Pakistan Parliamentary Secretary for Defense calls for war against USA

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Lemon law
But even if we have expert arm chair Generals here advocating invasion, the political ramifications are much more difficult.

I have yet to see a single poster advocate for the "invasion" of Pakistan. There you go again making sh*t up and putting words in everyones' mouths. It's getting quite annoying...

Europe would provide bases in the near vincinity, the overflights would be done by Israel the US and the UK, the marching force with tanks from both western Europe and the US would be a massive amount that would outnumber the Pakistanis 6-1.

Us Euros may not think much of the war that was declared on Iraq (most of us who have been there think it's pathetic) but if a country declared war on the US, troops would not be a matter that would settle it anyway and if need be, there are 600 million of us in total ready to join in.

So this huff and puff from Pakistan, is complete politics, they know we'll eventually have to march into their territory to finish off the Talibans, they should welcome it.

And that is all folks, keep screaming now but everytime they leave a woman bleeding to death shot once, through the vagina and left to bleed to death after being raped so much that all of her skin is black from the blood, remember who you are trying to save.

The Taliban is a theat to the local population, to the countries in the ME, to the US and to the EU.

Pakistan is next and a REAL threat unlike Iraq.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: DarkThinker

Originally posted by: Lemon law
What is all this crazy talk. Even if we concede that the US can reduce Pakistan to rubble with air power, its still a matter of a risk reward problem.

What got some of this crapola started is the dubious contention is that Pakistan refuses to do take out Al-Quida bases located inside Pakistan so the US should.
Which is a real dubious contention given that fact that Pakistan has caught more Taliban and Al-Quida members than everyone else combined.---including the efforts of the US military in Iraq and Afghanistan.

We even have advocates who say all we have to do if place some of our special forces guys into the lawless regions, and then they can call in air strikes,
and poof no more Taliban or Al-Quida. Some less gullibable types realize its going to take special forces, air power, and a huge number of US troops we don't have
on the ground to even dent Al-Quida or the Taliban. Because the assumption is that we don't trust the Pakistanis. But we are suddenly supposed to have better luck than Pakistanis do in a region of no roads.

Sorry---I just don't think the reward will be there---we may get a few Al-Quida and Taliban types---but most will just find new hiding places.

Now look at the risks.

1. The giant risk is that we will destabilize the Moderate Government of Musharraf. We must remember Pakistan has its own right wing and they would dearly love to get enough popular support to take over. And just the act of the US bombing inside would get many inside of Pakistan going bonkers with anger.
<
2. If Pakistan does resist---what is the US then going to do---reduce Pakistan to rubble like Israel did to Lebanon? Thats going to viewed with world horror---thats how the US treats an ally? Or will the US invade and try to invade with ground troops we don't have---going into very difficult terrain.

3. A good chance of Pakistani nukes falling into terrorist hands.


Right now the war is verbal---twits on both sides are cranking up the rhetoric as the nuts rise up to the top when the cracker jack box is shaken.
Lets leave at verbal and no one gets hurt. I hope even GWB is not nutso enough to think an unwelcome US intervention of any kind is ever worth the downside risks.

Lebanon is an ally to the United States last time I checked, the US government could have stopped the Israelis from ever launching a single bullet outside of the normal Hizbullah-Israeli conflict region in the south which would have been just great for everyone in Israel and Lebanon, but they (Israel and US governments) decided to go ahead with the pre-planned war of theirs to get the country down on it's knees while Israel wrecks havoc on the helpless civilian population, yep we got the first class ally treatment. back then, plus we are still reaping the benefits

America wanted Lebanon leveled. Why do you think our production of precision munitions almost doubled a month before the Summer War? So they could be there in time. But Israel fired SO much ordinance into Lebanon that we simply couldn't keep up. I see you're getting to see some of our cluster bombs up close. Enjoy.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: DarkThinker

Originally posted by: Lemon law
What is all this crazy talk. Even if we concede that the US can reduce Pakistan to rubble with air power, its still a matter of a risk reward problem.

What got some of this crapola started is the dubious contention is that Pakistan refuses to do take out Al-Quida bases located inside Pakistan so the US should.
Which is a real dubious contention given that fact that Pakistan has caught more Taliban and Al-Quida members than everyone else combined.---including the efforts of the US military in Iraq and Afghanistan.

We even have advocates who say all we have to do if place some of our special forces guys into the lawless regions, and then they can call in air strikes,
and poof no more Taliban or Al-Quida. Some less gullibable types realize its going to take special forces, air power, and a huge number of US troops we don't have
on the ground to even dent Al-Quida or the Taliban. Because the assumption is that we don't trust the Pakistanis. But we are suddenly supposed to have better luck than Pakistanis do in a region of no roads.

Sorry---I just don't think the reward will be there---we may get a few Al-Quida and Taliban types---but most will just find new hiding places.

Now look at the risks.

1. The giant risk is that we will destabilize the Moderate Government of Musharraf. We must remember Pakistan has its own right wing and they would dearly love to get enough popular support to take over. And just the act of the US bombing inside would get many inside of Pakistan going bonkers with anger.
<<
2. If Pakistan does resist---what is the US then going to do---reduce Pakistan to rubble like Israel did to Lebanon? Thats going to viewed with world horror---thats how the US treats an ally? Or will the US invade and try to invade with ground troops we don't have---going into very difficult terrain.

3. A good chance of Pakistani nukes falling into terrorist hands.


Right now the war is verbal---twits on both sides are cranking up the rhetoric as the nuts rise up to the top when the cracker jack box is shaken.
Lets leave at verbal and no one gets hurt. I hope even GWB is not nutso enough to think an unwelcome US intervention of any kind is ever worth the downside risks.

Lebanon is an ally to the United States last time I checked, the US government could have stopped the Israelis from ever launching a single bullet outside of the normal Hizbullah-Israeli conflict region in the south which would have been just great for everyone in Israel and Lebanon, but they (Israel and US governments) decided to go ahead with the pre-planned war of theirs to get the country down on it's knees while Israel wrecks havoc on the helpless civilian population, yep we got the first class ally treatment. back then, plus we are still reaping the benefits

America wanted Lebanon leveled. Why do you think our production of precision munitions almost doubled a month before the Summer War? So they could be there in time. But Israel fired SO much ordinance into Lebanon that we simply couldn't keep up. I see you're getting to see some of our cluster bombs up close. Enjoy.

This is starting to sound a lot like the claims about the US saving Europe out of the goodness of their hearts, Two days before Japan and Germany declared war on the US Roosevelt sad that the US is not going to get involved in Europes war.

When it comes to Lebanon, the US did protest some actions and that eventually led to the failure of the Israeli troops to secure and kill the terrorists.

So shut the fuck up because you don't know your arse from your elbow.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Lemon law
As palehorse74 concludes-----That's just totally un-fvcking-acceptable dude.

When you have one version of unacceptable and they have a 180 different view of unacceptable, its pretty clear there is an impending train wreck coming.

Its quite clear Pakistan is taking the threat quite seriously. Even Rice is now involved. But I can say, if US actions manage to cause Musharraf to fall, the situation can spin out of all control. And if this gets either China or India possibly acting froggie, this would really have some potentials to really turn ugly.

You still havent owned up to what YOU would decide if Pakistan continuously fails to clean out AQ/Taliban in their country, and if the AQ and Taliban continue to use NW Pakistan as a safehaven after their attacks against NATO and Afghan forces in Afghanistan...?? For the last time, What would YOU do to stop the attacks?

This is actually a real situation that fake horse is describing, out of 19 kills we got 19 dead Pakistani citizens this week.

We need to take them out because they keep coming back and leaving thier training camps alone will not do shiat.

A few of us and a few US airborne dropped with air support would finish this in a matter of hours.

Talibans are the worst, kill them all. i mean that, kill them ALL.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: DarkThinker

Originally posted by: Lemon law
What is all this crazy talk. Even if we concede that the US can reduce Pakistan to rubble with air power, its still a matter of a risk reward problem.

What got some of this crapola started is the dubious contention is that Pakistan refuses to do take out Al-Quida bases located inside Pakistan so the US should.
Which is a real dubious contention given that fact that Pakistan has caught more Taliban and Al-Quida members than everyone else combined.---including the efforts of the US military in Iraq and Afghanistan.

We even have advocates who say all we have to do if place some of our special forces guys into the lawless regions, and then they can call in air strikes,
and poof no more Taliban or Al-Quida. Some less gullibable types realize its going to take special forces, air power, and a huge number of US troops we don't have
on the ground to even dent Al-Quida or the Taliban. Because the assumption is that we don't trust the Pakistanis. But we are suddenly supposed to have better luck than Pakistanis do in a region of no roads.

Sorry---I just don't think the reward will be there---we may get a few Al-Quida and Taliban types---but most will just find new hiding places.

Now look at the risks.

1. The giant risk is that we will destabilize the Moderate Government of Musharraf. We must remember Pakistan has its own right wing and they would dearly love to get enough popular support to take over. And just the act of the US bombing inside would get many inside of Pakistan going bonkers with anger.
<<<
2. If Pakistan does resist---what is the US then going to do---reduce Pakistan to rubble like Israel did to Lebanon? Thats going to viewed with world horror---thats how the US treats an ally? Or will the US invade and try to invade with ground troops we don't have---going into very difficult terrain.

3. A good chance of Pakistani nukes falling into terrorist hands.


Right now the war is verbal---twits on both sides are cranking up the rhetoric as the nuts rise up to the top when the cracker jack box is shaken.
Lets leave at verbal and no one gets hurt. I hope even GWB is not nutso enough to think an unwelcome US intervention of any kind is ever worth the downside risks.

Lebanon is an ally to the United States last time I checked, the US government could have stopped the Israelis from ever launching a single bullet outside of the normal Hizbullah-Israeli conflict region in the south which would have been just great for everyone in Israel and Lebanon, but they (Israel and US governments) decided to go ahead with the pre-planned war of theirs to get the country down on it's knees while Israel wrecks havoc on the helpless civilian population, yep we got the first class ally treatment. back then, plus we are still reaping the benefits

America wanted Lebanon leveled. Why do you think our production of precision munitions almost doubled a month before the Summer War? So they could be there in time. But Israel fired SO much ordinance into Lebanon that we simply couldn't keep up. I see you're getting to see some of our cluster bombs up close. Enjoy.

This is starting to sound a lot like the claims about the US saving Europe out of the goodness of their hearts, Two days before Japan and Germany declared war on the US Roosevelt sad that the US is not going to get involved in Europes war.

When it comes to Lebanon, the US did protest some actions and that eventually led to the failure of the Israeli troops to secure and kill the terrorists.

So shut the fuck up because you don't know your arse from your elbow.

Your analogy does not compute for me. Can you explain it a bit more?

The US did protest a bit, but they kept shipping tons of ordinance. The Israelis caved to widespread international pressure, unfortunately.

 

[dahunan]

When the Arab-League does something about al-qaeda then we won't have to

When the Muslim Council does something about al-qaeda and the taliban then we won't have to

When Pakistan and Saudi Arabia STOP creating wound-up religious whacko timebombs in their madrassas and such then we will not be forced to do something about it


^^^^^^^^^^^^ Those peoples inaction makes Islam seem like a religion of peace?^^^^^^^^^

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: dahunan
When the Arab-League does something about al-qaeda then we won't have to

When the Muslim Council does something about al-qaeda and the taliban then we won't have to

When Pakistan and Saudi Arabia STOP creating wound-up religious whacko timebombs in their madrassas and such then we will not be forced to do something about it


^^^^^^^^^^^^ Those peoples inaction makes Islam seem like a religion of peace?^^^^^^^^^

You mean like when Americans do something about Bush?

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: ayabe
Fact:

Your country is harboring terrorists in it's territory with some help from your security forces and you want to point fingers about backstabbing? Get your affairs under control and there won't be a problem.

Facts outside America require proofs.

Shut the fuck up with your sanctimonious bullshit. "facts outside America require proofs" We could bulldoze your backwards nation into dust in a few weeks wihout missing an episode of the X-Files on Thursday nights. The main reason we don't and never have is because the US adheres to higher values than any comparable power in history. To criticize the US is fine, but if you give a fuck about proportionality (which is part of fact/proof), you better start being accurate. To act as though the US were at the bottom of free information flow (where the fuck do you think the internet came from) is straight up bullshit, and it's such severe bullshit that it truly pisses me off. Grow up.

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: dahunan
When the Arab-League does something about al-qaeda then we won't have to

When the Muslim Council does something about al-qaeda and the taliban then we won't have to

When Pakistan and Saudi Arabia STOP creating wound-up religious whacko timebombs in their madrassas and such then we will not be forced to do something about it


^^^^^^^^^^^^ Those peoples inaction makes Islam seem like a religion of peace?^^^^^^^^^

You mean like when Americans do something about Bush?

We did in the 2006 elections. We have a democratic process that has to be followed. IF you think this isn't enough and that moral correctness requires violent action, go do it.

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

I said I support a war. Not peace. Rebels deserve only war until they give up their arms. Besides much has changed since "Sept 5 2006"

Indeed.

The United States responded immediately and generously to Pakistan?s call for assistance following the tragic and devastating earthquake of October 8

We will take you at your word. We will fight the Taliban together.

Or without you, if necessary.

That was October 8 2005

Ahhh the Draw An Arbitrary Line In History Historian. So nothing before Oct. 9th 2005 has relevance according to you?

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: DarkThinker

Originally posted by: Lemon law
What is all this crazy talk. Even if we concede that the US can reduce Pakistan to rubble with air power, its still a matter of a risk reward problem.

What got some of this crapola started is the dubious contention is that Pakistan refuses to do take out Al-Quida bases located inside Pakistan so the US should.
Which is a real dubious contention given that fact that Pakistan has caught more Taliban and Al-Quida members than everyone else combined.---including the efforts of the US military in Iraq and Afghanistan.

We even have advocates who say all we have to do if place some of our special forces guys into the lawless regions, and then they can call in air strikes,
and poof no more Taliban or Al-Quida. Some less gullibable types realize its going to take special forces, air power, and a huge number of US troops we don't have
on the ground to even dent Al-Quida or the Taliban. Because the assumption is that we don't trust the Pakistanis. But we are suddenly supposed to have better luck than Pakistanis do in a region of no roads.

Sorry---I just don't think the reward will be there---we may get a few Al-Quida and Taliban types---but most will just find new hiding places.

Now look at the risks.

1. The giant risk is that we will destabilize the Moderate Government of Musharraf. We must remember Pakistan has its own right wing and they would dearly love to get enough popular support to take over. And just the act of the US bombing inside would get many inside of Pakistan going bonkers with anger.
<<<<
2. If Pakistan does resist---what is the US then going to do---reduce Pakistan to rubble like Israel did to Lebanon? Thats going to viewed with world horror---thats how the US treats an ally? Or will the US invade and try to invade with ground troops we don't have---going into very difficult terrain.

3. A good chance of Pakistani nukes falling into terrorist hands.


Right now the war is verbal---twits on both sides are cranking up the rhetoric as the nuts rise up to the top when the cracker jack box is shaken.
Lets leave at verbal and no one gets hurt. I hope even GWB is not nutso enough to think an unwelcome US intervention of any kind is ever worth the downside risks.

Lebanon is an ally to the United States last time I checked, the US government could have stopped the Israelis from ever launching a single bullet outside of the normal Hizbullah-Israeli conflict region in the south which would have been just great for everyone in Israel and Lebanon, but they (Israel and US governments) decided to go ahead with the pre-planned war of theirs to get the country down on it's knees while Israel wrecks havoc on the helpless civilian population, yep we got the first class ally treatment. back then, plus we are still reaping the benefits

America wanted Lebanon leveled. Why do you think our production of precision munitions almost doubled a month before the Summer War? So they could be there in time. But Israel fired SO much ordinance into Lebanon that we simply couldn't keep up. I see you're getting to see some of our cluster bombs up close. Enjoy.

This is starting to sound a lot like the claims about the US saving Europe out of the goodness of their hearts, Two days before Japan and Germany declared war on the US Roosevelt sad that the US is not going to get involved in Europes war.

When it comes to Lebanon, the US did protest some actions and that eventually led to the failure of the Israeli troops to secure and kill the terrorists.

So shut the fuck up because you don't know your arse from your elbow.

Your analogy does not compute for me. Can you explain it a bit more?

The US did protest a bit, but they kept shipping tons of ordinance. The Israelis caved to widespread international pressure, unfortunately.

Israel caved because the US told them to.

I can't present anything to build a case on that because all i have that would point to such a thing is information i cannot share with you.

But in the end, the US told Israel to back off. (mostly because the government in Lebanon were taking a dive and this is a government that is supportive of both Israel and most of all US.)

The logic is there, the conclusion is there, the rest in between you'll have to figure out yourself.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Frackal

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: ayabe
Fact:

Your country is harboring terrorists in it's territory with some help from your security forces and you want to point fingers about backstabbing? Get your affairs under control and there won't be a problem.

Facts outside America require proofs.

Shut the fuck up with your sanctimonious bullshit. "facts outside America require proofs" We could bulldoze your backwards nation into dust in a few weeks wihout missing an episode of the X-Files on Thursday nights. The main reason we don't and never have is because the US adheres to higher values than any comparable power in history. To criticize the US is fine, but if you give a fuck about proportionality (which is part of fact/proof), you better start being accurate. To act as though the US were at the bottom of free information flow (where the fuck do you think the internet came from) is straight up bullshit, and it's such severe bullshit that it truly pisses me off. Grow up.

Don't wish for blitzkrieg and don't go thumping your chest screaming "Amerika über alles", the US has done a lot wrong and most of all proven very vulnerable to militias.

Don't think that you can take on Pakistan with the troops in the condition that they are now, anyone with a brain will tell you that boots on the ground will be out of the question, and you know what, you'll find what others have found, the bombers hit dirt or kill thousands of civilians.

I believe there need to be action taken within Pakistan but invasion or full scale war is nothing anyone wants except yeehaw Amerians like you and JIIIIHAD people like Grean Bean. do us all a favor and just shut the fuck up the world have enough bleating morons as it is, you don't need to add to it.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Frackal

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: dahunan
When the Arab-League does something about al-qaeda then we won't have to

When the Muslim Council does something about al-qaeda and the taliban then we won't have to

When Pakistan and Saudi Arabia STOP creating wound-up religious whacko timebombs in their madrassas and such then we will not be forced to do something about it


^^^^^^^^^^^^ Those peoples inaction makes Islam seem like a religion of peace?^^^^^^^^^

You mean like when Americans do something about Bush?

We did in the 2006 elections. We have a democratic process that has to be followed. IF you think this isn't enough and that moral correctness requires violent action, go do it.

Don't kid yourself, GW and Dick would have to explain what they meant in a court of law if what they said was said in the UK or pretty much any other country in the world except for Russia, China, Cuba and maaaybe Venezuela, you know, the countries you like to associate your political system with?

 

[imported_Truenofan]

what dahunan doesn't realize, is that although we have alot of soldiers over here, we have like maybe 1/2 our total forces here, if we deployed everyone for the full extent of the full war till the end like in ww2, it would be over quick fast and in a hurry, we could also completly dominate any enemy forces. end of story. we rotate out every year to year and a half.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Lemon law
As palehorse74 concludes-----That's just totally un-fvcking-acceptable dude.

When you have one version of unacceptable and they have a 180 different view of unacceptable, its pretty clear there is an impending train wreck coming.

Its quite clear Pakistan is taking the threat quite seriously. Even Rice is now involved. But I can say, if US actions manage to cause Musharraf to fall, the situation can spin out of all control. And if this gets either China or India possibly acting froggie, this would really have some potentials to really turn ugly.

You still havent owned up to what YOU would decide if Pakistan continuously fails to clean out AQ/Taliban in their country, and if the AQ and Taliban continue to use NW Pakistan as a safehaven after their attacks against NATO and Afghan forces in Afghanistan...?? For the last time, What would YOU do to stop the attacks?

*crickets*... as I thought, Lemon, you're clueless, or you're simply unable to articulate a well thought out response.

derrrr....

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
This is actually a real situation that fake horse is describing, out of 19 kills we got 19 dead Pakistani citizens this week.

Hey JohnFullofShitfield, is this the part where we start calling eachother stupid little names?

swell... :roll:

 

[maverick44]

I have a question for the armchair generals here.

How exactly is the United States gonna get its troops into Pakistan?

afghanistan is a land locked country. I can pretty much gaurantee that India will not allow its bases to be used. To the north are central asian republics which are still russian satellites.

A maritime invasion would be suicide

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: maverick44
I have a question for the armchair generals here.

How exactly is the United States gonna get its troops into Pakistan?

afghanistan is a land locked country. I can pretty much gaurantee that India will not allow its bases to be used. To the north are central asian republics which are still russian satellites.

A maritime invasion would be suicide

1) I have yet to see ANYBODY advocate war with Pakistan

2) How can you garuntee that India will not allow its bases to be used? Last I checked, India and Pakistan do not get along.

3) We dont need troops in Pakistan to fuck their world up.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: maverick44
I have a question for the armchair generals here.

How exactly is the United States gonna get its troops into Pakistan?

afghanistan is a land locked country. I can pretty much gaurantee that India will not allow its bases to be used. To the north are central asian republics which are still russian satellites.

A maritime invasion would be suicide

Same way they always do it: Airdrop in the light cavalry farther in, then mass up a maritime force and bombard the landing place of their choice. Secure the landing place via air power, and waltz right in. It'd be "easy".

The U.S. may like using friendly neighbouring countries as a launch point for their forces, but they certainly don't require one.

 

[Moonbeam]

Nothing is more humorous or sad, depending on your perspective, than to watch one group of baboons threaten another group of baboons. They hoot and grunt and go into all sorts of threatening sexual gestures, puff themselves up and display their teeth, and their behinds. It's such a blessing that we humans have evolved with our large brains and the capacity to blind ourselves that we're not like these primitive brothers of ours. We have no connection with our emotions at all any more and and really do believe that we, in the greatness of our egos, are actually reacting to philosophical issues.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
This is actually a real situation that fake horse is describing, out of 19 kills we got 19 dead Pakistani citizens this week.

Hey JohnFullofShitfield, is this the part where we start calling eachother stupid little names?

swell... :roll:

You have to be more inventive than that though, otherwise it's not funny.

I apologize, it was stupid but i was irritated about something completely different and you had nothing to do with it.

Hehe, actually, i've tried to come up with a better insult but "JohnFUllofShitfield" is actually pretty inventive.

Congrats on that my little friend.

 

[maverick44]

I have yet to see ANYBODY advocate war with Pakistan

Launching airstrikes on the sovereign territory of a country, no matter how friendly, would be an act of war. Even a pet dog bites when its kicked in the nuts.

2)Last I checked, India and Pakistan do not get along.

The present govt would not allow it. It partly relies on the backing of the Communist Party of India to stay in power. The commies, predictably have an idealogical hatred for America. Regardless, I dont think backing a US invasion is in India's interests anyways.

3) We dont need troops in Pakistan to fvck their world up

If you are talking commando ops, or airstrikes, then Pakistan would probably retaliate against the small number of american troops posted there as a part of the operation in Afghanistan( Musharraf would probably be replaced with some other hardliner). Then you have to escalate with troops which you dont have in the region.

If you are talking sanctions then the end result would probably be worse. The government would go bankrupt and probably fall in a few years to the jehadists.

 

[firewall]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean
90% of Pakistan supports the taliban over the US. 99% support the Iraqi insurgents.

Where are you pulling these facts from?

 

[maverick44]

Same way they always do it: Airdrop in the light cavalry farther in, then mass up a maritime force and bombard the landing place of their choice. Secure the landing place via air power, and waltz right in. It'd be "easy".

Airdrop from where? the closest airbase is probably in baghdad. and you think one airborne division is enough for an entire country. I dont know where you got the "business as usual" idea about this since the only time sending in airborne for an invasion while the rest of the cavalry was still miles away was tried in ww2 before dday. If i remember correctly that didnt work out too well ( for the airborne i mean).

The US doesnt have enough amphibian landing ships for a maritime invasion ( Regardless of how vulnerable they are while carrying about 1,000 crew each while approaching a beach).Dday happened along time ago. Last time I checked it had about 12 wasp class and about 5 Tarawa class landing vehicles and i dont think they are capable of taking on the entire pakistani army.

You are dead wrong about not needing local bases. 90% of the troops in operation Iraqi Freedom poured out of neighbouring kuwait . Loss of Turkish bases meant huge delays in the op. In the first Gulf war it was Saudi arabia. In afganistan airborne ops were launched from pakistan.

Any invasion as I see it is not feasible from a sheer logistical point of view

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: firewall

Originally posted by: The Green Bean90% of Pakistan supports the taliban over the US. 99% support the Iraqi insurgents.

Where are you pulling these facts from?

From the Quran?