US strike kills 11 Pakistani soldiers

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: mxyzptlk

Originally posted by: palehorse

So now, try to remain rational, and decide... what's it going to be? (1-4)

My guess is the status quo... #3.

But they can't in anyway possibly hope to actually fight against NATO. It'd be foolish and suicidal. Why would they "rationally" pick one of those? The rational thing to do (to me at least) would be what the pakistani intelligence has been doing.. Do their best to pretend to comply with NATO while still helping their buddies in anyway they can.

No. The best option is #5. Cut off NATO's supply routes and tell them to f*** off. The USA can not afford to start another war; especially not one against a nuclear armed country of 160 million.

The United States, even tied down in Iraq and Afghanistan, could knock you off the map quite handely without ever putting boots on the ground.

 

[The Green Bean]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

...

Don't be arrogant. Once Pakistan stops supporting NATO in Afghanistan there will only be one loser - NATO; without our airspace and supply routes it will be the end of your little campaign in Afghanistan.

Can Pakistan afford to give up the gravy train?

Reports show we spend 50% more on the war on terror than we are supposed to receive. The instability in Afghanistan has a detrimental effect of our economy so in the end it costs us loads more than we have to benefit from meagre amounts of promised money that never gets paid.

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

...

Don't be arrogant. Once Pakistan stops supporting NATO in Afghanistan there will only be one loser - NATO; without our airspace and supply routes it will be the end of your little campaign in Afghanistan.

Can Pakistan afford to give up the gravy train?

Reports show we spend 50% more on the war on terror than we are supposed to receive. The instability in Afghanistan has a detrimental effect of our economy so in the end it costs us loads more than we have to benefit from meagre amounts of promised money that never gets paid.

So shouldnt that be an incentive to Pakistan to actually get off their asses and clean their own fucking country up?

 

[The Green Bean]

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: mxyzptlk

Originally posted by: palehorse

So now, try to remain rational, and decide... what's it going to be? (1-4)

My guess is the status quo... #3.

But they can't in anyway possibly hope to actually fight against NATO. It'd be foolish and suicidal. Why would they "rationally" pick one of those? The rational thing to do (to me at least) would be what the pakistani intelligence has been doing.. Do their best to pretend to comply with NATO while still helping their buddies in anyway they can.

No. The best option is #5. Cut off NATO's supply routes and tell them to f*** off. The USA can not afford to start another war; especially not one against a nuclear armed country of 160 million.

The United States, even tied down in Iraq and Afghanistan, could knock you off the map quite handely without ever putting boots on the ground.

More arrogance and more empty threats. If an Iranian said that to Israel he would be a zealot but you people seem to think Americans can get away with anything. Let's see how you get about "knocking us off the map."

 

[mxyzptlk]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

...

Don't be arrogant. Once Pakistan stops supporting NATO in Afghanistan there will only be one loser - NATO; without our airspace and supply routes it will be the end of your little campaign in Afghanistan.

Can Pakistan afford to give up the gravy train?

Reports show we spend 50% more on the war on terror than we are supposed to receive. The instability in Afghanistan has a detrimental effect of our economy so in the end it costs us loads more than we have to benefit from meagre amounts of promised money that never gets paid.

right, so why do you do it?

Originally posted by: nick1985
The United States, even tied down in Iraq and Afghanistan, could knock you off the map quite handely without ever putting boots on the ground.

To prevent this right?

Originally posted by: The Green Bean
More arrogance and more empty threats. If an Iranian said that to Israel he would be a zealot but you people seem to think Americans can get away with anything. Let's see how you get about "knocking us off the map."

They're only empty threats when you don't have the largest nuclear arsenal to back them up.

 

[The Green Bean]

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

...

Don't be arrogant. Once Pakistan stops supporting NATO in Afghanistan there will only be one loser - NATO; without our airspace and supply routes it will be the end of your little campaign in Afghanistan.

Can Pakistan afford to give up the gravy train?

Reports show we spend 50% more on the war on terror than we are supposed to receive. The instability in Afghanistan has a detrimental effect of our economy so in the end it costs us loads more than we have to benefit from meagre amounts of promised money that never gets paid.

So shouldnt that be an incentive to Pakistan to actually get off their asses and clean their own fucking country up?

No it's supposed to be an incentive to America to get the f*** lost and mind their own business.

 

[The Green Bean]

Originally posted by: mxyzptlk

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

...

Don't be arrogant. Once Pakistan stops supporting NATO in Afghanistan there will only be one loser - NATO; without our airspace and supply routes it will be the end of your little campaign in Afghanistan.

Can Pakistan afford to give up the gravy train?

Reports show we spend 50% more on the war on terror than we are supposed to receive. The instability in Afghanistan has a detrimental effect of our economy so in the end it costs us loads more than we have to benefit from meagre amounts of promised money that never gets paid.

right, so why do you do it?

Originally posted by: nick1985
The United States, even tied down in Iraq and Afghanistan, could knock you off the map quite handely without ever putting boots on the ground.

To prevent this right?

Originally posted by: The Green Bean
More arrogance and more empty threats. If an Iranian said that to Israel he would be a zealot but you people seem to think Americans can get away with anything. Let's see how you get about "knocking us off the map."

They're only empty threats when you don't have the largest nuclear arsenal to back them up.

There is a reason why they don't have stupid people like you controlling your country's nuclear assets. Even in all out nuclear war America has too much to lose if they use any nuclear weapons against us. Israel for one; carrier groups; bases within our range and not to mention world opinion going down to zero. In fact some sane Americans will get up in protest and oust who ever presses the nuke button.

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

...

Don't be arrogant. Once Pakistan stops supporting NATO in Afghanistan there will only be one loser - NATO; without our airspace and supply routes it will be the end of your little campaign in Afghanistan.

Can Pakistan afford to give up the gravy train?

Reports show we spend 50% more on the war on terror than we are supposed to receive. The instability in Afghanistan has a detrimental effect of our economy so in the end it costs us loads more than we have to benefit from meagre amounts of promised money that never gets paid.

So shouldnt that be an incentive to Pakistan to actually get off their asses and clean their own fucking country up?

No it's supposed to be an incentive to America to get the f*** lost and mind their own business.

Isnt it our business when your country harbors the very people that attacked us?

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: mxyzptlk

Originally posted by: palehorse

So now, try to remain rational, and decide... what's it going to be? (1-4)

My guess is the status quo... #3.

But they can't in anyway possibly hope to actually fight against NATO. It'd be foolish and suicidal. Why would they "rationally" pick one of those? The rational thing to do (to me at least) would be what the pakistani intelligence has been doing.. Do their best to pretend to comply with NATO while still helping their buddies in anyway they can.

No. The best option is #5. Cut off NATO's supply routes and tell them to f*** off. The USA can not afford to start another war; especially not one against a nuclear armed country of 160 million.

The United States, even tied down in Iraq and Afghanistan, could knock you off the map quite handely without ever putting boots on the ground.

More arrogance and more empty threats. If an Iranian said that to Israel he would be a zealot but you people seem to think Americans can get away with anything. Let's see how you get about "knocking us off the map."

No, its not arrogance at all. The United States is amazing at nation destroying. We have the power to bring just about any nation (certainly pakistan) to its knees...its been proven. Nation building, on the other hand, we are not so great at.

 

[Lemon law]

The myth chucky2 and palehorse try to promote is that I am anti American and cheer for our "enemies".

When the fact is and remains, that I believe in some sort of US occupation of Afghanistan but the one being currently conducted cannot succeed if we ignore the various realities
or follow palehorse type linear stinking thinking. We are making exactly the same mistakes we made in Vietnam, and as I said before, one must understand the problem in all its complexities and craft a course that does not totally alienate the very people we need to succeed.

And after six years of palehorse type bumbling that now brings us to the brink of military inviability, how hard is it to understand that what we are doing now is not working. And now palehorse pins all his alienate Pakistan with impunity hopes to a long rail link that is at least five yeas away if it ever happens at all.

And the first thing we need to understand is that we need Pakistan to keep the Nato Afghani occupation viable, and Pakistan does not need Nato in any way.

 

[mxyzptlk]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean
There is a reason why they don't have stupid people like you controlling your country's nuclear assets.

??? what are you getting at? That the US doesn't have a shit load of nuclear weapons? That said weapons cant be used to obliterate the entirety of the earths surface or any part of it? I'm not threatening you. I'm just trying to understand what your problem is.

It is a fact that Pakistan could not compete militarily with the US and/or NATO.

I couldn't go toe to toe with a professional boxer either.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

...

Don't be arrogant. Once Pakistan stops supporting NATO in Afghanistan there will only be one loser - NATO; without our airspace and supply routes it will be the end of your little campaign in Afghanistan.

Can Pakistan afford to give up the gravy train?

Reports show we spend 50% more on the war on terror than we are supposed to receive. The instability in Afghanistan has a detrimental effect of our economy so in the end it costs us loads more than we have to benefit from meagre amounts of promised money that never gets paid.

Then it would seem to benefit to have a stable Afghanistan and cleanup the border area.

Instead, the governenment, (up to this point) has allowed/encouraged the unrest.

At present, Pakistan has an unstable Afghanistan on one side and ?hostile? India on the other.

Experience has shown that opposing two forces at the same time can cripple the system.

What is the existing benefit to Pakistan by having Afghanistan in turmoil. Who gains and why?

 

[The Green Bean]

Originally posted by: nick1985
No, its not arrogance at all. The United States is amazing at nation destroying. We have the power to bring just about any nation (certainly pakistan) to its knees...its been proven. Nation building, on the other hand, we are not so great at.

You can not win a conventional war in Pakistan with your diminishing resources. You would certainly have far more to lose than to gain by going nuclear so simply a retaliation by you against our stopping you from using our airspace and supply routes is very unlikely.

 

[The Green Bean]

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

...

Don't be arrogant. Once Pakistan stops supporting NATO in Afghanistan there will only be one loser - NATO; without our airspace and supply routes it will be the end of your little campaign in Afghanistan.

Can Pakistan afford to give up the gravy train?

Reports show we spend 50% more on the war on terror than we are supposed to receive. The instability in Afghanistan has a detrimental effect of our economy so in the end it costs us loads more than we have to benefit from meagre amounts of promised money that never gets paid.

So shouldnt that be an incentive to Pakistan to actually get off their asses and clean their own fucking country up?

No it's supposed to be an incentive to America to get the f*** lost and mind their own business.

Isnt it our business when your country harbors the very people that attacked us?

The people who attacked you are dead.

 

[The Green Bean]

Originally posted by: mxyzptlk

Originally posted by: The Green Bean
There is a reason why they don't have stupid people like you controlling your country's nuclear assets.

??? what are you getting at? That the US doesn't have a shit load of nuclear weapons? That said weapons cant be used to obliterate the entirety of the earths surface or any part of it? I'm not threatening you. I'm just trying to understand what your problem is.

It is a fact that Pakistan could not compete militarily with the US and/or NATO.

I couldn't go toe to toe with a professional boxer either.

Who said Pakistan would ever declare war on NATO? They would simply refuse them entry in any way. There would be nothing viable that NATO could do to retaliate.

 

[mxyzptlk]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: mxyzptlk

Originally posted by: The Green Bean
There is a reason why they don't have stupid people like you controlling your country's nuclear assets.

??? what are you getting at? That the US doesn't have a shit load of nuclear weapons? That said weapons cant be used to obliterate the entirety of the earths surface or any part of it? I'm not threatening you. I'm just trying to understand what your problem is.

It is a fact that Pakistan could not compete militarily with the US and/or NATO.

I couldn't go toe to toe with a professional boxer either.

Who said Pakistan would ever declare war on NATO? They would simply refuse them entry in any way. There would be nothing viable that NATO could do to retaliate.

Um.. palehorse? remember thats when I said it would be stupid for them to try and thats likely why they wouldn't do it? Around then you suddenly got very defensive and hostile... then you called me stupid.. and here we are now.

 

[The Green Bean]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

What is the existing benefit to Pakistan by having Afghanistan in turmoil. Who gains and why?

Who is responsible for current turmoil there? Blaming Pakistan is arrogance. Afghanistan under the taliban was BETTER than it was under total civil war.

 

[Lemon law]

Most of the the money the US bribes Pakistan with is in the form of military aid. How much good did all the big military aid do for the Shah of Iran when their own people decided he has to go? And in terms of the Pakistani economy or our economy for that matter, military aid does almost nothing to help the overall economy. Domestic spending is far more effective in building a stronger economy.

And if the Pakistani people get really pissed at the USA, their is little their government can do to oppose the popular will.

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: nick1985
No, its not arrogance at all. The United States is amazing at nation destroying. We have the power to bring just about any nation (certainly pakistan) to its knees...its been proven. Nation building, on the other hand, we are not so great at.

You can not win a conventional war in Pakistan with your diminishing resources.

Isnt that why I said no boots on the ground, implying an unconventional war? 😕

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

...

Don't be arrogant. Once Pakistan stops supporting NATO in Afghanistan there will only be one loser - NATO; without our airspace and supply routes it will be the end of your little campaign in Afghanistan.

Can Pakistan afford to give up the gravy train?

Reports show we spend 50% more on the war on terror than we are supposed to receive. The instability in Afghanistan has a detrimental effect of our economy so in the end it costs us loads more than we have to benefit from meagre amounts of promised money that never gets paid.

So shouldnt that be an incentive to Pakistan to actually get off their asses and clean their own fucking country up?

No it's supposed to be an incentive to America to get the f*** lost and mind their own business.

Isnt it our business when your country harbors the very people that attacked us?

The people who attacked you are dead.

Great! Pic of bin ladens body?

 

[mxyzptlk]

edit: Most of the 9/11 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia. I take Jon Stewart's cue of repeating that fact often. Seems important.

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

What is the existing benefit to Pakistan by having Afghanistan in turmoil. Who gains and why?

Who is responsible for current turmoil there? Blaming Pakistan is arrogance. Afghanistan under the taliban was BETTER than it was under total civil war.

Bullshit. The taliban were/are backwards and uncivilized. Destroying historical monuments because they don't jive with their own religion. Fuck those guys. I don't agree with moral relativism. Some things are inherently wrong and should be offensive to all humankind and I think the rule of the taliban is one of those things.

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: mxyzptlk

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

What is the existing benefit to Pakistan by having Afghanistan in turmoil. Who gains and why?

Who is responsible for current turmoil there? Blaming Pakistan is arrogance. Afghanistan under the taliban was BETTER than it was under total civil war.

Bullshit. The taliban were/are backwards and uncivilized. Destroying historical monuments because they don't jive with their own religion. Fuck those guys. I don't agree with moral relativism. Some things are inherently wrong and should be offensive to all humankind and I think the rule of the taliban is one of those things.

x2

 

[The Green Bean]

Originally posted by: mxyzptlk
edit: Most of the 9/11 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia. I take Jon Stewart's cue of repeating that fact often. Seems important.

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

What is the existing benefit to Pakistan by having Afghanistan in turmoil. Who gains and why?

Who is responsible for current turmoil there? Blaming Pakistan is arrogance. Afghanistan under the taliban was BETTER than it was under total civil war.

Bullshit. The taliban were/are backwards and uncivilized. Destroying historical monuments because they don't jive with their own religion. Fuck those guys. I don't agree with moral relativism. Some things are inherently wrong and should be offensive to all humankind and I think the rule of the taliban is one of those things.

So destroying historical monuments is worse than destroying thousands of homes everyday?

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: mxyzptlk

Originally posted by: The Green Bean
There is a reason why they don't have stupid people like you controlling your country's nuclear assets.

??? what are you getting at? That the US doesn't have a shit load of nuclear weapons? That said weapons cant be used to obliterate the entirety of the earths surface or any part of it? I'm not threatening you. I'm just trying to understand what your problem is.

It is a fact that Pakistan could not compete militarily with the US and/or NATO.

I couldn't go toe to toe with a professional boxer either.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I could not go head to head with a professional boxer either. But for some strange reason Professional boxers do not rule the USA. And if we have Professional boxers assaulting innocent civilians, we put them in iron cages and feed them bad food.

And if the USA thinks its can use its nuclear arsenal to bully the entire world, we will have an entire world against us.

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: mxyzptlk
edit: Most of the 9/11 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia. I take Jon Stewart's cue of repeating that fact often. Seems important.

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

What is the existing benefit to Pakistan by having Afghanistan in turmoil. Who gains and why?

Who is responsible for current turmoil there? Blaming Pakistan is arrogance. Afghanistan under the taliban was BETTER than it was under total civil war.

Bullshit. The taliban were/are backwards and uncivilized. Destroying historical monuments because they don't jive with their own religion. Fuck those guys. I don't agree with moral relativism. Some things are inherently wrong and should be offensive to all humankind and I think the rule of the taliban is one of those things.

So destroying historical monuments is worse than destroying thousands of homes everyday?

Who destroys thousands of homes a day?