Obama might send troops into Pakistan

[Tiki Tam Tam]

Baghdadi,

Learn something about missiles and ranges of such missile before you graduate to geostrategy and world domination!

Please let us debate rationally.

 

[Adux]

I know the US tactics and their operations wherein firepower is the criterion. But this is mountains and they have very little experience. It is totally a different kettle of fish.

Also fire-power in the mountains is not very effective since there will be overs and unders.

Sir, You are expecting them to come down from Afghanistan, Why not a sea landing.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

You are right. I was fixated with NWFP.

If they land in Karachi, they will have a Baghdad.

Though the feasibility on the Baluch coast can't be ruled out and you are right on this over there.

And with the hassle in Balochistan, things could be easier under the US 'F&D' scheme. If that is the case, then we know is actually behind the problems of Baluchistan!

There is just one problem. This would be an invasion on Pakistan and not to clear the Taliban! Won't look good internationally! Kicking the Taliban and other fundamentalist yahoos is OK, but invading a sovereign country is a stink!

 

[Keysersoze]

errrr guys one point I would like to make here......Where would the troops come from? From the Afghanistan contingent? maybe from the Iraq contingent? At the moment there is a lot of overstretch in a lot of departments and the costs alone would be huge.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

That is the point I raised in one of my post.
Scraped the bottom of barrel possibly is the phrase I used.

Cost is no concern to the US. They are selling hi tech weapons and aircraft to KSA, Israel and Egypt.

We are all paying for them to wage war wherever they like!

There problem is that they don't have soldiers and most of them don't enjoy the soldiering they are doing. They like it only when they win! Practical chaps?

 

[Adux]

US will not invade Pakistan, They dont have to as I said it is practically the US 51st state.
I was just trying to do a hypothetical analysis. They will have to pull out of Iraq to do anything of that sort. And India will not encourage them.

 

[roadrunner]

It's the time muslim countries should think to form a military alliance e.g. Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, The Gulf Arab States and Turkey etc to counter the menace of Imperialists and Zionist which can catch them unaware at any time and at any moment.

There's one problem with this. The Muslims (radicals) are attacking Pakistan. America is not. Why should Pakistan go after America in this situation? Some reasons plz.

 

[mohammadkhan70]

US is losing already in Iraq & Afghanistan, u guys really think they will come to Pak.

 

[bhangra12345]

US is losing already in Iraq & Afghanistan, u guys really think they will come to Pak.

I will divide the above into two parts.
i)will the americans come and invade pak?
No we dont think so. but they will attack in Pak as they have already done before.

ii)US is losing already in iraq and afghanistan.
probably I see with a different pair of specs on, but all I see is that iraq and afghanistan have already lost it, what ever you might say. They have lost the oppurtunity and most importantly "hope" that they can give their children a good education and future. For me there is no bigger loss than this.

 

[Chrome9]

I know the US tactics and their operations wherein firepower is the criterion. But this is mountains and they have very little experience. It is totally a different kettle of fish.

Also fire-power in the mountains is not very effective since there will be overs and unders.

Umm I don't inderstand what the USA can do? What I gather from Obama is that he's saying when there is "actionable" targets with prior intelligence theb "limited" and pin point strikes will be heald to remove the threat. Now how that is done is upto opinion, America for the sake of limited strikes in Pakistan territory isn't going to start showering cruise missiles or anything like that. Most probably it would include sending in Predator drones, or comando's parachuting from C-130's. Maximum I can give is a strike package consisting of F-16's with Apache's near the ground supporting some troops, these guys will be, in and out, as soon as the jobs done they'll be back in Afghanistan, all they need is to gun down suspected militants in NWFP and that's that.
Now Pakistan should be lobbying real hard here, throwing it's political weight in tandem with it's allies to try to stop congress approval of conditioned aid and make clear that it's soverenity is of utmost importance.
Now that democrats are destined for power, how Pakistan is going to play it's politics will destin it's future.
IMO Pakistan should start having an offensive posture near it's Afghan border, its evident that the border which is moer threatening at this point of time is the western one. With Aid money start building a proper border with real checkposts, amd beef up the FC to something moe than a brave colonial era force. get some half decent SAM's and line them across the border so the Americans will know that they are playing with fire here.
Finally Pakistan should always maintain that US interference will destabalise the country, is against UN conventions and Pakistan wil never allow it even if it means altrcation.
A real governed border, Intelligence sharing, peace deals and development of these areas is much more likely to bring success.

 

[blain2]

They have lost the oppurtunity and most importantly "hope" that they can give their children a good education and future. For me there is no bigger loss than this.

Let me ask you this once you lose your independence. All other things become secondary when you are not free in your own country....this is the underlying motivation for the resistance in Afghanistan and Iraq...education and future of their children comes after they have redeemed their independence....as soon as people understand that, we will have hope in both of these countries.

 

[Scorpius]

Let me ask you this once you lose your independence. All other things become secondary when you are not free in your own country....this is the underlying motivation for the resistance in Afghanistan and Iraq...education and future of their children comes after they have redeemed their independence....as soon as people understand that, we will have hope in both of these countries.

The problem is that those who support the resistance are not in the majority, in Iraq or Afghanistan.

 

[Neo]

The unfortunate thing about most American politicians is that they do not understand the world. They are like goldfish in a bowl.

Having seen "war" waged by the US in Panama and other bannana republics, they think everything will be a cake walk.

And unfortunately, they never learn lesson from history. They thought Iraq would welcome them with garlands and women lining the streets and kissing the liberators! Sadly, soon they learnt that the Iraqis were not overjoyed with the liberation since all the invasion could achieve is breaking down a working, even if warped in freedom and democracy, system wherein the otherwise disciplined citizens swelled the ranks of the militants being jobless! The resultant is a Holy Mess in reply to ObL's Holy War! Interestingly, ObL's terrorists during Saddam's time was conspicuous by their absence.

Now, Obama (not Osama) advocates a march into Pakistan!

Well said Sir!

Where will he get the troops for this military adventure? They have already scraped the bottom of the barrel. And what is the Pak Armed Forces like? Bedraggled bannana republic soldiers? Asking for trouble, that is what Obama is doing!

More important question is how will he get UN's approval or even Nato's support to invade Pakistan under the current circumstances.
China, France and possibly Russia will oppose it and most muslim country will allign with Pakistan against the agressor.
And there's always the nuclear option...it can not be neutralised!

Obama is just another idiot, perfect replacement for Bush!

 

[bhangra12345]

Let me ask you this once you lose your independence. All other things become secondary when you are not free in your own country....this is the underlying motivation for the resistance in Afghanistan and Iraq...education and future of their children comes after they have redeemed their independence....as soon as people understand that, we will have hope in both of these countries.

Independence is what I will say as a "semi-hypothetical" thing. For a normal person, it doesnt really matter who is ruling. It only matters when it affects him negatively. For a person living in mexico where they are supposed to be independent, he wants to come to america, where he is not independent on the same scale but his children have a better future. For a person living in utter poverty, with no hope of improvement, he has already lost. Afghanistan has been on the losing side since the time of 1970's when the king was displaced. After that, was there any time in afghanistan where the children had their future good looking? Only the semantics changed, the loss has moved from one nutcase to another, but thats about it. Initially they lost to soviet, then they lost to taliban and now to God knows who. It is only now that ATLEAST in kabul, if not in the whole of afghanistan, some forward movement is being seen.

For the bolded part, unfortunately I do not agree with you. Otherwise, the mexicans would not be illegally crossing over. My answer on the order would be it depends. In china similarly, they do not have personal freedom, but their future is rosy.

P.S.: I can myself find huge loopholes in my argument. I will myself give an example- do you mean you were happy with british in india?

 

[BanglaBhoot]

Obama warns over Pakistan strike

BBC News - August 1, 2007

US presidential candidate Barack Obama has said he would order military action against al-Qaeda in Pakistan without the consent of Pakistan's government.

Mr Obama made the comments in a speech outlining his foreign policy positions.

Pakistan's foreign ministry said any threat to act against al-Qaeda from within its territory should not be used for political point scoring.

Earlier this month, Mr Obama's chief rival, Hillary Clinton, described him as "naive" on foreign policy.

The attack from Mrs Clinton came after a televised debate between Democrat presidential hopefuls.

During the debate Mr Obama said he would be willing to meet leaders of states such as Cuba, North Korea and Iran without conditions.

'Terrible mistake'

In his speech at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, in Washington, Mr Obama said General Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan's president, must do more to end terrorist operations in his country.

If not, Pakistan would risk a troop invasion and the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars of US aid during an Obama presidency, the candidate said.

"It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al-Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005," he said, referring to reports that the US had decided not to launch a strike for fear of harming ties with Pakistan.

"If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will," Mr Obama said.

The BBC's Jonathan Beale, in Washington, says such comments are clearly designed to bolster his credentials among a domestic audience.

But a spokeswoman for Pakistan's foreign ministry, Tasnim Aslam, told the AFP news agency that talk of military action was a serious matter and political candidates and commentators should "show responsibility".

White House spokesman Tony Snow defended Pakistan's leadership, saying it was working hard to fight al-Qaeda and Taleban fighters within its borders.

Gen Musharraf has been a key US ally in its so-called "war on terror" since the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks.

But US officials have publicly said recently that they believe Pakistan has let al-Qaeda and Taleban militants reorganise themselves in tribal areas bordering Afghanistan.

Mr Obama also used his foreign policy speech to criticise the Bush administration's focus on al-Qaeda in Iraq, saying US President George W Bush was "confusing" the mission.

He said Americans were more vulnerable to terrorist attacks than before the 9/11 attacks because of a war in Iraq "that should never have been authorised and should never have been waged".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6926663.stm