US refuses to leave Pakistani base

[The Green Bean]

http://www.dawn.com/2011/07/01/us-rejects-demand-to-vacate-shamsi-base.html

Relation between the two sides have been at an all time low, but you can't expect to get away with drone strikes which kill civilians. Iran downed an American drone and it's about time we start doing the same: http://www.presstv.ir/detail/186742.html

The strategic dialogue between the two sides has already broken down: http://tribune.com.pk/story/200233/pak-us-strategic-dialogue-postponed-indefinitely/

Before the trolls start posting "Pakistan is rogue/terrorist state," I suggest looking at the matter with a more mature mindset. The US is preparing to leave Afghanistan and it's hard to tell who is calling the shots here: Pakistan or the US. For the US, isolating us might help them target our nuclear program in the long run. But with Iran and China as neighbours, I doubt the US has much interest in that, unless Israel feels threatened.

As for Pakistan--once the Americans leave they will look to expand their strategic influence in Afghanistan. They want the Americans out. They also want the American aid. Who is playing who? I think the bad security situation in Pakistan is indirectly caused by the American war.

And another thing--2013 is election year in Pakistan. The current government must toughen its stance against the US if it wants to win any seats. Just two days ago, a major party split from the government and now the coalition consists of the PPP and PMLQ (which, ironically were Musharraf supporters). hmmm?

 

[BoomerD]

If you fucking fucks would quit harboring terrorists...we wouldn't have to have a presence in your country to start with...

Do you (or your government) REALLY expect anyone to believe that Osama Bin Laden was living in Pakistan unnoticed?

 

[The Green Bean]

If you fucking fucks would quit harboring terrorists...we wouldn't have to have a presence in your country to start with...

Do you (or your government) REALLY expect anyone to believe that Osama Bin Laden was living in Pakistan unnoticed?

America has bases in at least 25+ countries around the world. Most are in strategic locations in oil-rich regions or as a counter to Russia and China. None of these bases are where they are actually needed to keep peace such as Somalia or Congo. Even Pakistan has more peacekeepers operating than the US.

America is an imperialistic empire that doesn't call itself one. You don't have to call yourself "master" to actually be one. When you refuse to vacate a base or have complete disregard for the local laws of other states, you are an occupier. It's just that countries are too scared of what the Americans might do if they actually did something about it.

 

[dali71]

Pakistan is a rogue/terrorist state, everyone knows this.

 

[Nebor]

So we all had to read this book. I found it poorly written and sensationalist, assigning far too much importance to Pakistan in US foreign policy.

But anyway, we had this big sit down discussion with 200 or so officers. The discussion floated between Pakistan and Afghanistan, and most of us that had been to that part of the world agreed that they don't want what we want, and that we're best off returning to the isolating policies of the 90s.

But then the discussion turned to Pakistan's ~24 nuclear weapons and how to best contain them, and keep one from floating into New York City on a freighter. I put forth that since Pakistan already has a military that essentially holds all the power in the country, our best bet would be to find another Musharaff to overthrow the civilian gov't and be our man. He would run Pakistan however he wanted (just like all the other military dictators we have and continue to prop up all over the world) and in return we would give him enough support to remain in power. If things ever went sideways, (a revolution) part of our deal would be that he gets to retire to the US, with $100M, so long as he pinpoints the location of all the nuclear weapons prior to his departure. A lot of people seemed to favor that idea, with some obvious hesitation due to the number of revolutions occurring in the Arab world of late.

Then this Brigadier General blows us all away with a nuclear containment plan so clever, but so simple that I'm still impressed. He'd done several tours in Pakistan, working with the beloved patriot military and government, so he was familiar with their culture. As we all know, Pakistan's primary focus is India. They hate 'em. They're always at the brink of war. So it wouldn't take much to touch it off, and cause a nuclear exchange between Pakistan and India. Pakistan would either fire all ~24 weapons into India, or the remainder would be destroyed by India's nuclear strikes. So not only would the existing weapons be destroyed, but Pakistan's ability to produce them again in the future would essentially be eradicated forever. Pakistan would likely slip back into a tribal, Afghanistan-esque state, with huge chunks of uninhabitable nuclear wasteland. India would admittedly take some heavy losses, but theirs is an old and successful society, and in time, and with the help of the world, they would rebuild and repopulate. But we could ensure that no Western Nation would be the victim of a Islamic terrorist's Pakistan supplied nuclear weapon.

It was a very interesting discussion.

 

[Nebor]

America has bases in at least 25+ countries around the world. Most are in strategic locations in oil-rich regions or as a counter to Russia and China. None of these bases are where they are actually needed to keep peace such as Somalia or Congo. Even Pakistan has more peacekeepers operating than the US.

America is an imperialistic empire that doesn't call itself one. You don't have to call yourself "master" to actually be one. When you refuse to vacate a base or have complete disregard for the local laws of other states, you are an occupier. It's just that countries are too scared of what the Americans might do if they actually did something about it.

If we're imperialists, we're not doing a great job of it. Our raping and pillaging of Iraq and Afghanistan haven't been very fruitful.

 

[The Green Bean]

If we're imperialists, we're not doing a great job of it. Our raping and pillaging of Iraq and Afghanistan haven't been very fruitful.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse

You tried to portray yourselves as liberators just like the British Empire and the Soviets. Imperialism does not mean raping and pillaging. Imperialism has been defined as the follows:

"the creation and/or maintenance of an unequal economic, cultural, and territorial relationship, usually between states and often in the form of an empire, based on domination and subordination."

"The policy of forcefully extending a nation's authority by territorial gain or by the establishment of economic and political dominance over other nations."

"imperialism (any instance of aggressive extension of authority)"

America is imperialistic in nature. Stop changing meanings of words to suit your interests.

 

[The Green Bean]

So we all had to read this book. I found it poorly written and sensationalist, assigning far too much importance to Pakistan in US foreign policy.

But anyway, we had this big sit down discussion with 200 or so officers. The discussion floated between Pakistan and Afghanistan, and most of us that had been to that part of the world agreed that they don't want what we want, and that we're best off returning to the isolating policies of the 90s.

But then the discussion turned to Pakistan's ~24 nuclear weapons and how to best contain them, and keep one from floating into New York City on a freighter. I put forth that since Pakistan already has a military that essentially holds all the power in the country, our best bet would be to find another Musharaff to overthrow the civilian gov't and be our man. He would run Pakistan however he wanted (just like all the other military dictators we have and continue to prop up all over the world) and in return we would give him enough support to remain in power. If things ever went sideways, (a revolution) part of our deal would be that he gets to retire to the US, with $100M, so long as he pinpoints the location of all the nuclear weapons prior to his departure. A lot of people seemed to favor that idea, with some obvious hesitation due to the number of revolutions occurring in the Arab world of late.

Then this Brigadier General blows us all away with a nuclear containment plan so clever, but so simple that I'm still impressed. He'd done several tours in Pakistan, working with the beloved patriot military and government, so he was familiar with their culture. As we all know, Pakistan's primary focus is India. They hate 'em. They're always at the brink of war. So it wouldn't take much to touch it off, and cause a nuclear exchange between Pakistan and India. Pakistan would either fire all ~24 weapons into India, or the remainder would be destroyed by India's nuclear strikes. So not only would the existing weapons be destroyed, but Pakistan's ability to produce them again in the future would essentially be eradicated forever. Pakistan would likely slip back into a tribal, Afghanistan-esque state, with huge chunks of uninhabitable nuclear wasteland. India would admittedly take some heavy losses, but theirs is an old and successful society, and in time, and with the help of the world, they would rebuild and repopulate. But we could ensure that no Western Nation would be the victim of a Islamic terrorist's Pakistan supplied nuclear weapon.

It was a very interesting discussion.

That was a typical shallow discussion between low-ranking officials. I'm glad it doesn't matter what you think. I also doubt that any of those present will rise in rank due to their intellectual incapability.

If you think Pakistan's nuclear ambitions are limited only to India, then you are stupid. Pakistan's nuclear weapons were portrayed as the "Islamic bomb." Pakistan has since tried to gain the leadership role between Islamic nations and results have been mixed.

Also, India and Pakistan is the same society. How can you call one old and one new? The only think "old" about India is the name.

 

[Jaskalas]

If you fucking fucks would quit harboring terrorists...we wouldn't have to have a presence in your country to start with...

They cannot remove themselves from the equation.

 

[Baasha]

So it wouldn't take much to touch it off, and cause a nuclear exchange between Pakistan and India. Pakistan would either fire all ~24 weapons into India, or the remainder would be destroyed by India's nuclear strikes.

Can you elaborate a bit more on what you think it would take for Pakistan and India to get into a nuclear war? They have been at the brink of it in 1999 when Pakistan invaded Kargil but thankfully, it was averted even though they (Pakistan) were soundly defeated by India in the highest battlefield on earth (Siachen).

Further, where do you get the figure of ~24 nukes in Pakistan's arsenal? I've heard numbers closer to 100 or 90-110 warheads.

It is well known that if Pakistan dares to attack India with a nuclear weapon, it will be erased from the map.

What I was truly shocked about was the lack of retaliation by India after the 2008 Mumbai terrorist attacks caused by Pakistani terrorists. It was a golden opportunity for India to stamp out all the terrorist camps in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied-Kashmir. With the current spineless government (Congress Party) that simply genuflects at the Muslim populace, I doubt if they have enough courage to even retaliate in case of a nuclear strike.

 

[Jaskalas]

Green Bean, I don't want us in your country either. Far as I'm conserned we were struck, we hit back, its over. Terrorists are always going to survive in your region because we haven't nuked the place.

We know who to call if we get struck again. If only we could convince the morons in charge that the 'war' is over.

 

[nobodyknows]

They cannot remove themselves from the equation.

Ouch.

 

[The Green Bean]

Can you elaborate a bit more on what you think it would take for Pakistan and India to get into a nuclear war? They have been at the brink of it in 1999 when Pakistan invaded Kargil but thankfully, it was averted even though they (Pakistan) were soundly defeated by India in the highest battlefield on earth (Siachen).

Further, where do you get the figure of ~24 nukes in Pakistan's arsenal? I've heard numbers closer to 100 or 90-110 warheads.

It is well known that if Pakistan dares to attack India with a nuclear weapon, it will be erased from the map.

What I was truly shocked about was the lack of retaliation by India after the 2008 Mumbai terrorist attacks caused by Pakistani terrorists. It was a golden opportunity for India to stamp out all the terrorist camps in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied-Kashmir. With the current spineless government (Congress Party) that simply genuflects at the Muslim populace, I doubt if they have enough courage to even retaliate in case of a nuclear strike.

I know you are a hindu supremacist and a war monger but look at this in a practical way. You assumption that Pakistan would be wiped of the map is bogus. India doesn't have enough nukes for that and most would be destroyed in case of war. Neither side would "win" in a nuclear war. Just imagine this scenario: Pakistan nukes a mid-sized Indian city. Panic. India retaliates. Both sides threaten to nuke more cities. Panic. People from major urban centers rush towards safe places. chaos followed by economic collapse. This ensuing chaos would kill more people than the bombs themselves.

I also highly doubt it would EVER come to nuclear war. Unless Lahore falls, or the Pakistani military runs out of supplies to sustain conventional war, nukes will not be used. And there will probably be plenty of warnings before nukes are used. Pakistani generals are not stupid.

I don't know what the commotion about the 2008 attacks was but I don't think India will ever attack Pakistani installations without a declaration of war. In 2008 Indian jets intruded Pakistani territory but were quickly repelled. Not only does the Indian army lack the capability of operations such as the ones conducted by the Americans, but India is a direct neighbor. Any misadventure would result in a war.

I think the closest we have come to actual war since 1971 was in 2004. I was in Mumbai at the time and I was called by the national carrier that they would be flying extra flights and that then operations would cease. When I arrived in Karachi, I saw anti aircraft guns and preparations for war. At that time, about 500,000 soldiers were amassed on the borders.

I think your government is not spineless. It is smart. When the Indian economy is doing as well it is, the last thing it needs is war.

 

[FalseChristian]

If you hate the United States and Canada that much why are you posting here? You're taking advantage of freedoms here that do not exist in Pakistan and never will.

 

[The Green Bean]

If you hate the United States and Canada that much why are you posting here? You're taking advantage of freedoms here that do not exist in Pakistan and never will.

Brainwashed much?

Some popular Pakistani forums:

http://www.pakgamers.com/
http://www.pakistanidefenceforum.com/

There are many others but I'm free to post wherever I want.

FYI: I don't hate Canada. I also don't hate American citizens. I'm against the imperialistic attitude of your leadership.

 

[nonlnear]

FYI: I don't hate Canada. I also don't hate American citizens. I'm against the imperialistic attitude of your leadership.

A good number of Americans are too.

 

[tvarad]

The simplest way to neutralize Pakistan is to free the colonies that are under the Punjabi yoke, starting with Balochistan. Next, make a deal with the Afghan Pashtuns that the Durand line will be de-recognized in exchange for kicking out the jihadis. Finally, encourage Sindhi nationalism and recognize a separate Sindhi nation. Pakistan is a figment of the imagination of the thugs at Rawalpindi GHQ masquerading as soldiers and simply needs one or two nudges to push it off the cliff, so that the rest of the world can live in peace.

 

[Acanthus]

So we all had to read this book. I found it poorly written and sensationalist, assigning far too much importance to Pakistan in US foreign policy.

But anyway, we had this big sit down discussion with 200 or so officers. The discussion floated between Pakistan and Afghanistan, and most of us that had been to that part of the world agreed that they don't want what we want, and that we're best off returning to the isolating policies of the 90s.

But then the discussion turned to Pakistan's ~24 nuclear weapons and how to best contain them, and keep one from floating into New York City on a freighter. I put forth that since Pakistan already has a military that essentially holds all the power in the country, our best bet would be to find another Musharaff to overthrow the civilian gov't and be our man. He would run Pakistan however he wanted (just like all the other military dictators we have and continue to prop up all over the world) and in return we would give him enough support to remain in power. If things ever went sideways, (a revolution) part of our deal would be that he gets to retire to the US, with $100M, so long as he pinpoints the location of all the nuclear weapons prior to his departure. A lot of people seemed to favor that idea, with some obvious hesitation due to the number of revolutions occurring in the Arab world of late.

Then this Brigadier General blows us all away with a nuclear containment plan so clever, but so simple that I'm still impressed. He'd done several tours in Pakistan, working with the beloved patriot military and government, so he was familiar with their culture. As we all know, Pakistan's primary focus is India. They hate 'em. They're always at the brink of war. So it wouldn't take much to touch it off, and cause a nuclear exchange between Pakistan and India. Pakistan would either fire all ~24 weapons into India, or the remainder would be destroyed by India's nuclear strikes. So not only would the existing weapons be destroyed, but Pakistan's ability to produce them again in the future would essentially be eradicated forever. Pakistan would likely slip back into a tribal, Afghanistan-esque state, with huge chunks of uninhabitable nuclear wasteland. India would admittedly take some heavy losses, but theirs is an old and successful society, and in time, and with the help of the world, they would rebuild and repopulate. But we could ensure that no Western Nation would be the victim of a Islamic terrorist's Pakistan supplied nuclear weapon.

It was a very interesting discussion.

Pakistan now has over 100 nuclear weapons. They are well on their way to 200.

Our "aid" so we can traverse the south for supply lines is financing an aggressive expansion of their nuclear arsenal.

 

[Acanthus]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse

You tried to portray yourselves as liberators just like the British Empire and the Soviets. Imperialism does not mean raping and pillaging. Imperialism has been defined as the follows:

"the creation and/or maintenance of an unequal economic, cultural, and territorial relationship, usually between states and often in the form of an empire, based on domination and subordination."

"The policy of forcefully extending a nation's authority by territorial gain or by the establishment of economic and political dominance over other nations."

"imperialism (any instance of aggressive extension of authority)"

America is imperialistic in nature. Stop changing meanings of words to suit your interests.

I think what he was getting at was... If America was in Afghanistan and Pakistan and Iraq for imperialistic reasons... why are we doing it at tremendous expense rather than some kind of gain?

The latest tally says the two wars will cost us a total of 4 TRILLION USD. If it was imperialism we would be profiting from these events, not losing trillions.

 

[The Green Bean]

The simplest way to neutralize Pakistan is to free the colonies that are under the Punjabi yoke, starting with Balochistan. Next, make a deal with the Afghan Pashtuns that the Durand line will be de-recognized in exchange for kicking out the jihadis. Finally, encourage Sindhi nationalism and recognize a separate Sindhi nation. Pakistan is a figment of the imagination of the thugs at Rawalpindi GHQ masquerading as soldiers and simply needs one or two nudges to push it off the cliff, so that the rest of the world can live in peace.

What makes you think that while Pakistan needs to be split, India, which is a much bigger country with many states can survive as a whole? There are independence drives in many of the smaller states who are "oppressed." If Pakistan were to break down, who is to stop India for invading the states and taking over? They're already refusing to recognize an independent Kashmir claiming that it is an integral part of India. What is different about Sindh and Punjab? They were all part of the land once known as India.

I agree that states should be given more autonomy, but Balochistan can not function as a country of its own. It is too small and lacks resources to sustain itself. I also believe things are moving in the right direction and powers are slowly being transferred to the provinces. But I also believe that "nationalism" is a slogan used to local leaders to oppress their own people. Balochistan is oppressed by its own leaders, who on the pretext of independence have been exploiting the masses.

I also disagree that the Punjabis are exploiting us Sindhis. If anything, Karachi has been the driving force of the economy and it still is that main industrial and financial hub of the country and the fastest developing city. Karachi's GDP is among the top 100 cities of the world and Karachi has been given a larger share of energy resources than Punjab. Karachi's industries have no shortage of gas while Punjabi industrial cities like Faisalabad have to endure frequent loadshedding.

Most of Pakistan shares the nation's electricity problems. Compare that to India where the major cities in Maharashtra and Gujarat never have any power cuts, while the rest of the country suffers 6-8 hours without power.

 

[Braznor]

So we all had to read this book. I found it poorly written and sensationalist, assigning far too much importance to Pakistan in US foreign policy.

But anyway, we had this big sit down discussion with 200 or so officers. The discussion floated between Pakistan and Afghanistan, and most of us that had been to that part of the world agreed that they don't want what we want, and that we're best off returning to the isolating policies of the 90s.

But then the discussion turned to Pakistan's ~24 nuclear weapons and how to best contain them, and keep one from floating into New York City on a freighter. I put forth that since Pakistan already has a military that essentially holds all the power in the country, our best bet would be to find another Musharaff to overthrow the civilian gov't and be our man. He would run Pakistan however he wanted (just like all the other military dictators we have and continue to prop up all over the world) and in return we would give him enough support to remain in power. If things ever went sideways, (a revolution) part of our deal would be that he gets to retire to the US, with $100M, so long as he pinpoints the location of all the nuclear weapons prior to his departure. A lot of people seemed to favor that idea, with some obvious hesitation due to the number of revolutions occurring in the Arab world of late.

Then this Brigadier General blows us all away with a nuclear containment plan so clever, but so simple that I'm still impressed. He'd done several tours in Pakistan, working with the beloved patriot military and government, so he was familiar with their culture. As we all know, Pakistan's primary focus is India. They hate 'em. They're always at the brink of war. So it wouldn't take much to touch it off, and cause a nuclear exchange between Pakistan and India. Pakistan would either fire all ~24 weapons into India, or the remainder would be destroyed by India's nuclear strikes. So not only would the existing weapons be destroyed, but Pakistan's ability to produce them again in the future would essentially be eradicated forever. Pakistan would likely slip back into a tribal, Afghanistan-esque state, with huge chunks of uninhabitable nuclear wasteland. India would admittedly take some heavy losses, but theirs is an old and successful society, and in time, and with the help of the world, they would rebuild and repopulate. But we could ensure that no Western Nation would be the victim of a Islamic terrorist's Pakistan supplied nuclear weapon.

It was a very interesting discussion.

Fuck you, dick and fuck that Brigadier General too.

 

[cubby1223]

You guys know, if you stop responding to him, he will eventually go away.

 

[The Green Bean]

I think what he was getting at was... If America was in Afghanistan and Pakistan and Iraq for imperialistic reasons... why are we doing it at tremendous expense rather than some kind of gain?

The latest tally says the two wars will cost us a total of 4 TRILLION USD. If it was imperialism we would be profiting from these events, not losing trillions.

Easy:

1) Security and leverage. Also for "justice" for 9/11 by killing thousands.

2) A check to China's growing power. $4 trillion will be insignificant compared to what's at stake here. Besides, those $4 trillion are tax dollars. Most of the beneficiaries of the war will be corporates, with strong lobbies in Washington. I don't know why they don't call that corruption there...

http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/major-oil-pipeline-projects

That is the map of current oil pipelines flowing in the middle east. There are two planned pipelines through Pakistan, one via Afghanistan. With the growth of China and India, they will need more oil and this makes Afghanistan and Pakistan both of strategic importance. The USA has been trying its best to convince Pakistan not to go ahead with the Iran pipeline. They have already convinced India against it and for now the pipeline will end in Pakistan. Iran has also offered Pakistan cheap electricity but the US has not allowed it.

More about another proposed oil pipeline through Afghanistan although the author isn't sure of what he is saying
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1626889.stm

Then there is Gwadar port. It could be the next major port in the region transporting oil to the CES and China. Pakistan wanted China to take control of the port for 50 years and even field a military base, but American pressure meant the deal went to Singapore instead.

In a leaked US Embassy cable released by WikiLeaks, it was reported that Prince Andrew, Duke of York, supports the concept of a New Great Game:

Addressing the Ambassador directly, Prince Andrew then turned to regional politics. He stated baldly that “the United Kingdom, Western Europe (and by extension you Americans too)” were now back in the thick of playing the Great Game. More animated than ever, he stated cockily: “And this time we aim to win!”[11]

 

[Sinsear]

You guys know, if you stop responding to him, he will eventually go away.

It's more fun to remind him he lives in a shithole of a country that has never made any sort of significant contribution to the evolution of mankind or civilized society.

 

[Nebor]

That was a typical shallow discussion between low-ranking officials. I'm glad it doesn't matter what you think. I also doubt that any of those present will rise in rank due to their intellectual incapability.

If you think Pakistan's nuclear ambitions are limited only to India, then you are stupid. Pakistan's nuclear weapons were portrayed as the "Islamic bomb." Pakistan has since tried to gain the leadership role between Islamic nations and results have been mixed.

Also, India and Pakistan is the same society. How can you call one old and one new? The only think "old" about India is the name.

There was a BG and a MG there, along with plenty of Colonels, one of whom just got selected for General officer.

And then there were all the company grade officers. And if you think they don't matter, you don't understand how American has fought it's last two wars.

India has been far more successful on virtually all fronts compared to Pakistan. It stands to reason that if there were a nuclear exchange, India would receive the West's help and would rapidly rebuild. Pakistan might receive the Middle East's help, which would amount to squat.