Is It Wise For The US To Anger Pakistan?

[Circe]

No, Pakistan managed to work out an alternative to enrich uranium to weapons grade. & they've built, tested & deployed nuke weapons. While their country seems to be a trainwreck otherwise, their nuke industry has worked well.

I don't think they have much of a nuke industry. North Korea wants to make and sell nukes, but Pakistan basically has six nukes (so I read) that they are keeping under uncertain guard and when their country does fall totally apart, I guess securing (removing) them will be yet ANOTHER job for our SEALS.

I don't know why you say they have "deployed" nukes? Deploying nukes would be, you know, conspicuous what with the mushroom cloud and the seismic record.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

The United States has been waging drone attacks within the borders of Pakistan for more then a year now, some reports indicate that while killing a handful of 'terrorists' it has only succeeded at killing far more Pakistani civilians; is the needless loss of civilian life any less tragic over there then it is here? Polls taken within Pakistan indicate that many people of that country view the States now as an enemy; and Pakistan is a nuclear power so is it wise to gain the hatred of a nation with such weapons? If members of Pakistan's military shared this sentiment, could they possibly arm and support known enemies of America and the West. What do American's think about this issue and the potential ramifications?

What's wise is for the United States to Pakistan to go hang and form an alliance with India instead.

Is that the India that's buying Iranian oil and doing so using gold instead of Dollars?

That would be the India.

 

[High_Gravity]

The United States has been waging drone attacks within the borders of Pakistan for more then a year now, some reports indicate that while killing a handful of 'terrorists' it has only succeeded at killing far more Pakistani civilians; is the needless loss of civilian life any less tragic over there then it is here? Polls taken within Pakistan indicate that many people of that country view the States now as an enemy; and Pakistan is a nuclear power so is it wise to gain the hatred of a nation with such weapons? If members of Pakistan's military shared this sentiment, could they possibly arm and support known enemies of America and the West. What do American's think about this issue and the potential ramifications?

**** Pakistan.

 

[High_Gravity]

So many people hate America because America invades, interferes and kills.

It's as simple as that.

America does more to help other countries than anyone else, check out the amount of aid we give out. Recognize.

 

[hoosier88]

No, Pakistan managed to work out an alternative to enrich uranium to weapons grade. & they've built, tested & deployed nuke weapons. While their country seems to be a trainwreck otherwise, their nuke industry has worked well.

I don't think they have much of a nuke industry. North Korea wants to make and sell nukes, but Pakistan basically has six nukes (so I read) that they are keeping under uncertain guard and when their country does fall totally apart, I guess securing (removing) them will be yet ANOTHER job for our SEALS.

I don't know why you say they have "deployed" nukes? Deploying nukes would be, you know, conspicuous what with the mushroom cloud and the seismic record.

(My bold)

Of course they've deployed. You have to run mating practices, mating warheads to missles & unsafing the warheads. & it has to be done quickly, if India & Pakistan ever come to a nuke exchange, there won't be time to consult manuals. Fllight times between India & Pakistan have to be on the order of a few minutes - so arming the nukes is essentially a suicide mission, & there won't be time for mistakes nor QC.

That's what drill is for, & that's why I'm confident that Pakistan & India both run launch/load drills with their respective nukes.

 

[wavingrl]

So many people hate America because America invades, interferes and kills.

It's as simple as that.

America does more to help other countries than anyone else, check out the amount of aid we give out. Recognize.

how is our new approach working out--'waiting for the Red Line' to be crossed, etc?

Some of the people living under regimes seemingly would prefer more intervention from the US.

on a related note--i must go to google--but something is going on in Libya that has placed military forces in the area on high alert. Riots over something. US and British embassies are reducing personnel.

Sometimes it does seem that interference from the US is the final answer.

Seems like this has been discussed many times.

Hurray--we haven't done much for Syria--we have refused to be pressured by Israel and are 'waiting' to see what Iran will do...trying to placate Russia and others, who are 'out of their minds' if you ask me. We didn't play games with North Korea--but I assume we are prepared if it pushes a point. Yippee!

 

[High_Gravity]

So many people hate America because America invades, interferes and kills.

It's as simple as that.

America does more to help other countries than anyone else, check out the amount of aid we give out. Recognize.

how is our new approach working out--'waiting for the Red Line' to be crossed, etc?

Some of the people living under regimes seemingly would prefer more intervention from the US.

on a related note--i must go to google--but something is going on in Libya that has placed military forces in the area on high alert. Riots over something. US and British embassies are reducing personnel.

Sometimes it does seem that interference from the US is the final answer.

Seems like this has been discussed many times.

Hurray--we haven't done much for Syria--we have refused to be pressured by Israel and are 'waiting' to see what Iran will do...trying to placate Russia and others, who are 'out of their minds' if you ask me. We didn't play games with North Korea--but I assume we are prepared if it pushes a point. Yippee!

We are damned if we damned if we don't, if we go in to help a country they call us occupiers and oppressors, if we don't do anything like with Syria they call us selfish pricks.

 

[Kondor3]

Really odd. America has murdered something up to 4,000 people in drone strikes, including execution of Americans without trial. When someone murdered around 3,000 people with an attack in America it was terrorism.

By Jove, I think you're getting the hang of this thing...

Because, after all, in many Islamic circles of the day, 9-11 was Allah's righteous vengeance upon the Great Satan, and the Prophet (DBUH) himself smiled down upon such heroism.

Besides, on 9-11, our Adversaries were not attacking people and organizations who were actively engaged in combat operations and terrorism plots against them.

Today, that is what we are doing: seeking-out combat-units and infrastructure (bases) and leadership of groups actively engaged in combat against us and our friends, as well as the remnants of those groups which attacked us on 9-11 in the first place.

In backwards, almost uncontrollable wild regions of an already half-sympathetic country that oftentimes seems the very epitome of incompetence and bumbling and shooting themselves in the foot.

We target enemy combatants and leadership, and sometimes hit civilians by accident.

Our enemies targeted innocent civilians and hit a few potential future combatants by accident.

Big difference.

But, then again, Moral Relativism in such matters is the standard prescribed fare for Radical Muslim sympathizers and apologists.

It's not fooling anyone with an ounce of brains but it does get tiring after the thousandth time of somebody or another trying to peddle such Moral Relativism through sophistry and word-play and pretense of equivalency.

 

[Indofred]

Besides, on 9-11, our Adversaries were not attacking people and organizations who were actively engaged in combat operations and terrorism plots against them.

As I understand 9/11, it was intended as an attack against the supply lines to Israel.
The attack was designed to hit the financial sector as well as show the American people what their tax dollars do to others.
You also have to remember, America has actively attacked various targets in Muslim countries so effectively put America into the firing line.
In playground terms, you started it so don't go crying to teacher when the kid you bully hits you back.

In that, it was a legitimate military target as say, carpet bombing in Vietnam by B52s was legitimate.

Personally, I believe both were crimes but you can hardly do one whist claiming the other is a crime.

 

[Kondor3]

"As I understand 9/11, it was intended as an attack against the supply lines to Israel..."

Metaphorical nonsense and a grotesquely inadequate rationalization for attacking innocent civilians without provocation.

"...The attack was designed to hit the financial sector as well as show the American people what their tax dollars do to others..."

If that is true, then, we exacted a just revenge, with favorable margins:

You knock over two of our civilian buildings and we knock over two of your countries in retaliation for your aggression against us.

You kill 3,000 of ours, we kill 300,000 of yours in retaliation for your aggression against us.

100-to-1 is a fair trade for casualties.

Remember that, the next time you consider poking the beehive with a stick.

Retaliation, the next time, if you force another upon us, might be a little less conventional.

"...You also have to remember, America has actively attacked various targets in Muslim countries so effectively put America into the firing line..."

And here I thought we were on the side of the Muslims during the Bosnian intervention.

It would appear that we made a mistake that should not be repeated.

"...In playground terms, you started it..."

Do feel free to point out to us which Muslim civilian or military targets that we hit prior to 9-11 that could be used as such a rationalization.

"...so don't go crying to teacher when the kid you bully hits you back..."

OK. We won't cry. We'll simply kill those who hit us. And those around them. At a 100-to-1 ratio.

"...In that, it was a legitimate military target as say, carpet bombing in Vietnam by B52s was legitimate..."

Non sequitur and as sorry a stretch of logic and the imagination as I've seen in some time.

 

[Vikrant]

The United States has been waging drone attacks within the borders of Pakistan for more then a year now, some reports indicate that while killing a handful of 'terrorists' it has only succeeded at killing far more Pakistani civilians; is the needless loss of civilian life any less tragic over there then it is here? Polls taken within Pakistan indicate that many people of that country view the States now as an enemy; and Pakistan is a nuclear power so is it wise to gain the hatred of a nation with such weapons? If members of Pakistan's military shared this sentiment, could they possibly arm and support known enemies of America and the West. What do American's think about this issue and the potential ramifications?

What's wise is for the United States to tell Pakistan to go hang and form an alliance with India instead.

Indians would say, "No, thank you!" I think only US can afford an ally like Pakistan.

 

[Indofred]

Do feel free to point out to us which Muslim civilian or military targets that we hit prior to 9-11 that could be used as such a rationalization..

It's a long list but you could start with support for Israel who use the American taxpayer funded arms to murder civilians.
We could move on to deposing the elected government of Iran or the CIA bombing Indonesia.

 

[Vikrant]

Is It Wise For The US To Anger Pakistan?


That's funny! Pakistani's are already mad about everything. Thier country is a shithole... They have the Afgahns on one side making thier lives hell. They have several terroist muslim sects running around inside thier country making thier lives hell.. and if that wasn't enough they have India on the other side making thier lives hell. To top this off they and India had the bright idea to arm themselves with nukes. PERFECT!

The U S A is the least of Pakistans worries.

India is not making Pakistan's life hell. It is the Pakistan which is making Pakistan's life hell. None of the wars between India and Pakistan were started by India. Indians want to focus on nation building and they consider wars as impediment to that effort. Indians go out of their way to avoid wars with their neighbors as was evident with their recent confrontation with China. Even though Chinese invaded 20km into Indian territory, Indians were patient and did their best to convince Chinese that war was not a good idea. Luckily Chinese are a bit saner than Pakistanis and backed off.

 

[Kondor3]

Do feel free to point out to us which Muslim civilian or military targets that we hit prior to 9-11 that could be used as such a rationalization..

It's a long list but you could start with support for Israel who use the American taxpayer funded arms to murder civilians.

Nice try No sale.

We will not allow foreign Muslims to dictate to us whom we can choose as friends and allies.

Our support for Israel is designed to prevent regional Muslims from drowning 3,000,000 Jews in the Mediterranean Sea - despite several attempts since 1948.

Besides, pounding on Palestinian rocket and terror-ops sites (oftentimes embedded in populated areas) after they have attacked Israeli civilian population centers is not murder. It is retaliation.

Your Palestinian brethren have been foolishly waiting for 65 years for their Arab-Muslim neighbors to fulfill their promise of 1948 and take-back all of Old Palestine, rather than recognizing new realities and dispersing and starting new lives elsewhere like sane men.

That's on them, not us.

Again... knock over two of our buildings, we knock over two of your countries. Kill 3000 of ours and we'll kill 300,000 of yours. If you want to continue sustaining losses on a 100-to-1 or greater ratio then go right ahead and hit us again. We do not wish to harm anyone but we have become very skilled at butchering those who initiate hostilities against us. We do not attack first. But we do attack last, and will be the last one standing, if you push us hard enough.

Think carefully before needlessly poking that hornet's nest again with a stick.

"...We could move on to deposing the elected government of Iran..."

You mean the 1953 overthrow of the Iranian government that seized British oil company assets without compensation, which the Brits orchestrated and which we reluctantly joined to support the Brits and keep the Soviets out of Iran, by bribing corrupt Iranians to launch and support a coup-d'etat?

Yeah, that one... yeah... let's wait 48 years (from 1953 to 2001) after the fact to avenge a fallen and corrupt Iranian regime, and ram airliners loaded with civilians into the World Trade Center rather than Westminster or Buckingham Palace. Yeah. That one. Horse$hit.

"...or the CIA bombing Indonesia."

Yeah... that one too... yeah... let's wait 40+ years (from the 1950s to 2001) after the fact to avenge a couple of clandestine bombing missions from the 1950s in support of the anti-Communist side in Indonesia, and ram airliners loaded with civilians into the World Trade Center. Yeah. That one. More horse$hit.

And, of course, we deserve such attention, because some of our ancestors, 800 years ago, participated in the Crusades against Islam in the Middle East.

Yeah... that one too... I mean, what the heck... justifying terror attacks on American civilians because of lightweight fluff things which happened 40 or 50 or 60 years ago... or something bigger 800 years ago... it's all good... it can all be used by your embarrassingly clumsy and unimaginative Radical Islam propaganda Bull$hit Artist's Club to rationalize anything.

Not too bright, these Bull$hit Artists of the Militant Ummah.

Your brethren have already had one serving (dishing-out) of 100-to-1 loss-ratios on a very large scale.

We do not enjoy it and we did not start it but your brethren have hardened our hearts and made us very good at serving-up that bitter dish once we have been attacked.

Attack us again at your very great and mortal peril.

 

[Indofred]

We do not attack first

Actually, you do.

America has started all wars and conflicts in both Muslim and non Muslims countries but has never been attacked by any country it has invaded, post 1945.
Perhaps you could explain how North Korea, Vietnam and all the other countries you invaded were threats to American soil.
You can't because they weren't.

Tell you what, name any country, post WWII that has attacked America.
No cheating by naming attacks on American forces abroad, actual attacks on America that started a war with another country.
The desperate would cite 9/11 but that was Saudis (Mostly) so why did you attack Saudi Arabia?

You moan about Beirut embassy bombing but totally neglect to mention, American forces entered the war before it. Same goes for every other American attack with the possible exception of Libya.

Iraq was invaded on a lie by a war criminal called Bush and his lap dog, Blair.

 

[Kondor3]

"Actually, you do..."

We were discussing US attacks upon Muslim countries prior to 9-11 that could conceivably account for the 9-11 attack.

Your citations to-date are entirely inadequate to the task-at-hand.

Your attempted deviation towards non-Islamic countries (North Korea, Vietnam, etc.) is irrelevant to a discussion of US attacks upon Muslim countries prior to 9-11.

Your reference to the US entering the Lebanese War is inaccurate - we negotiated a truce with all major parties (including the PLO) and the deployment of a multinational (US, French, Italian, and, earlier, British) peacekeeping force and only engaged in combat after being attacked; never mind happening 17-19 years before 9-11.

The invasion of Iraq (and Afghanistan) occurred after 9-11.

Benghazi occurred after 9-11.

This is not going well for you, is it?

Then again, sympathizers and apologists for Radical Militant Islam, scattered across the Ummah, don't really have a lot of objective metaphorical ammunition, when attempting to justify things like 9-11, so, it's understandable that you're grasping at really flimsy straws.

But, of course, thank you for playing.

I think we've pretty much exhausted the possibility for meaningful citations in support of your attempted justifications for 9-11.

Perhaps your frightfully weak case can be reinforced by something to be found in a Wiki article on the subject ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motives_for_the_September_11_attacks ).

Better luck next time.

 

[Circe]

America always does best when we counterattack, when we reply to aggressive war.

Aggressive attacks, such as against Vietnam or Iraq II (Desert Storm was justified by Saddam trying to conquer our oil supplies!) don't usually work out for us.

So, bin Laden decided Muslims making war on America with box knives and planes borrowed from us was somehow a GOOD idea. He's dead now and so are a lot of worthless and stupid Muslims who have no more technology than goats and box knives.

I am perfectly content that we go on this way: they look at us crosswise, we bomb the hell out of them.

Works for me. Eventually they might learn from the experience not to attack us. Probably they are too stupid, but at least a lot of them will be dead, and that's good..

 

[Indofred]

IRAN 1946 Nuclear threat Soviet troops told to leave north.
IRAN 1953 Command Operation CIA overthrows democracy, installs Shah.
EGYPT 1956 Nuclear threat, troops Soviets told to keep out of Suez crisis; Marines evacuate foreigners. (now, what was that about why you support Israel? - it started as another anti communist thing)
LEBANON l958 Troops, naval Army & Marine occupation against rebels.
IRAQ 1958 Nuclear threat Iraq warned against invading Kuwait.
IRAQ 1963 Command operation CIA organizes coup that killed president, brings Ba'ath Party to power, and Saddam Hussein back from exile to be head of the secret service.
INDONESIA l965 Command operation Million killed in CIA-assisted army coup.
OMAN l970 Command operation U.S. directs Iranian marine invasion.
IRAN l980 Troops, nuclear threat, aborted bombing Raid to rescue Embassy hostages; 8 troops die in copter-plane crash. Soviets warned not to get involved in revolution.
LIBYA l981 Naval jets Two Libyan jets shot down in maneuvers.
LEBANON l982-84 Naval, bombing, troops Marines expel PLO and back Phalangists, Navy bombs and shells Muslim positions. 241 Marines killed when Shi'a rebel bombs barracks.
IRAN l984 Jets Two Iranian jets shot down over Persian Gulf.
LIBYA l986 Bombing, naval Air strikes to topple Qaddafi gov't.
IRAN l987-88 Naval, bombing US intervenes on side of Iraq in war, defending reflagged tankers and shooting down civilian jet.
LIBYA 1989 Naval jets Two Libyan jets shot down.
SAUDI ARABIA 1990-91 Troops, jets Iraq countered after invading Kuwait. 540,000 troops also stationed in Oman, Qatar, Bahrain, UAE, Israel.
IRAQ 1990-91 Bombing, troops, naval Blockade of Iraqi and Jordanian ports, air strikes; 200,000+ killed in invasion of Iraq and Kuwait; large-scale destruction of Iraqi military.
KUWAIT 1991 Naval, bombing, troops Kuwait royal family returned to throne.
IRAQ 1991-2003 Bombing, naval No-fly zone over Kurdish north, Shiite south; constant air strikes and naval-enforced economic sanctions
SOMALIA 1992-94 Troops, naval, bombing U.S.-led United Nations occupation during civil war; raids against one Mogadishu faction.
SUDAN 1998 Missiles Attack on pharmaceutical plant alleged to be "terrorist" nerve gas plant.
AFGHANISTAN 1998 Missiles Attack on former CIA training camps used by Islamic fundamentalist groups alleged to have attacked embassies.
IRAQ 1998 Bombing, Missiles Four days of intensive air strikes after weapons inspectors allege Iraqi obstructions.
YEMEN 2000 Naval USS Cole, docked in Aden, bombed.
AFGHANISTAN 2001-? Troops, bombing, missiles Massive U.S. mobilization to overthrow Taliban, hunt Al Qaeda fighters, install Karzai regime, and battle Taliban insurgency. More than 30,000 U.S. troops and numerous private security contractors carry our occupation.
YEMEN 2002 Missiles Predator drone missile attack on Al Qaeda, including a US citizen.
IRAQ 2003-? Troops, naval, bombing, missiles Saddam regime toppled in Baghdad. More than 250,000 U.S. personnel participate in invasion. US and UK forces occupy country and battle Sunni and Shi'ite insurgencies. More than 160,000 troops and numerous private contractors carry out occupation and build large permanent bases.
PAKISTAN 2005-? Missiles, bombing, covert operation CIA missile and air strikes and Special Forces raids on alleged Al Qaeda and Taliban refuge villages kill multiple civilians. Drone attacks also on Pakistani Mehsud network.
SOMALIA 2006-? Missiles, naval, troops, command operation Special Forces advise Ethiopian invasion that topples Islamist government; AC-130 strikes, Cruise missile attacks and helicopter raids against Islamist rebels; naval blockade against "pirates" and insurgents.
SYRIA 2008 Troops Special Forces in helicopter raid 5 miles from Iraq kill 8 Syrian civilians
YEMEN 2009-? Missiles, command operation Cruise missile attack on Al Qaeda kills 49 civilians; Yemeni military assaults on rebels
LIBYA 2011-? Bombing, missiles, command operation NATO coordinates air strikes and missile attacks against Qaddafi government during uprising by rebel army.

Please quote this post and highlight in red the ones that attacked the US mainland before you attacked them.

Thanks in advance of your flustering and looking for petty excuses because none did.

 

[Circe]

Kondor3 said:

And here I thought we were on the side of the Muslims during the Bosnian intervention.

It would appear that we made a mistake that should not be repeated.

Point!

I was in favor of the Clinton war against Serbia, but I was wrong, I see now. The rule is never, never, never, never do ANYthing that helps any Muslims, under any circumstances. They are our enemies and we have to keep the focus on that. Never help your enemies.

This is highly relevant to the thread topic! It would be crazy to go into Syria in favor of some horrible killer Muslims fighting against some other horrible killer Muslims. It is in our national interests to let them kill each other off, and the more they mutually kill, the better. It's in Israel's interests, too. Syria will surely be hors de combat for a decade or two after this disintegration, and the longer they aren't vicious and malignant toward Israel, the better.

I cannot see how it is in any way in America's national interest to give anything to any Syrians, do anything for any of them, interfere in any way whatsoever. After all, Assad was one of "our SOB's," as the saying goes, but he's presumably on his way out. It would be better for our national interest if he won, really.

And note: so far, we aren't interfering. There's empty talkie-talkie for the news cycles, but the White House and State Department isn't THAT crazy. It's like Clinton, weeping crocodile tears after the Rwanda genocide, oh, how sad we didn't stop it, oh, how sad ------- but you note that he didn't bother to DO anything, and it was certainly not in America's national interest to interfere with a bunch of naked savages killing another bunch of naked savages in the middle of Darkest Africa.

This is another such case. Fake talkie-talkie is fine, but for heaven's sake, don't DO anything. The fewer Syrians there are in the world, the better for us and for the rest of the civilized world.

 

[Circe]

Whoops!

Sorry, all, I just realized this is not the "worthless Syrians" thread as I spoke to in the previous post, it's the "worthless Pakis" thread.