The Case for Invading Pakistan: A Grave and Gathering Threat

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

HardWarrior

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2004
4,400
23
81
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
I also want to point out that if we invaded Pakistan we would probably have no problem gaining the help of the Indians. Between us and the Indians we could easily crush them with the Indians taking most of the casualties.

Pakistan already has a seat at the nuclear table, we aren't going to screw with them, no matter what they're about. Besides, "hot preemption" is dead. No more "We can attack anyone because...... because.... well, because WE'RE the USA!"

 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
You just know Osama's hiding out in the Pakistani tribal areas. Frankly, I don't understand why Pakistan allows this semi-autonomous zone to exist in the first place. I guess the threat of a civil war erupting keeps everyone in check?
 

HardWarrior

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2004
4,400
23
81
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
You guys are a bunch of wind bags. You're either with us or against us.

So you're superior because you see the situation as black and white ONLY?

 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,803
6,232
126
Originally posted by: HardWarrior
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
You guys are a bunch of wind bags. You're either with us or against us.

So you're superior because you see the situation as black and white ONLY?

Damn tooten. Black and white and nuck-que-lur.

 

HardWarrior

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2004
4,400
23
81
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: HardWarrior
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
You guys are a bunch of wind bags. You're either with us or against us.

So you're superior because you see the situation as black and white ONLY?

Damn tooten. Black and white and nuck-que-lur.

Okay, now how about a serious response.

 

Martin

Lifer
Jan 15, 2000
29,178
1
81
Originally posted by: HardWarrior
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: HardWarrior
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
You guys are a bunch of wind bags. You're either with us or against us.

So you're superior because you see the situation as black and white ONLY?

Damn tooten. Black and white and nuck-que-lur.

Okay, now how about a serious response.

You're new around these parts....moonbeam is always serious...and he's never serious....you'll learn soon...
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,803
6,232
126
Originally posted by: HardWarrior
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: HardWarrior
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
You guys are a bunch of wind bags. You're either with us or against us.

So you're superior because you see the situation as black and white ONLY?

Damn tooten. Black and white and nuck-que-lur.

Okay, now how about a serious response.

OK, I especially like the part about the Indians doing all the dying. That's really just too cleaver. Death by proxy. Sort of like telling the GIs, hey fellers, we're going to Iraq to remove some WMD, and forget to mention the oil, PNAC and stratigery.

 

ufs

Senior member
Jun 3, 2001
310
0
0
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
1. Pakistan is run by a military dictator who overthrew the elected government, this is not in doubt

Elected government is working in Pakistan. Musharraf agreed to give up as army leader and work as president only. The supreme court of pakistan supported musharraf's move to overthrow the previous government because of it's corruption. Musharraf also won with 99% votes, a referendum held back in 2002, to remain president for next 5 years, and recently got a vote of confidence from the elected assembly. There is more democracy in pakistan today then ever before.

2. Pakistan harbors and is THE major base for Al Qaeda and assorted other Islamic Fundamentalists, this is not in doubt

Wow... seems like you only watch Fox news. Pakistan has never been the so called major base of Al Qaeda. As a matter of fact, Al Qaeda is reponsible for recent terrorists attacks in Pakistan, including two assasination attempts on Musharraf.

3. Pakistan along with Saudi Arabia is a major player in the spread of idealogical fundamentalist Islam including beingthe main sponsor and supporter of the Taliban, this is not in doubt

Pakistan stopped supporting the Taliban immediately after September 11, 2001. If you are going to accuse Pakistan for something it has done long time ago, then don't forget that America trained Osama Bin Laden to fight against Soviet Russia.

4. Pakistan at least indirectly supports terrorism against neighboring states., this is not in doubt

You mean India, right? Indian prime minister just visited Islamabad to start working together to solve major disputes and work towards good relations. If Pakistan was supporting terrorism in India, he would never have done that.

5. Pakistan has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be directly linked to the spread of the most dangerous WMD, nuclear weapons technology, and the above mentioned dictator reportedly knew about it and has engaged in a whitewash by pardoning the man chiefly responsible, this is not in doubt

Above mentioned dictator did not know about any of this as the man responsible had contacts with under world. He did pardon him but he is still under tight scrutiny and survellence and this case is far from over.

6. Pakistans human rights record is dismal to say the least, torture, rape rooms, persecution of women, all there., this is not in doubt

Which human rights are you talking about? Since when has this been the reason to attack an independent country with its own government? There are many countries on the map where human rights are worse than anywhere else. Why not attack them first? Aren't there no rapes, tortures, kidnapping, assault, sniping, child molestations and what not in the US of A? Why are we so concerned about other countries' internal problems when we can't solve ours?

7. Pakistans intelligence services and military are closely intertwined with Islamic militants and are of dubious loyalty to the dictator Musharrif if the proverbial sh!!t hit the fan, this is not in doubt
What the hell are you talking about? What are you smoking, dude? And please, wake up, smell the coffee and stop calling Musharraf a dictator because he is the fvcking President of a democratic country with elected governemnt, that just voted for him to be the president for another five years. 5 Senior most Generals of Pakistan Army has shown full support to the president.

When does Pakistan join the Axis of evil? Does this not qualify as a grave and gathering threat?? I sure think so. I say we start by invading the border region with Afghanistan and dare them to challenge us? Who is with me???


Not me. Just because you think so it doesn't even qualify as a considerable case. For your kind information, the US of A has already a military base in a small town of Pakistan, running its operation at Pakistan's expense, using their resources, and you are talking about attacking them. How many times Pakistan and US forces have run joint operations against terrorists inside Pakistan's terrotary? How many major Al Qaeda leaders Pakistan has captured and handed over to the US? Do you remember anything that Musharraf or any Government offical has said to be considered a threat to US (or the World, as if we care about the world, anyway)? You don't, because they have never said anything like that. Everything that you say from the comfort of your room based on information obtained from propaganda spread by American news channels and never looking at the other side of the picture, is very much in doubt.
 

SherEPunjab

Diamond Member
Oct 23, 2002
3,841
0
0
Originally posted by: Dari
What's the point of this stupid thread? What has Pakistan done to the US that would cause us to harm her? She has been an ally, although a nominal one, for decades. Unless she turns her guns towards us or her gov't actively supports terrorist attacks against the US and her interests, I see no reason to attack her.

LOL. Pakistan is where the Taliban was formed. Pakistan is where many terrorist training camps are setup, where they train to bomb American embassys in Africa, Crash planes into buildings, etc... the Madrassas of Afghanistan and Pakistan are where most of the training takes place. What have they don'e to the US.... you're joking right? Just because Bush goes on TV every now and then and says Pakistan is our ally, Islam means peace.... don't believe it... there is a time and a place for everything..
 

SherEPunjab

Diamond Member
Oct 23, 2002
3,841
0
0
Originally posted by: AnImuS
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: Dari
What's the point of this stupid thread? What has Pakistan done to the US that would cause us to harm her? She has been an ally, although a nominal one, for decades. Unless she turns her guns towards us or her gov't actively supports terrorist attacks against the US and her interests, I see no reason to attack her.

The Irony is thick here.

Why would we want to invade a country that is generally being helpful with dealing with terrorist groups?

because invading it will give us complete controll and much better reach.

its actually cheaper if we just train indian troops and have them invade while we watch. alot cheaper.


Possible, highly possible...



link1
link 2
link3
 

SherEPunjab

Diamond Member
Oct 23, 2002
3,841
0
0
Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
1. Pakistan is run by a military dictator who overthrew the elected government, this is not in doubt


2. Pakistan harbors and is THE major base for Al Qaeda and assorted other Islamic Fundamentalists, this is not in doubt

3. Pakistan along with Saudi Arabia is a major player in the spread of idealogical fundamentalist Islam including beingthe main sponsor and supporter of the Taliban, this is not in doubt

4. Pakistan at least indirectly supports terrorism against neighboring states., this is not in doubt

5. Pakistan has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be directly linked to the spread of the most dangerous WMD, nuclear weapons technology, and the above mentioned dictator reportedly knew about it and has engaged in a whitewash by pardoning the man chiefly responsible, this is not in doubt

6. Pakistans human rights record is dismal to say the least, torture, rape rooms, persecution of women, all there., this is not in doubt

7. Pakistans intelligence services and military are closely intertwined with Islamic militants and are of dubious loyalty to the dictator Musharrif if the proverbial sh!!t hit the fan, this is not in doubt


When does Pakistan join the Axis of evil? Does this not qualify as a grave and gathering threat?? I sure think so. I say we start by invading the border region with Afghanistan and dare them to challenge us? Who is with me???

we should just let india take them out. they want to, the muslims and hindu's have been going at it for ages.

in fact an article on the pakistan india conflict is where i first read about hindu militants and hardliners.



linky

"Hindu militants" b.s. That author is an idiot. The mosque that was demolished used to be a site of an ancient Hindu temple... the Hindus just took it back. I don't advocate what they did, but labeling them as 'militants' is blowing it out of proportion. Everytime Hindus have done something, including the riots a few years ago, were outcomes of an initial aggression by Muslims.
 

SherEPunjab

Diamond Member
Oct 23, 2002
3,841
0
0
for the record, i don't think its a good idea if the U.S. or India attacks Pakistan. A, as stated before, India needs NO help from the U.S. in easily, easily wiping out Pakistan. However, it would need help in terms of moral support from other countries and getting approval. IF India did such a thing, there would, of course be repercussions, probably mostly from other Islamic nations, who, naturally, think that an attack on ANY DAMN MUSLIM ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD, REGARDLESS IF THEY ARE GUILTY OR NOT, is "an attack on Islam."

Despite the fact that Musharraf is a military dictator, despite the fact that he trained and aided the Taliban, and other terrorist groups (technically the Taliban wasn't a terrorist group, but i'm calling it here for sake of time saving), despite the fact that an ovewhelming percentage of Pakistanis in the U.S. and Pakistan in particular harbor ill will towards Americans, despite the fact that Pakistan poses a huge threat b/c it is the only Islamic nation with nuclear weapons and those weapons technology can a) be downright given to terrorist groups or 'rogue' nations by Pakistans ISI (intelligence agency - they are terrorists themselves), or b) be stolen from the government and or/nuclear installations hijacked - what not, despite all this, i do not think we should attack Pakistan.

One thing that is VERY important, and needs to be handled with utmost tact is taking away the nukes from Pakistan. quite frankly, nukes for any country is dangerous. it really sucks that our nation and russia helped create this nuke arms race. Pakistan really should not have these weapons as they are not stable enough to protect it from wrong hands, or may give it themselves.

 

SherEPunjab

Diamond Member
Oct 23, 2002
3,841
0
0
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
You just know Osama's hiding out in the Pakistani tribal areas. Frankly, I don't understand why Pakistan allows this semi-autonomous zone to exist in the first place. I guess the threat of a civil war erupting keeps everyone in check?

i don't believe anything is 'semi autonomous.' If you're a nation with over 135 million people and have nuclear technology, you can control a bunch of grizzly warlords fighting on donkeys and camels. you can control your borders better.

the fact is, Pakistan is getting a taste of its own medicine now. they helped spread the flames of fundamentalism when it was good for them to use the paid mercenaries or those poor saps that actually believe pakistani brainwashing in Kashmir, but then when the u.s. clamps down, they get scared and start turning their back on their one time friends (taliban, formed in Pakistan in 1996, and 7 of top 11 commanders of taliban were ethnic pakistani). Osama is MOST LIKELY in Pakistan, I have been saying this for well over a year. When the U.S. army was still looking in PK, i knew he had crossed. some idiot on AT even said i'm a terrorist cuz i know... whatever. i just know a lot about this topic. and i know the pakistani mentality. at this stage, it is advantageous for musharraf to NOT catch OBL. Think about it. OBL is the goose that lays golden eggs for PK. Once they catch him, the U.S. will find another b*tch to throw pennies at.

And Musharraf, face already browned by shoving his head up Bush's ass, won't have that, now will he? he needs his golden eggs (not to mention his NYC luxury penthouse, his children being educated in Harvard, and so and so on.)
 

HardWarrior

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2004
4,400
23
81
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: HardWarrior
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: HardWarrior
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
You guys are a bunch of wind bags. You're either with us or against us.

So you're superior because you see the situation as black and white ONLY?

Damn tooten. Black and white and nuck-que-lur.

Okay, now how about a serious response.

OK, I especially like the part about the Indians doing all the dying. That's really just too cleaver. Death by proxy. Sort of like telling the GIs, hey fellers, we're going to Iraq to remove some WMD, and forget to mention the oil, PNAC and stratigery.

:D Sounds seriously right to me. Pretty cool that you know about Project for a New American Century, BTW.
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,134
38
91
Originally posted by: HardWarrior
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: HardWarrior
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: HardWarrior
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
You guys are a bunch of wind bags. You're either with us or against us.

So you're superior because you see the situation as black and white ONLY?

Damn tooten. Black and white and nuck-que-lur.

Okay, now how about a serious response.

OK, I especially like the part about the Indians doing all the dying. That's really just too cleaver. Death by proxy. Sort of like telling the GIs, hey fellers, we're going to Iraq to remove some WMD, and forget to mention the oil, PNAC and stratigery.

:D Sounds seriously right to me. Pretty cool that you know about Project for a New American Century, BTW.


Moonbeam is never to be taken seriously. He's the jester of Politics and News. Even with the earthquake tragedy in Cali, I found it very difficult to take him seriously.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
Originally posted by: SherEPunjab
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
You just know Osama's hiding out in the Pakistani tribal areas. Frankly, I don't understand why Pakistan allows this semi-autonomous zone to exist in the first place. I guess the threat of a civil war erupting keeps everyone in check?

i don't believe anything is 'semi autonomous.' If you're a nation with over 135 million people and have nuclear technology, you can control a bunch of grizzly warlords fighting on donkeys and camels. you can control your borders better.

Until one has been in the coutnry and/or geographical areas similar to it, you can have no idea how difficult it is to close the borders.
The US with all our advance technology can not close ours and the geography is much softer along the Canadian and Mexican borders.

Take a hike into the mountains of Northern New England and/or the Rockies. Observe how difficult it is to see and progress off the trails.

The Pakistan borders are mountaineous with very few roads. The area is ruled by tribal fiedoms that despise/ignore the central government.

The US has a hard time even in Afganistan supporting control of areas that are considered safe even after 2 years.

Now increase the local population attitude/resentment by a factor of 10, and make the terrain such that it can not be accessible by motor vehicle, only by air/foot.
Decrease the technology available and you can start seeing the problem the the government of Pakistan faces.

 

Nitemare

Lifer
Feb 8, 2001
35,466
4
76
Not to mention that they have been hiding Bin Ladin every since he was chased there during the final days of the Afghanistani liberation.

Hell, I kind of feel sorry for the elected leader. Over half of his citizens are fundamentalists that would like nothing better than to see Bin Ladin resurface elsewhere with a suitcase nuke in his arsenal.
 

tnitsuj

Diamond Member
May 22, 2003
5,446
0
76
Originally posted by: Nitemare
Not to mention that they have been hiding Bin Ladin every since he was chased there during the final days of the Afghanistani liberation.

Hell, I kind of feel sorry for the elected leader. Over half of his citizens are fundamentalists that would like nothing better than to see Bin Ladin resurface elsewhere with a suitcase nuke in his arsenal.

Gee, I don't know which is more damning the nuclear proliferation or that the most mortal enemy of the United States is being harbored by Pakistanis in Pakistan.
 

tnitsuj

Diamond Member
May 22, 2003
5,446
0
76
Originally posted by: HardWarrior
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
I also want to point out that if we invaded Pakistan we would probably have no problem gaining the help of the Indians. Between us and the Indians we could easily crush them with the Indians taking most of the casualties.

Pakistan already has a seat at the nuclear table, we aren't going to screw with them, no matter what they're about. Besides, "hot preemption" is dead. No more "We can attack anyone because...... because.... well, because WE'RE the USA!"

Who says Pre-Emption is dead? Secretary Rumsfeld is touring Europe this week extolling the virtures of pre-emption. You act as if it is a disgraced policy, rather than the boldest moral move of any nation the post WWII era.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,894
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: Dari
What's the point of this stupid thread? What has Pakistan done to the US that would cause us to harm her? She has been an ally, although a nominal one, for decades. Unless she turns her guns towards us or her gov't actively supports terrorist attacks against the US and her interests, I see no reason to attack her.

The Irony is thick here.

Why would we want to invade a country that is generally being helpful with dealing with terrorist groups?

The Irony thickens. ;)

Care to explain what you find ironic?

The irony being that you and Dari were huge fans of invading a country that had very little to do with terrorism, that was not spreading WMD technology and that did not posses any WMD, or had any active WMD programs. But now that someone points out a country that is guilty of the above, you don't support their invasion.

If you can't see the obvious irony, perhaps a trip to dictionary.com will help.

And FYI its been almost 2.5 years since AQ fled afghanistan. A helpful country would have done something to kill off AQ in that period, don't you think? 2.5a is a long time.

And btw, I would not support such an invasion, but I do appreciate justin's pointing out your inconsistency.

Pakitstan has allowed us work inside their borders when needed. They have handed over al queda suspects. Pakistan has generally worked with the US. But i guess you want to overlook that.

Haha, relax, no one is seriously suggesting we invade Pakistan. tnitsuij's merely pointed out how much of a stronger case exists to do so.

Any Oil in Pakistan? If so we must strike immediately, Gas close to $2 a gallon again, not getting enough out of Iraq.
 

SherEPunjab

Diamond Member
Oct 23, 2002
3,841
0
0
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Originally posted by: SherEPunjab
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
You just know Osama's hiding out in the Pakistani tribal areas. Frankly, I don't understand why Pakistan allows this semi-autonomous zone to exist in the first place. I guess the threat of a civil war erupting keeps everyone in check?

i don't believe anything is 'semi autonomous.' If you're a nation with over 135 million people and have nuclear technology, you can control a bunch of grizzly warlords fighting on donkeys and camels. you can control your borders better.

Until one has been in the coutnry and/or geographical areas similar to it, you can have no idea how difficult it is to close the borders.
The US with all our advance technology can not close ours and the geography is much softer along the Canadian and Mexican borders.

Take a hike into the mountains of Northern New England and/or the Rockies. Observe how difficult it is to see and progress off the trails.

The Pakistan borders are mountaineous with very few roads. The area is ruled by tribal fiedoms that despise/ignore the central government.

The US has a hard time even in Afganistan supporting control of areas that are considered safe even after 2 years.

Now increase the local population attitude/resentment by a factor of 10, and make the terrain such that it can not be accessible by motor vehicle, only by air/foot.
Decrease the technology available and you can start seeing the problem the the government of Pakistan faces.

i've been to the region. my family is originally from Pakistan, close to NWFP. I know Pathans (Pashtoons). I know Pakistanis. I know what goes on in that part of the world, and I know exactly what can be controlled and what cannot. Granted, borders are difficult to seal, when you are talking about foot traffic, but the Taliban used to roll around in their toyotas freely between both countries... Pakistan has thermal sensing equipment, they could have easily detected that and denied access to them/blown them to shreds had they CHOSE to. In places like Quetta, PK today, there is a HUGE black market arms racket. People openly make cheap knockoff automatic weapons. The gun of choice is the Kalishnokov. These weapons supply the militants fighting in Afghanistan, Kashmir, and probably even as far as Chechnya. Had the PK government wished to crack down on these things, they could have. Militants caught in Kashmir have openly stated that they were funded/supported/brainwashed by the ISI. They are responsible for killing thousands of innocent people there. Of course, the U.S. doesn't give a rats ass though because Americans aren't dyeing. Fair enough. But why SUPPORT a country that does such things? Not only that, as each day progresses, we will realize more and more what kind of allies Pakistan is. As each day progresses, we are realizing more about Musharrafs knowledge and involvement in transferring nuclear weapon tech to N. Korea. Talk to a Pakistani, nothing happens in PK army without Musharrafs knowledge. He is a capable leader and is aware of everything. If he can't seal the borders 100%, he certainly can do so 80-90%. He has at least that much capability, but again, why lose his golden egg
 

SherEPunjab

Diamond Member
Oct 23, 2002
3,841
0
0
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: Dari
What's the point of this stupid thread? What has Pakistan done to the US that would cause us to harm her? She has been an ally, although a nominal one, for decades. Unless she turns her guns towards us or her gov't actively supports terrorist attacks against the US and her interests, I see no reason to attack her.

The Irony is thick here.

Why would we want to invade a country that is generally being helpful with dealing with terrorist groups?

The Irony thickens. ;)

Care to explain what you find ironic?

The irony being that you and Dari were huge fans of invading a country that had very little to do with terrorism, that was not spreading WMD technology and that did not posses any WMD, or had any active WMD programs. But now that someone points out a country that is guilty of the above, you don't support their invasion.

If you can't see the obvious irony, perhaps a trip to dictionary.com will help.

And FYI its been almost 2.5 years since AQ fled afghanistan. A helpful country would have done something to kill off AQ in that period, don't you think? 2.5a is a long time.

And btw, I would not support such an invasion, but I do appreciate justin's pointing out your inconsistency.

Pakitstan has allowed us work inside their borders when needed. They have handed over al queda suspects. Pakistan has generally worked with the US. But i guess you want to overlook that.

Haha, relax, no one is seriously suggesting we invade Pakistan. tnitsuij's merely pointed out how much of a stronger case exists to do so.

Any Oil in Pakistan? If so we must strike immediately, Gas close to $2 a gallon again, not getting enough out of Iraq.

another brilliant response from dmcowen...
rolleye.gif
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: SherEPunjab
i've been to the region. my family is originally from Pakistan, close to NWFP. I know Pathans (Pashtoons). I know Pakistanis. I know what goes on in that part of the world, and I know exactly what can be controlled and what cannot. Granted, borders are difficult to seal, when you are talking about foot traffic, but the Taliban used to roll around in their toyotas freely between both countries... Pakistan has thermal sensing equipment, they could have easily detected that and denied access to them/blown them to shreds had they CHOSE to. In places like Quetta, PK today, there is a HUGE black market arms racket. People openly make cheap knockoff automatic weapons. The gun of choice is the Kalishnokov. These weapons supply the militants fighting in Afghanistan, Kashmir, and probably even as far as Chechnya. Had the PK government wished to crack down on these things, they could have. Militants caught in Kashmir have openly stated that they were funded/supported/brainwashed by the ISI. They are responsible for killing thousands of innocent people there. Of course, the U.S. doesn't give a rats ass though because Americans aren't dyeing. Fair enough. But why SUPPORT a country that does such things? Not only that, as each day progresses, we will realize more and more what kind of allies Pakistan is. As each day progresses, we are realizing more about Musharrafs knowledge and involvement in transferring nuclear weapon tech to N. Korea. Talk to a Pakistani, nothing happens in PK army without Musharrafs knowledge. He is a capable leader and is aware of everything. If he can't seal the borders 100%, he certainly can do so 80-90%. He has at least that much capability, but again, why lose his golden egg
Sher - you bring up some very valid reasons why we should not support PK. I've had my doubts all along. I really think it came down to a couple of factors: (1.) We needed overflight capability to attack Afghanistan in 2001. PK was geographically desirable, (2.) We needed the ISI to stop supporting the Taliban and moreover we needed PK to see things our way in order to isolate Afghanistan. So we effectively bought PK support. I can't recall specifically how much we paid PK, but it was a lot of cash. I don't think there were any long-term thoughts about the U.S.-PK relationship other than perhaps we felt the more we could get the PK leadership on our side, the better as far as the region is concerned. PK still has a LOT of problems, at least in my mind. Frankly, I don't know if things are improving or not. You seem to suggest they're not.
 

Shad0hawK

Banned
May 26, 2003
1,456
0
0
Originally posted by: HardWarrior
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
I also want to point out that if we invaded Pakistan we would probably have no problem gaining the help of the Indians. Between us and the Indians we could easily crush them with the Indians taking most of the casualties.

Pakistan already has a seat at the nuclear table, we aren't going to screw with them, no matter what they're about. Besides, "hot preemption" is dead. No more "We can attack anyone because...... because.... well, because WE'RE the USA!"


that is right, we are going to wait until a nuclear device detonates in new york, or chicago, or washington. just to make the liberals happy. only after a few milion instant deaths will any policy other than appeasment and a years of economic sanctions that only starve the masses be considered.