What's new

After Syrian, whats next ?

Off topic but... The signature is from Nietzsche's 'On Truth and Lies in Non Moral Sense' essay; it can be a life changing few hundred words to read...

He is one of my favorite Philosophers.I especially like the concept of self actualizing man in "thus spake Zarathustra" whom he called " Übermensch";a person who is free from chains of conventional morality and need for dependence on external deity.
 
.
No. Pakistani nukes will NEVER be considered safe by the West so long as Pakistanis ally with the Persians, Turks, and Arabs against Israel... In mid 2000's Musharraf tried to remove fears about Pakistani nukes to Israel and really tried to reach out to 'the lobby' in Washington and I think he gained some respite but not enough. And if you have followed the recent NSA leaks you will see that Pakistani nukes are the topmost concerns...
Musharraf backed down under local pressure.

Pakistan is NATO's ally but still US violates Pakistani Sovereignty on regular basis and Also USA has a black budget to spy only on Pakistani nukes and no one else's.
they could never risk a full scale 2 front war with Pakistan and Afghanistan simultaneously.Only Afghanistan has crippled there economy and forced them to bent on their knees. If they had attacked Pakistan then all the support from Pakistan against this so called War Against Terrorism had been lost and also Pakistan has influence on Afghan Talibans. Using that influence Pakistan has played the role of broker to bring both parties at table. USA also had lost this opportunity if attacked Pakistan with Afghanistan.
And I am not saying that USA will attack directly like in Iraq,Afghanistan and now intents to launch on Syria. I have said in my post that USA will exploit Afghan Civil War against Pakistan. Just like it is doing already by sponsoring those TTP and BLA. And makes it look like an internal affair (just like Egypt) and in that case China and Turkey wont be able to help Pakistan because there will be no direct confrontation.
Recent economic meltdown was independent of military operations in Afghanistan.

US will not fight Pakistan in the same manner as it fought Iraq for example. Military operation against Pakistan is likely to involve firepower and strategies of scope that we have yet to witness.

Keep in mind that Pakistan is a threat BECAUSE of its nuclear capability. In addition, Pakistan can grant China easier access to Middle East; this is another reason to stir attention within US-Isreali nexus.
 
. .
Pakistan is NATO's ally but still US violates Pakistani Sovereignty on regular basis and Also USA has a black budget to spy only on Pakistani nukes and no one else's.
they could never risk a full scale 2 front war with Pakistan and Afghanistan simultaneously.Only Afghanistan has crippled there economy and forced them to bent on their knees. If they had attacked Pakistan then all the support from Pakistan against this so called War Against Terrorism had been lost and also Pakistan has influence on Afghan Talibans. Using that influence Pakistan has played the role of broker to bring both parties at table. USA also had lost this opportunity if attacked Pakistan with Afghanistan.
And I am not saying that USA will attack directly like in Iraq,Afghanistan and now intents to launch on Syria. I have said in my post that USA will exploit Afghan Civil War against Pakistan. Just like it is doing already by sponsoring those TTP and BLA. And makes it look like an internal affair (just like Egypt) and in that case China and Turkey wont be able to help Pakistan because there will be no direct confrontation.
Do you mean the drone strikes?
If yes,im sure they are only carried out with the knowledge of the Pakistani government/military.
The US cannot just go and do as they did before,those times are over.
Look at Syria,why ask Congress,why not just do it as they used to do before?
Not just economic problems but also the US citizens have had with the police role of the US,they dont care anymore.
Pakistan is/will be able to deal with terrorists(backed by whome ever)in the future,you had your first term of a civilian government without interference of the military,i see a bright future for Pakistan.
It can only go forward from here on.

Try out the Saudi tea is too thick. I don't drink tea though, period.
I like it black and strong,no sugar:smokin:
 
.
The US cannot just go and do as they did before,those times are over.
Look at Syria,why ask Congress,why not just do it as they used to do before?
they just bark man!! just bark:raise:
 
. .
Not barking,they just dont want to.

yes barking!!!! they want to but they cant!!!
u think its a small game played by us?? this aint iraq or afghanistan !!!! syria is the last place on earth they want to attack!!
 
. .
For Pakistanis: Please ponder this. Why are the Pakistani nukes topmost concerns for the Americans NOW? There is no major civil war in Pakistan. If anything the security of the nukes have been greatly strengthened since 9/11--with American help! The idea that Talibans or any non-military entity can 'take over' is absurd.
There is only one conclusion I can draw from this: Plans are on fast track to neutralize the Pakistani nuclear capability, especially in the 'fog of war' around Pakistan.
 
.
yes barking!!!! they want to but they cant!!!
u think its a small game played by us?? this aint iraq or afghanistan !!!! syria is the last place on earth they want to attack!!
Come on you have to admit thats wishfull thinking.
Realistic approach,if they wanted they would have, be fair.
They only need to send some missiles,without setting a foot on Syrian soil.
Iraq was allways stronger then Syria in Saddams time,Afghanistan is the worst(who is the enemy,they all look alike,evry where mountainess terrain allways hard to find the enemy)

Don't kill me with your F-16 :ashamed:


What :what: don't tell me you don't take jokes :/ ..



You gonna like it then.

To late,my feelings are hurt:-)omghaha::omghaha::omghaha:)
You could start by sending a free Typhoon first:smokin:
 
.
To OP, many of the replies are simple phantasms, the people who wrote them could not defend the idea for the life of them. I cannot tell if it's because of lack of knowledge, reasoning ability or general trolling. take this one for example.

My observation is that US is taking full advantage of its WOT campaign to change the ground realities of several regions in its favor to strengthen its hold in those regions or cripple opposition to its interests in such regions.

Iraq; Libya; Egypt; Syria; Al-Qaeda; Hezbollah; Hamas; it seems to be a pattern. The former two are no longer a threat to US interests. With these developments, the process to isolate Iran is also in effect.

After Syria, Iran would be real danger. Iranians should play smart now because their threats will not get them far.


Mr. Zardari made a remark on this end during his last speech in office of presidency; his message was to avert Middle East like crysis in Pakistan by addressing internal rifts and strifes so that foreign powers do not take advantage and cripple the nation.

Libya: went on to fully comply with the west in 2004 [1] , fully abandoned the nuclear program, paid the victims of the Pan-AM sponsored terror attack their money. Cooperation with European states. Practically the dream for the USA and Europe. The situation now is much worse for them, the tribal war has caused instability in oil flow which effect their economy for the worse. The civil war there was caused by their tribal nature, some of the tribes saw a chance to grab for power and took it. It paid off and Gaddafi's tribe lost. Even the bombing campaign was not started by the USA and neither did the USA took a leading part in it.

Iraq: Currently Iraq is a much bigger threat to USA interests in the region then it was in 2003. Now Iraq is heavily influenced by Iran, the main rival of the USA in the region, one simple example is that it allows the Irani planes with military supplies to fly over the country to Syria against USA's wishes.

Syria: So far Western involvement was minimal to non resistant, despite what some conspiracy theorists would tell you it started as genuine demonstrations against a dictatorship, definitely not something uncommon. What was different though was the atmosphere in the Arab world, those were the days after powerful Mubarak lost his seat as well as the ruler of Tunisia, and Gadaffi was hanging in the balance, so they dared to oppose him even after he started massacring the civilians with machine guns, snipers and mortars.
It held long enough till the extremists who just finished their fighting against the USA moved to Syria from Iraq and Afghanistan and the war was fully on it's way. (similar to what happened with the extremists after the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, though it was to the Caucasus, Balkans and the horn of Africa at the time).

I am sorry that it's so long, but it's hard to convey rational is short sentences.

[1] On 19 December 2003, Gaddafi made a surprise announcement about his intentions to dismantle the Libya's WMDs program. Following the announcement, Libya agreed to destruct all of its chemical, nuclear, and biological weapons stockpiles
On 22 January 2004, U.S. military transport planes carried around 55,000 pounds (25,000 kg) of documents and equipments related to Libya's nuclear and ballistic missile programs to the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) in Tennessee. On March 2004, over 1,000 additional centrifuge and missile parts were shipped out of Libya.
The chemical weapons program was also actively maintained by Libya under the dictatorship of Muammar Gaddafi, but it was ostensibly decommissioned in the 2000s and early 2010s as Gaddafi sought to normalise relations with the Western world.
 
.
Musharraf backed down under local pressure.


Recent economic meltdown was independent of military operations in Afghanistan.

US will not fight Pakistan in the same manner as it fought Iraq for example. Military operation against Pakistan is likely to involve firepower and strategies of scope that we have yet to witness.

Keep in mind that Pakistan is a threat BECAUSE of its nuclear capability. In addition, Pakistan can grant China easier access to Middle East; this is another reason to stir attention within US-Isreali nexus.
That is the same thing I am saying that "US will not attack Pakistan in the same manner it did on Iraq" i.e Direct Confrontation. It will use Terrorists to do the Job
 
. . . .
Back
Top Bottom