
91
People like you are the reason we need to build up our nuclear arsenal as fast as possible.

I think you misunderstood me there: I was not advocating such, and thought such comments ignorant (the exact definition of that word), however, a d@mn large % of the US held that opinion. Your hated Bush instead came out and said something unpopular, which was that Islam was a peaceful religion, etc. etc. (notice: He didn't take an opinion poll like his predecessor, and say whatever was popular so he could get the most brownie points).

And you just brought the problem with your line of thinking to exact light:

Up till now, in the very grand scheme of things, all the killing (on both sides) has been minor. 3000 civilians at a civilian target (on purpose) in the US is in reality a minor amount of people when looked at on a national scale. A couple of thousand civilians (I'm taking a SWAG on how many Western forces have killed in Afghanistan and Pakistan that were actually truly civilians) in Afghanistan/Pakistan is again minor.

Yet you want to increase the size of your nuclear arsenal seemingly to "combat" The Evil West. Think very closely about what you're advocating here: You're in effect mentally wanting to move the status quo of minor handfuls of (at least from our side) accidental civilian killing to very high amounts of purposeful civilian killing. Amounts so high that they'll be eclipsing 9/11 levels by a factor of 10 to 100 with one of your nukes (much more with one of ours ((not even counting MIRV))).

National support in the US for Afghanistan after a 9/11 type event was about as solid as one could possibly have in the US (especially given the post-2000 election attitude)...what do you think the national attitude in the US would be with a purposefully targeted 30,000-300,000 civilian deaths?

Let me clue you in TGB, it wouldn't be Israel getting wiped off the face of the map (not that I really give a sh1t about Israel, I'm just using that line to make a point). After an event like that against us, the sitting POTUS would be hamstrung by the public to respond so severely, we'd be in uncharted (past Hiroshima/Nagasaki) territory.

The World has grown infinitely smaller since WWII. And Pakistan has absolutely grown as a nation, both in population and technological expertise. You really need to start mentally growing out of tribal/fundi paranoia and get into a better frame of mind, because advocating what you just did is exactly the reason the The Evil West is running around your neck of the woods (hint: it's not "oil" like all the BDS'rs/whiners like to puke out).

Chuck
 

The Green Bean

Diamond Member
Jul 27, 2003
6,506
7
81
snip...
Chuck

Give me one good reason why the USA can have nukes and Pakistan and Iran can't. If the world disarms, we should follow suit. Nuclear weapons are deterrents; they are not meant to be used against a civilian population--idealistically anyways. On many levels, weapons of mass destruction are against the rules of war in Islam. However, in the face of American threats that "we will bomb you to the stone age," it is imperative that we develop deterrents so foreign powers can not bully us.

That is why we must develop both strategic and tactical nukes. Tactical nukes to deter against an invasion and ICBMs to prevent a possible nuclear holocaust. I'm appalled that most people on this forum find it perfectly fine to nuke Pakistani cities, but when someone talks about Iran or Pakistan developing their nuclear programs, he's advocating violence. What's the difference?

In the end the your justification is that America has better weapons and so we must listen to them--that is the exact reason we must build up our nuclear weapons. If we can not match your strength we must at the very least be able to hurt you to the point that you would never chance a war.

I am open to a one world, one nation theory. The Americans are not. This war is about economic injustice and not religion. If Afghanistan was not abandoned like it was, we would never have been in this mess in the first place.
 

Zargon

Lifer
Nov 3, 2009
12,218
2
76
Says the American who believed Bush's lies about Iraq's WMDs.

making large assumptions now aren't we?

beyond that fact you comparing some russian douche vs the word of the CIA, white house, british intel etc, who were all 'colluding' to 'hood wink everyone'

Iraq was and is a mess, nothing has changed in 30 years there though
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Where did you get those figures? You have both under and overestimated... According the the IMF Pakistan's per capita GDP is $2800 and India's is $3300. That makes Pakistan 133rd on the list and India, 127th.

This thread is about Raymond Davis... please stick to the topic.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/pk.html
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/in.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita
CIA World Factbook 2010. Interestingly, of the three given in wiki I used the one with the highest Indian and lowest beloved patriot figures, and you used the one with the highest beloved patriot and lowest Indian figures. (I Googled CIA World Factbook though, I didn't select the one that most matched my point.)

And the shithole detaining Raymond Davis is certainly pertinent to any discussion of Raymond Davis.
 

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,018
37
91
Give me one good reason why the USA can have nukes and Pakistan and Iran can't. If the world disarms, we should follow suit. Nuclear weapons are deterrents; they are not meant to be used against a civilian population--idealistically anyways. On many levels, weapons of mass destruction are against the rules of war in Islam. However, in the face of American threats that "we will bomb you to the stone age," it is imperative that we develop deterrents so foreign powers can not bully us.

Jesus Christ, you just don't F'ing get it: We're trying to get rid of our nukes, not get more! The nuke cat is out of the bag, it bred like motherF'ing crazy, and now we're trying to do population control on it before there's an infestation. You may have seen that the US and Russia are working to have less nukes, not more. You'd think for being such an enlightened society you claim to be, you all would look at The West and maybe learn from our mistakes. But, nope, got to have a big nuke d*ck even though you don't have 1/10th of the stability of the US, nor the safety controls (scary, because even with all the ones we do have, we still have slip ups).

LOL on the 'not meant to be used against civilian population'...TGB, that's what nukes are for, to vaporize really large sections of Earth. There are very few large sections of Earth that could take a nuke hit on a military target, and also not kill sh1ttons of civilians. Then there's all the nuke fallout, and the long term affects of that fallout. Where exactly do you ever think your nukes could be used where the people launching them knew d@mn well years ahead of time what the casualties would be? See where this is going genius? Because when you rip one of those off, and it nukes a few ten thousand civilians, that's not a 'collatteral damage' or an 'oops we were off by 500 yards' or 'oops we had bad intelligence'. It's on purpose. The civilian deaths are known ahead of time. And the bad part is, the other side knows the opposing side knew about the civilians and the magnitude ahead of time. Which means, they knew their opposing force knowingly nuked tens of thousands of civilians. It immediately escalates the response TGB from a verbal condemnation or a tactical conventional weapons response to a tit for tat. Now what? You're telling me you want to see Pakistan trade nukes with the US?!?!?!

That is why we must develop both strategic and tactical nukes. Tactical nukes to deter against an invasion and ICBMs to prevent a possible nuclear holocaust. I'm appalled that most people on this forum find it perfectly fine to nuke Pakistani cities, but when someone talks about Iran or Pakistan developing their nuclear programs, he's advocating violence. What's the difference?

Dumb dumb, no one finds it perfectly fine, that's the point! You're going down this 'look I've got a nuke too' path and you aren't realizing your path leads to a smoking pit with a mirror in it. Listen to yourself: You actually believe The West gives a sh1t about Pakistan or Iran to nuke it. No one cares, you're country is that insignificant. The only problem comes in when we take into account global travel and your fundi and unstable country. Because now, rather than just your own fundi's and uneducated masses F'ing over just your region, now it's spreading out to affect us. Pakistan/Iran develop ICBM's to prevent a nuclear holocaust...that's one of the most idiotic statements on P&N I've read yet, and for P&N, that's saying something.

In the end the your justification is that America has better weapons and so we must listen to them--that is the exact reason we must build up our nuclear weapons. If we can not match your strength we must at the very least be able to hurt you to the point that you would never chance a war.

No, not listen to us because we've got better weapons, listen to us because we've got a better message. If we were so intent on taking your sh1thole country over, we'd already have done it when we did Afghanistan. All we ask is that you work with us to get rid of inhumane fundi's. Instead you shelter them and play word games. True, you go get a token amount, so you can keep the Billions from us flowing to you, but, not anywhere close to the amount you know about. This nuke weapons talk is asinine....you don't want to go there as a country, it's not the future you want to hamstring yourselves into (once you go nuke, and posture that, you're treated differently - it's not a net positive).

I am open to a one world, one nation theory. The Americans are not. This war is about economic injustice and not religion. If Afghanistan was not abandoned like it was, we would never have been in this mess in the first place.

No one from America should be open to a one world one nation theory. Despite bankrupting ourselves, and eating ourselves to obesity, we're still the best/one of the very best countries in the world to live in. One would have to be completely insane (or seriously mentally scarred, see bleeding heart liberals) to want to open America up to a one world one nation theory. We already have a 'one continent one nation' thing being tried here in the US, and so far, America is on the losing end when taking net long term bennies into the picture.

I do agree with you though, this war is about economic injustice. Your corrupt countrymen are so corrupt, they'd see your people live in sh1t so they can have another few Million/Billion in the bank. You have mass amounts of uneduated men, further religiously brainwashed, told slanted/biased things against The Evil West, so your Masters (both religious and political) can delude you all to a common enemy rather than waking up and realizing the truth.

Keep going on a West hating mission....The World is progressing, you're hating and wanting to build nukes....Brilliant!

Chuck
 
Last edited:

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
12
76
It still speaks to TGB's relative wealth in an impoverished country that he just built a $1000 computer in a country where the average income is ~$2400.

How many of us build $20,000 computers?
 

Zargon

Lifer
Nov 3, 2009
12,218
2
76
It still speaks to TGB's relative wealth in an impoverished country that he just built a $1000 computer in a country where the average income is ~$2400.

How many of us build $20,000 computers?

I have no use for a 20,000 dollar computer

I just spend 2000 dollars and I have no idea wtf to do with it most of the time
 

The Green Bean

Diamond Member
Jul 27, 2003
6,506
7
81
Jesus Christ, you just don't F'ing get it: We're trying to get rid of our nukes, not get more! The nuke cat is out of the bag, it bred like motherF'ing crazy, and now we're trying to do population control on it before there's an infestation. You may have seen that the US and Russia are working to have less nukes, not more. You'd think for being such an enlightened society you claim to be, you all would look at The West and maybe learn from our mistakes. But, nope, got to have a big nuke d*ck even though you don't have 1/10th of the stability of the US, nor the safety controls (scary, because even with all the ones we do have, we still have slip ups).

LOL on the 'not meant to be used against civilian population'...TGB, that's what nukes are for, to vaporize really large sections of Earth. There are very few large sections of Earth that could take a nuke hit on a military target, and also not kill sh1ttons of civilians. Then there's all the nuke fallout, and the long term affects of that fallout. Where exactly do you ever think your nukes could be used where the people launching them knew d@mn well years ahead of time what the casualties would be? See where this is going genius? Because when you rip one of those off, and it nukes a few ten thousand civilians, that's not a 'collatteral damage' or an 'oops we were off by 500 yards' or 'oops we had bad intelligence'. It's on purpose. The civilian deaths are known ahead of time. And the bad part is, the other side knows the opposing side knew about the civilians and the magnitude ahead of time. Which means, they knew their opposing force knowingly nuked tens of thousands of civilians. It immediately escalates the response TGB from a verbal condemnation or a tactical conventional weapons response to a tit for tat. Now what? You're telling me you want to see Pakistan trade nukes with the US?!?!?!

I don't care the White House claims, until you don't get rid of all your nukes, we will keep building them. If you wanted, you could get rid of them in a year. Regarding tactical nukes, the unanimous opinion on this forum is that if Pakistan were to use tactical nukes against American military targets in the region, America would respond with a nuclear holocaust. How can that be right? To prevent this response, we need ICBMs. tactical nuclear weapons against military targets in times of war are within the rules of engagement. I'm basing my opinion on what I read on these forums. They are advocating wiping this "shithole" from the face of the Earth; nukes are the only option.

Do you believe your media/government that our nukes are unsafe? It's the same people who lied about Iraq's WMDs. Our nuclear assets are safe.

Dumb dumb, no one finds it perfectly fine, that's the point! You're going down this 'look I've got a nuke too' path and you aren't realizing your path leads to a smoking pit with a mirror in it. Listen to yourself: You actually believe The West gives a sh1t about Pakistan or Iran to nuke it. No one cares, you're country is that insignificant. The only problem comes in when we take into account global travel and your fundi and unstable country. Because now, rather than just your own fundi's and uneducated masses F'ing over just your region, now it's spreading out to affect us. Pakistan/Iran develop ICBM's to prevent a nuclear holocaust...that's one of the most idiotic statements on P&N I've read yet, and for P&N, that's saying something.

Yet speaking about wiping Iran/Pakistan off the map is acceptable but if anyone talks the same about Israel, he is a terrorist.


No, not listen to us because we've got better weapons, listen to us because we've got a better message. If we were so intent on taking your sh1thole country over, we'd already have done it when we did Afghanistan. All we ask is that you work with us to get rid of inhumane fundi's. Instead you shelter them and play word games. True, you go get a token amount, so you can keep the Billions from us flowing to you, but, not anywhere close to the amount you know about. This nuke weapons talk is asinine....you don't want to go there as a country, it's not the future you want to hamstring yourselves into (once you go nuke, and posture that, you're treated differently - it's not a net positive).

Firstly, that you have a better message is debatable. Your government doesn't have any credibility. You send spies who collaborate with terrorist organizations, you lie about WMDs and invade sovereign country--the means to reach what end? Money.

If you think we don't want to get rid of our terrorist elements, you are an idiot. We are suffering the most. You aren't helping us; you are just making things worse by lying and spying.


No one from America should be open to a one world one nation theory. Despite bankrupting ourselves, and eating ourselves to obesity, we're still the best/one of the very best countries in the world to live in. One would have to be completely insane (or seriously mentally scarred, see bleeding heart liberals) to want to open America up to a one world one nation theory. We already have a 'one continent one nation' thing being tried here in the US, and so far, America is on the losing end when taking net long term bennies into the picture.

Then the American slogan should read "Freedom, justice liberty--only for if you are American" ... But the genius of Orwell said it decades ago-- "some are born more equal than others." You claim the world has become smaller. I agree--America is the spoilt elite class who really only care for themselves.

I do agree with you though, this war is about economic injustice. Your corrupt countrymen are so corrupt, they'd see your people live in sh1t so they can have another few Million/Billion in the bank. You have mass amounts of uneduated men, further religiously brainwashed, told slanted/biased things against The Evil West, so your Masters (both religious and political) can delude you all to a common enemy rather than waking up and realizing the truth.

Blame everything on corruption...
As far as education is concerned... it's not as bad as what they tell you there. We have more than 50% literacy--which goes up to 80% in the Urban areas.

Keep going on a West hating mission....The World is progressing, you're hating and wanting to build nukes....Brilliant!

Chuck

We must safeguard are values against the violent "message" of America and American capitalism.
 

The Green Bean

Diamond Member
Jul 27, 2003
6,506
7
81
It still speaks to TGB's relative wealth in an impoverished country that he just built a $1000 computer in a country where the average income is ~$2400.

How many of us build $20,000 computers?

That's retarded--even by Nebor standards. Why would anyone build a $20,000 when it's only slightly better than a $1000 computer? Many people buy $200,000 cars--go tell them to donate their wealth to you.

Besides, I am a believer in a world economy. You have as much of a responsibility to help the poor of the world as I do.
 

The Green Bean

Diamond Member
Jul 27, 2003
6,506
7
81
And the shithole detaining Raymond Davis is certainly pertinent to any discussion of Raymond Davis.

How so? Money isn't everything. There have been successful, just empires who had a per capita GDP much less than ours. Economics has no bearing on the justice system. Look at China.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
52,120
45,128
136
I don't care the White House claims, until you don't get rid of all your nukes, we will keep building them. If you wanted, you could get rid of them in a year. Regarding tactical nukes, the unanimous opinion on this forum is that if Pakistan were to use tactical nukes against American military targets in the region, America would respond with a nuclear holocaust. How can that be right? To prevent this response, we need ICBMs. tactical nuclear weapons against military targets in times of war are within the rules of engagement. I'm basing my opinion on what I read on these forums.

It's generally accepted that any nuclear weapon usage would eventually culminate in a full exchange within the respective capabilities of the nations.

The US has largely eliminated anything less than a hundred kilotons out of the active stockpile so even counter strikes against military targets would could major collateral damage.
 

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,018
37
91
I don't care the White House claims, until you don't get rid of all your nukes, we will keep building them. If you wanted, you could get rid of them in a year.

No, we 'couldn't get rid of them in a year'. There are thousands of nukes held by both Russia and the US. Each time they're dismantled, 'the other side' has to verify so everyone is on the up and up. It took years to build them, and it's going to take years to get rid of them. I cannot possibly imagine, for a country that is not wanting to push 'agenda by nuke', why any country, much less a poor country like Pakistan, would waste one cent on developing a nuclear weapon. It screams: Total Stupidity.

Regarding tactical nukes, the unanimous opinion on this forum is that if Pakistan were to use tactical nukes against American military targets in the region, America would respond with a nuclear holocaust. How can that be right?

A Pakistan with any type of Leadership that had any type of sanity would never use tactical nukes against anyone, except maybe India, and as a retalitory response at that. Because if they did, they know just how F'ing doomed they'd be. I really don't think you truly get just how 'kid gloves' the US has fought the WoT so far. Yes, on a micro scale, unintentionally against civilians and purposefully against combatants, the US appears to be using massive and overwhelming force...from their view we're using our Super in Superpower. From a macro view, one which would be used if what you're advocating were to come true, the US so far is using light conventional weapons. No one, not even during the start of the Iraq liberation, has really seen the US go 'all out' - even conventionally - against a country. The crazy thing is the US wouldn't even need to use nukes, conventional munitions alone would do the job. And so your solution is to build nukes, that will never be used, to combat something you have no hope - even with the nukes - of combating anyways. Meanwhile, while you spend hundreds of Millions (or even Billions) on aquiring these useless nukes, your people live in sh1t. Again, brilliance.

To prevent this response, we need ICBMs. tactical nuclear weapons against military targets in times of war are within the rules of engagement. I'm basing my opinion on what I read on these forums. They are advocating wiping this "shithole" from the face of the Earth; nukes are the only option.

Again, I really don't even think you grasp the seriousness of what you're implying here. If your mythical ICBM were actually launched, actually worked as intended, actually was not stopped sufficiently, what then? You've launched your one or handful of ICBM's. You know, as every nuclear country does, that launching nukes against another country invites that country to in tern launch their nukes against you: Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). Since your nukes, at best, could only seriously harm the US - not cripple it, not destroy it, simply seriously harm it - your solution to prevent your onslaught is what? The US then has 1500 or so nukes aimed back at you, the smallest of which is likely multiples better than your best, and infinitely more reliable and accurate...and you have no way to intercept them. You think Russia or China, the only two powers that would have a hope of stopping our response, are going to come to your aid after you nuke, well, nuke anything? They're going to call the POTUS up, urge restraint, and then say, "...but we will not take action, except to urge restraint, regardless of how you respond. This is an outrage. Later." You'd be an international pariah even more so than you are now, magnitudes more than you are now. Lets stop with the 'nuke peen' talk TGB...its silly, it'll never happen (well, at least you better pray it never happens), so it's a non-starter.

Do you believe your media/government that our nukes are unsafe? It's the same people who lied about Iraq's WMDs. Our nuclear assets are safe.

I believe they're about as safe as you can make them at this time. Which means what? Do you have all the built in safeguards that ours have designed in? I truly hope so, but, I really doubt it. That makes them, very likely, less safe. Do you have a non-fundi population and a stable region like we have? Not in any way. Do you have a military in control that isn't corrupt through and through, and doesn't have fundi influence, like ours? Well, we're all really hoping so TGB, but I'd seriously doubt it. Us in The Evil West certainly hope our concerns are proved wrong if you all ever do have a little rebellion over there, I'm sure India does as well.

Yet speaking about wiping Iran/Pakistan off the map is acceptable but if anyone talks the same about Israel, he is a terrorist.

It's not that it's acceptable, it's that Adinnerjacket used that phrase in respect to Israel, so now it gets used 'tonque in cheek' (mostly) describing an overwhelming military response by US; I think pretty much Everyone over here realizes we're never going to use our nukes against any of you countries in that region - we simply don't need to given our conventional forces makeup. P.S. While Israel is an ally, don't assume that some super large % of the US/West has some inate love for Israel: We don't. We may prefer Israel over Pakistan, but that doesn't mean we're all jihadi over Israel here. As far as talking the same about Israel, the reason for that is, well, because your fundi religion, and Dinner Jacket in particular, have a large number of terrorists, and, well, they go on Israel benders despite Israel not being their problem (this gets back to what I said earlier about you all being brainwashed...it's another control mechanism they brainwash into you. Instead of wondering why your religious fundi Leader is railing on the West - and hence brainswashing you - for giving your Leadership Billions of $$$$ to be used for you that they instead stash in their own personal accounts (thereby F'ing you directly, and us indirectly), the next words out of their mouth are Evil Jews and your eyes glaze over about a problem that has nothing to do with you at all.....and the brainwashing continues). Sorry for the run on sentence, but, it's a perfect example of why you all are not Progressing. You have paranoia about Israel for a reason (it's been brainwashed into you and everyone around you), and rather than coming to that realization, you actually try and use it as a valid comparison.

Firstly, that you have a better message is debatable.

Help us stop POS murders and rapists fundi's who like to kill because it gives them something to do is a debatable message? Setup a stable and self-representative government, that's not corrupt, is a debatable message? Just WTF is there to debate there????

Your government doesn't have any credibility. You send spies who collaborate with terrorist organizations, you lie about WMDs and invade sovereign country--the means to reach what end? Money.

Well TGB, if the US doesn't have any credibility, then really, who does? Fundi leaders over there? Corrupt to the core politicians over there? Russia? Haha, Ok, that one was a joke. The point is, all nations act in their best interest, including the US. The point you're missing here is, the US really doesn't ask for much - not really. We're not there to make Afghanistan - or Iraq - the 51st and 52nd US state. We're not there to take your women and kids back with us. We're not there to just kill indescriminantly (like your super nice Russia you seem to trust is absolutely known, and expected by All, to do). We really would like to accomplish our objectives (eradicate Taliban with absolute minimum civilian casualties, stable non-corrupt self-representative government in Afghanistan), and then, GTFO. OBL, as well as improved social progress on women and animals, would be icing on the cake in that deal, but we'd settle for those top two. That sounds bad to you?

As far as "invading" Iraq, Saddam decided he wanted to roll those dice, and, his bluff got called (unlike the other 13 times he laughed in the face of the UN, while the UN took it like the pussies they are). The Iraqi's, after killing themselves by the boatload, finally decided maybe they'd try this representative government thing. Since they've only been at it (in a relatively stable environment) for like, 3 years now, and after 30+ years of repression (which breeds distrust and bottled up emotion), I think they're doing pretty d@mn good so far. Granted, they've still got the fundi problem, and the uneducated problem, but, maybe, soon, they'll start moving forward a little bit more. The thing is, for all the 'look at what the US did to Iraq', the Iraqi's as a whole are worlds better as a country than they were under Saddam - and they won't have to go through the experience of Saddam's lovely sons. The Iraqi's will get to chose, for themselves, which direction they go. Really terrible the situation the US put them in huh? God, we're such monsters for letting them rule themselves....

If you think we don't want to get rid of our terrorist elements, you are an idiot. We are suffering the most. You aren't helping us; you are just making things worse by lying and spying.

I think there are many of you who do want them gone, however, you've got way too much terrorist sympathy in your ranks to get the job done properly. Which makes your efforts, while sometimes effective, untrustworthy. The shit we really know about what you all are doing - and more importantly, not doing - never makes it to the papers (except when POS's leak it). Given there have been multiple reports from people who don't need to lie, about Pakistani's not taking care of business on their side of the border, I'll go with we're helping you as much as we can without just breaking across the border and trying to full out do it ourselves. So we resort to telling lies when we need to (because telling the truth would be decidedly worse), and of course spying, because god knows, there is no way we could trust ISI...so if we can't trust you all, and we need real intel, where does that leave us? Well TGB, that leaves us having to go be spies, when needed...

Then the American slogan should read "Freedom, justice liberty--only for if you are American" ... But the genius of Orwell said it decades ago-- "some are born more equal than others." You claim the world has become smaller. I agree--America is the spoilt elite class who really only care for themselves.

There is also an expression that goes, You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. The US/West has been trying for a decade now to drag your region forward, but the problem is, you all are so fundi, and so corrupt, and so distrustful (somewhat understandable given how much corruption you all have), that it really is an uphill battle. My point btw was that because the world is smaller, your fundi - and the tools of that trade - problem became not just your problem, but now it becomes ours. Ignoring it like we did with the Cole, just gets us a 9/11. We can't ignore it any longer, your non-progress has now impacted us. We're now forced to 'be the @sshole' and drag you kicking and screaming forward like a little whining kid. Only it turns out that Mom and Dad really did know what was best, and that eating your vegetables was actually good for you.

Blame everything on corruption...
As far as education is concerned... it's not as bad as what they tell you there. We have more than 50% literacy--which goes up to 80% in the Urban areas.

Your entire culture is corrupted. Look, you can't even name a price for something and have it just be the price, your whole culture is setup to haggle because no one inately trusts someone not to rip them off. I'm not sure what you consider literacy, but, you have reporters from your own link not even being able to write an article without simple lack of clear bias and sensationalism. You have people in that region who actually buy "The Great Satan" speeches, that actually buy that Israel puts killer sharks in the water: Do you have any idea the level of retardation The Rest of The World views that? While I will absolutely will admit we have total dumbf*ck loons here (both on the left and right), from what I've seen of youtube and other media videos, you have some really F'ing dumb people there. Worse, it's just not some one dumb@ss, it's sometimes a whole town. How do you explain a whole town digging a whole, burying a woman up to her head, and then throwing rocks into her face? What total level of stupidity do you have to be at to ever even think of doing such a thing?? We were there here a while ago, it was called the Salem Witch Trials. Read up on it. That's you guys now.

We must safeguard are values against the violent "message" of America and American capitalism.

Yes! Quick! Safeguard yourselves against not being corrupt, about fairness for all, about not killing or cheating your neighbor, about not abusing your wife or an animal, quick!!! Don't get caught up in the "message" of Evil America!!! Keep doing it your way, it's working great!!!

Chuck
 
Last edited:

The Green Bean

Diamond Member
Jul 27, 2003
6,506
7
81
No, we 'couldn't get rid of them in a year'. There are thousands of nukes held by both Russia and the US. Each time they're dismantled, 'the other side' has to verify so everyone is on the up and up. It took years to build them, and it's going to take years to get rid of them. I cannot possibly imagine, for a country that is not wanting to push 'agenda by nuke', why any country, much less a poor country like Pakistan, would waste one cent on developing a nuclear weapon. It screams: Total Stupidity.



A Pakistan with any type of Leadership that had any type of sanity would never use tactical nukes against anyone, except maybe India, and as a retalitory response at that. Because if they did, they know just how F'ing doomed they'd be. I really don't think you truly get just how 'kid gloves' the US has fought the WoT so far. Yes, on a micro scale, unintentionally against civilians and purposefully against combatants, the US appears to be using massive and overwhelming force...from their view we're using our Super in Superpower. From a macro view, one which would be used if what you're advocating were to come true, the US so far is using light conventional weapons. No one, not even during the start of the Iraq liberation, has really seen the US go 'all out' - even conventionally - against a country. The crazy thing is the US wouldn't even need to use nukes, conventional munitions alone would do the job. And so your solution is to build nukes, that will never be used, to combat something you have no hope - even with the nukes - of combating anyways. Meanwhile, while you spend hundreds of Millions (or even Billions) on aquiring these useless nukes, your people live in sh1t. Again, brilliance.

If we did not have nukes, we would have been much worse off. Either we would have been living under Hindu rule or we would have been bombed back to the stone age by the USA. The point is that even though we might get destroyed in the process, the damage we do to you would be too much for your government to risk a war with us. That's why it was Afghanistan and not us.


Again, I really don't even think you grasp the seriousness of what you're implying here. If your mythical ICBM were actually launched, actually worked as intended, actually was not stopped sufficiently, what then? You've launched your one or handful of ICBM's. You know, as every nuclear country does, that launching nukes against another country invites that country to in tern launch their nukes against you: Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). Since your nukes, at best, could only seriously harm the US - not cripple it, not destroy it, simply seriously harm it - your solution to prevent your onslaught is what? The US then has 1500 or so nukes aimed back at you, the smallest of which is likely multiples better than your best, and infinitely more reliable and accurate...and you have no way to intercept them. You think Russia or China, the only two powers that would have a hope of stopping our response, are going to come to your aid after you nuke, well, nuke anything? They're going to call the POTUS up, urge restraint, and then say, "...but we will not take action, except to urge restraint, regardless of how you respond. This is an outrage. Later." You'd be an international pariah even more so than you are now, magnitudes more than you are now. Lets stop with the 'nuke peen' talk TGB...its silly, it'll never happen (well, at least you better pray it never happens), so it's a non-starter.

MAD does not have to mean that we totally destroy each other to non-existence. Do you think it would be worth launching a dozen ICBMs against Pakistan if we could retaliate with even one? It's just not worth it. We need nukes not for offensive purposes, but for defensive purposes. America will lie again, and this time it might be us... The Russians already believe you are trying to frame us.


It's not that it's acceptable, it's that Adinnerjacket used that phrase in respect to Israel, so now it gets used 'tonque in cheek' (mostly) describing an overwhelming military response by US; I think pretty much Everyone over here realizes we're never going to use our nukes against any of you countries in that region - we simply don't need to given our conventional forces makeup.

You miss the point. We WILL use tactical nukes against an American invasion. That's our only option. However, the war criminals that they are, the Americans might revert to nuclear holocaust. We need more nukes to prevent war; not to bomb American cities.

P.S. While Israel is an ally, don't assume that some super large % of the US/West has some inate love for Israel: We don't. We may prefer Israel over Pakistan, but that doesn't mean we're all jihadi over Israel here. As far as talking the same about Israel, the reason for that is, well, because your fundi religion, and Dinner Jacket in particular, have a large number of terrorists, and, well, they go on Israel benders despite Israel not being their problem (this gets back to what I said earlier about you all being brainwashed...it's another control mechanism they brainwash into you. Instead of wondering why your religious fundi Leader is railing on the West - and hence brainswashing you - for giving your Leadership Billions of $$$$ to be used for you that they instead stash in their own personal accounts (thereby F'ing you directly, and us indirectly), the next words out of their mouth are Evil Jews and your eyes glaze over about a problem that has nothing to do with you at all.....and the brainwashing continues). Sorry for the run on sentence, but, it's a perfect example of why you all are not Progressing. You have paranoia about Israel for a reason (it's been brainwashed into you and everyone around you), and rather than coming to that realization, you actually try and use it as a valid comparison.

Our public is not as dumb as you make them to be. Corruption is a major problem, but it's a minor irritant in the grand scheme of things.


Well TGB, if the US doesn't have any credibility, then really, who does? Fundi leaders over there? Corrupt to the core politicians over there? Russia? Haha, Ok, that one was a joke. The point is, all nations act in their best interest, including the US. The point you're missing here is, the US really doesn't ask for much - not really. We're not there to make Afghanistan - or Iraq - the 51st and 52nd US state. We're not there to take your women and kids back with us. We're not there to just kill indescriminantly (like your super nice Russia you seem to trust is absolutely known, and expected by All, to do). We really would like to accomplish our objectives (eradicate Taliban with absolute minimum civilian casualties, stable non-corrupt self-representative government in Afghanistan), and then, GTFO. OBL, as well as improved social progress on women and animals, would be icing on the cake in that deal, but we'd settle for those top two. That sounds bad to you?

That's what they tell you there don't they? *snicker*

As far as "invading" Iraq, Saddam decided he wanted to roll those dice, and, his bluff got called (unlike the other 13 times he laughed in the face of the UN, while the UN took it like the pussies they are). The Iraqi's, after killing themselves by the boatload, finally decided maybe they'd try this representative government thing. Since they've only been at it (in a relatively stable environment) for like, 3 years now, and after 30+ years of repression (which breeds distrust and bottled up emotion), I think they're doing pretty d@mn good so far. Granted, they've still got the fundi problem, and the uneducated problem, but, maybe, soon, they'll start moving forward a little bit more. The thing is, for all the 'look at what the US did to Iraq', the Iraqi's as a whole are worlds better as a country than they were under Saddam - and they won't have to go through the experience of Saddam's lovely sons. The Iraqi's will get to chose, for themselves, which direction they go. Really terrible the situation the US put them in huh? God, we're such monsters for letting them rule themselves....

Saddam was an oppressive ruler and needed to be gotten rid of. However, the means does not justify the end. America lied, and I don't trust them.


Your entire culture is corrupted. Look, you can't even name a price for something and have it just be the price, your whole culture is setup to haggle because no one inately trusts someone not to rip them off. I'm not sure what you consider literacy, but, you have reporters from your own link not even being able to write an article without simple lack of clear bias and sensationalism. You have people in that region who actually buy "The Great Satan" speeches, that actually buy that Israel puts killer sharks in the water: Do you have any idea the level of retardation The Rest of The World views that? While I will absolutely will admit we have total dumbf*ck loons here (both on the left and right), from what I've seen of youtube and other media videos, you have some really F'ing dumb people there. Worse, it's just not some one dumb@ss, it's sometimes a whole town. How do you explain a whole town digging a whole, burying a woman up to her head, and then throwing rocks into her face? What total level of stupidity do you have to be at to ever even think of doing such a thing?? We were there here a while ago, it was called the Salem Witch Trials. Read up on it. That's you guys now.

Yes! Quick! Safeguard yourselves against not being corrupt, about fairness for all, about not killing or cheating your neighbor, about not abusing your wife or an animal, quick!!! Don't get caught up in the "message" of Evil America!!! Keep doing it your way, it's working great!!!

Chuck

This is where the discussion starts and ends. Even though you seem to misinterpret some "values" of our culture, some of it is undeniably part of it. You may think it's stupid--we think gay bars are stupid; we don't go and close down your gay bars. The real conflict of intellects in the two cultures is that while your culture teaches you that humankind and its laws are destined to change, we believe that the laws have been perfected as they are. If you don't agree with them, that's your problem--if you think you need to invade us in order to 'fix' us, we will fight back. Which culture is superior is only a matter of opinion. Visit an Islamic forum, and you will realize that as many people hate American values as Americans hate ours. However, admittedly, some of our values have been misrepresented by our fundis and your media. The problem here today is not the laws, it's the implementation. In fact, for some reason we are still following British law.

As far as progress is concerned, history has proved that the Islamic system is not a barrier to progress...
 
Last edited:

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,577
432
126
That was actually a very intelligent way to maneuver out of this crisis - the letter of the law was followed so nobody's sensibilities are left offended.
 

The Green Bean

Diamond Member
Jul 27, 2003
6,506
7
81
Last edited:

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
12
76

The Green Bean

Diamond Member
Jul 27, 2003
6,506
7
81
What are you so mad about? We followed your country's backwards laws and paid for forgiveness.

1) The family was forced to testify.
2) The Sharia court was not involved. The Lahore High Court has no jurisdiction over this matter.
3) The law was misinterpreted.
4) Espionage charges against him were not brought forward.

Fuck America and fuck her puppet Zardari.
 

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,577
432
126
Don't be upset with America and Zardari, be upset with Pakistan and its need for foreign cash to stay alive. Of course if you're beholden to outsiders there will be strings attached to the money.

I've been told that anger is a useful emotion - it jolts you into action. What can you be doing to make Pakistan less needy of America's help?
 

The Green Bean

Diamond Member
Jul 27, 2003
6,506
7
81
Don't be upset with America and Zardari, be upset with Pakistan and its need for foreign cash to stay alive. Of course if you're beholden to outsiders there will be strings attached to the money.

I've been told that anger is a useful emotion - it jolts you into action. What can you be doing to make Pakistan less needy of America's help?

The only reason we are so dependent on American aid today is because of Zardari's policy of filling his stomach while everyone else starves to death. To highlight this: Zardari moved to his Karachi residence which he has turned into a fortress; closed all four sides of the roads leading to it. I am guessing I live on the same electricity zone as he does. Before he came, we used to have 3-4 hrs of loadshedding every day. Today? None at all. Of course, the rest of the city compensates by ever increasing hours without electricity. Fuck Zardari, fuck the PPP.
 

Kadarin

Lifer
Nov 23, 2001
44,296
16
81
From the cnn.com article here: http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/03/16/pakistan.cia.charges/index.html?hpt=T2

Davis appeared in court after the payment was made and was acquitted of the charges, in accordance with an Islamic practice known as diyat, or compensation, the lawyer said.

"Diyat," a part of Islamic law that is enshrined in Pakistan's penal code, allows victims to pardon a murderer with or without being paid "blood money," the former chief justice of Pakistan's Supreme Court, Saeed U Zaman Saddiqi, told CNN.

Cognitive dissonance is a bitch, isn't it, Green Bean?
 

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,262
3
76
Surely The Green Bean is pleased with this ruling, as it follows his Islamic law. Congratulations to Pakistan for releasing the victim of a self defense shooting.