Obama might send troops into Pakistan

[Tiki Tam Tam]

Too bad they never learn!

Gung ho and then egg on the face!

However, one can't say that they are not trying all avenues:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6904842.stm

 

[roadrunner]

If Pakistan disintegrates (and such a catastrophe should not come to pass), then the US surely gains.

It will take Balochistan under its wing. This will allow at least one safe stage of the proposed TAP pipeline.

A pro US Balochistan will box Iran from both sides i.e. Iraq and Balochistan.

The Chinese at Gwadar with their listening post (String of Pearls) to monitor US actions in the Middle East would be evicted and hence the Arabian Sea would be sanitised of Chinese influence. Keep a check on Chinese mercantile ship movement to Iran and put impediments.

Prevent the IPI pipeline fructifying.

It was more a hostile Pakistan of 161 million people would not be in the US's interests in Afghanistan.

On the Balochistan issue, as you've said yourself they do have an ally in Pakistan, so they don't need to take over Balochistan. However, if they did want to take it, you then have to do a benefit:loss calculation. Do you honestly believe the casualties they would suffer in an occupation of Pakistan and Afghanistan complete with Stinger capable shoulder fired missile technological level would be worth it for preventing the IPI pipeline from materializing. What does the US stands to gain from the IPI pipeline? Not much itself, only embargoing Iran a bit, but Iran will just sell somewhere else by some other means. America will not find it worth occupying Pakistan just to embargo Iran. Do you think they would find it worthwhile and why?

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

In Balochistan, they don't have an ally in Pakistan.

The NWFP, FATA and Baluchistan are the badlands where the govt writ runs sporadically.

Embargoing Iran is one of the main point in the US' Iran policy.

Published on 2 Aug 2005 by Media Monitors Network. Archived on 8 Aug 2005.
Petrodollar Warfare: Dollars, Euros and the Upcoming Iranian Oil Bourse

by William Clark

Synopsis:
It is not yet clear if a U.S. military expedition will occur in a desperate attempt to maintain petrodollar supremacy. Regardless of the recent National Intelligence Estimate that down-graded Iran’s potential nuclear weapons program, it appears increasingly likely the Bush administration may use the specter of nuclear weapon proliferation as a pretext for an intervention, similar to the fears invoked in the previous WMD campaign regarding Iraq.

If recent stories are correct regarding Cheney’s plan to possibly use another 9/11 terrorist attack as the pretext or casus belli for a U.S. aerial attack against Iran, this would confirm the Bush administration is prepared to undertake a desperate military strategy to thwart Iran’s nuclear ambitions, while simultaneously attempting to prevent the Iranian oil Bourse from initiating a euro-based system for oil trades.

However, as members of the U.N. Security Council; China, Russia and E.U. nations such as France and Germany would likely veto any U.S.-sponsored U.N. Security Resolution calling the use of force without solid proof of Iranian culpability regarding a terrorist attack in the U.S. A unilateral military strike on Iran would isolate the U.S. government in the eyes of the world community, and it is conceivable that such an overt action could provoke other industrialized nations to strategically abandon the dollar en masse.

Indeed, such an event would create pressure for OPEC and Russia to move towards a monopoly petroeuro system in an effort to cripple the U.S. dollar and thwart the U.S. global military presence. I refer to this in my book as the “rogue nation hypothesis.” (A similar tactic was used by the U.S. to end the 1956 Suez crisis.)

While central bankers throughout the world community would be extremely reluctant to ‘dump the dollar,’ the reasons for any such drastic reaction are likely straightforward from their government’s perspective – the global community is dependent on the oil and gas energy supplies found in the Persian Gulf.

Hence, industrialized nations would likely move in tandem on the currency exchange markets in an effort to thwart the neoconservatives from pursuing their desperate strategy of dominating the world’s largest hydrocarbon energy supply. Any such efforts that resulted in a dollar currency crisis would be undertaken – not to cripple the U.S. dollar and economy as punishment towards the American people per se – but rather to thwart further unilateral warfare and its potentially destructive effects on the critical oil production and shipping infrastructure in the Persian Gulf.

Barring a U.S. attack, it appears imminent that Iran’s euro-denominated oil bourse will open in March 2006. Logically, the most appropriate U.S. strategy is compromise with the E.U. and OPEC towards a dual-currency system for international oil trades.

I don't have the url. But use google search and read the full article. It's worth reading.

It is worthwhile for the US to block Iran from both sides and with its two carrier groups from the South! It will be a serious threat. And no one from the Arab world will shed a tear,because they are Sunnis and Iranians are Shias.

But then, as I said before, Pakistan is no cakewalk!

If the US is serious about weaning away Balochistan, it would be better to foment rebellion and make them wrest their independence. As it is, if the Pakistan media is right, the Balochis have many a grievance, actual or imagined!

 

[roadrunner]

In Balochistan, they don't have an ally in Pakistan.

The NWFP, FATA and Baluchistan are the badlands where the govt writ runs sporadically.

Actually, it's wrong. The government writ extends all over Balochistan. The only place the government writ does not extend is in FATA. Though Balochistan does get some attacks, they are of the same scale as Punjab has been getting recently. In fact I'd say Punjab has been having it worse than Balochistan of late. i think you must agree that the government writ extends in Punjab at least.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

Punjab is having problems?

In Balochistan, they had to use air and arty!

And then Bugti was killed!

 

[roadrunner]

Punjab is having problems?

In Balochistan, they had to use air and arty!

And then Bugti was killed!

I'll read your edited post later. Your impressions of Balochistan are incorrect. Balochistan never voted for Bugtis party, perhaps 2 seats went to him last time. The most popular party in Balochistan, wait for it..is PML-Q, that's Musharraf's party. There is currently two tribes out of 52 that have a problem in Balochistan. Half of the other 50 tribes, actually support the Army's action. You of all people, being from the world's greatest democracy, must surely understand the point of mentioning all this. There is no popular support for the Baloch rebellion as the media in the world's greatest democracy is trying to make out. There is foreign influence, and RAW is behind some of the trouble in Balochistan, though surprisingly there is also Iran that has a foot in it as well as other countries. Yet the Baloch have voted for Musharraf in the last election, and next election they'll vote for him (though MMA have built up popularity in the region too). They won't side with America (or any other country that wants the breakup of Pakistan) - this is a fact that anyone who knows anything about Balochistan and its history or who has been there, will know.

 

[Cheetah786]

Obama: Use of nuclear weapons to fight al-Qaida in Pakistan, Afghanistan 'not on the table'


2007-08-02 22:20:40 -


WASHINGTON (AP) - U.S. presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Thursday he would not use nuclear weapons «in any circumstance» to fight terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan, drawing criticism from Hillary Rodham Clinton and other Democratic rivals.
«I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance,» Obama said, with a pause, «involving civilians.» Then he quickly added, «Let me scratch that. There's been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That's not on the table.
Obama was responding to a question by the Associated Press about whether there was any circumstance where he would be prepared or willing to use nuclear weapons in Afghanistan and Pakistan to defeat terrorism and al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden.
«There's been no discussion of using nuclear weapons and that's not a hypothetical that I'm going to discuss,» Obama said after a Capitol Hill breakfast with constituents.
When asked whether his answer also applied to the possible use of tactical nuclear weapons, he said it did.
The Illinois senator warned Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf in a major foreign policy speech Wednesday that he would use U.S. military force in Pakistan even without Musharraf's permission if necessary to root out terrorists.
Asked about Obama's speech and his comments about nuclear weapons, Clinton chided her fellow senator about addressing hypotheticals.
«Presidents should be very careful at all times in discussing the use or non-use of nuclear weapons. ... I don't believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or non-use of nuclear weapons,» Clinton said.
Asked about the notion of unilateral U.S. military action in Pakistan to get al-Qaida leadershipo she said: «How we do it should not be telegraphed or discussed for obvious reasons.
Another Democratic rival, Sen. Joe Biden, also criticized Obama's comments about unilateral military action in Pakistan to pursue terrorists.
«It's a well-intended notion he has, but it's a very naïve way of figuring out how you're going to conduct foreign policy,» the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Comittee said on a radio show.
Sen. Chris Dodd, a member of the Foreign Relations Committee along with Obama, also took his rival to task.
«Over the past several days, Senator Obama's assertions about foreign and military affairs have been, frankly, confusing and confused. He has made threats he should not make and made unwise categorical statements about military options,» Dodd said in a statement.
Pakistan has nuclear weapons and is politically unstable, raising concerns that the current military leadership could be replaced by religious fanatics who would be less cautious in using the weapons.
Obama warned that terrorists in the mountains of Pakistan are planning another attack on the United States, after already killing 3,000 Americans in their 2001 attacks.
«It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al-Qaida leadership meeting in 2005.» he said. «If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf will not act, we will.
Associated Press Writer Devlin Barrett contributed to this report.


http://www.pr-inside.com/print193423.htm

 

[Neo]

If Pakistan disintegrates (and such a catastrophe should not come to pass), then the US surely gains.

It will take Balochistan under its wing. This will allow at least one safe stage of the proposed TAP pipeline.

A pro US Balochistan will box Iran from both sides i.e. Iraq and Balochistan.

The Chinese at Gwadar with their listening post (String of Pearls) to monitor US actions in the Middle East would be evicted and hence the Arabian Sea would be sanitised of Chinese influence. Keep a check on Chinese mercantile ship movement to Iran and put impediments.

Prevent the IPI pipeline fructifying.

Sir, Balochistan will never side with America, even if it means independance.

 

[A.Rahman]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070802/wl_st...stanafghanistan

Pakistan slams 'ignorant' Obama attack warning Thu Aug 2, 6:28 AM ET

ISLAMABAD (AFP) - Pakistan accused Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama of "sheer ignorance" for threatening to launch US military strikes against Al-Qaeda on Pakistani soil.

 

[blain2]

If Pakistan disintegrates (and such a catastrophe should not come to pass), then the US surely gains.

It will take Balochistan under its wing. This will allow at least one safe stage of the proposed TAP pipeline.

A pro US Balochistan will box Iran from both sides i.e. Iraq and Balochistan.

The Chinese at Gwadar with their listening post (String of Pearls) to monitor US actions in the Middle East would be evicted and hence the Arabian Sea would be sanitised of Chinese influence. Keep a check on Chinese mercantile ship movement to Iran and put impediments.

Prevent the IPI pipeline fructifying.

Salim, but how is Balochistan under the Pakistani federation not pro-US? The TAP is something that Pakistan is all for...the problem is the instability in Afghanistan. Otherwise Pakistan and Unocal had done extensive feasibility studies about it.

The same goes for Iran. Iranians as it is (and rightfully so) are very suspicious of US presence in Pakistan. So I am not so sure about the Baluchistan/influence point here.

The Chinese presence is one thing that would be worrisome for US but thus far Pakistan has done a good job balancing both great powers. So while in the short term it may be of benefit to the US to cause some mayhem in Balochistan, in the long term, a fractured Pakistan would be a massive instability factor in the region.

 

[blain2]

Punjab is having problems?

In Balochistan, they had to use air and arty!

And then Bugti was killed!

Salim,

The problem in Balochistan was the same as in 1973. Its a low level insurgency and due to the terrain, air assets have been used. The US definetly has a hand in the Baluchistan insurgency, otherwise BLA would have been branded a terrorist organization 2 years ago.

 

[Adux]

occupation of Pakistan and Afghanistan complete with Stinger capable shoulder fired missile

What Stingers? The one's from soviet occupation times? Why arent US aircrafts going down in Afghanistan now? There is something called shelf life.

 

[roadrunner]

What Stingers? The one's from soviet occupation times? Why arent US aircrafts going down in Afghanistan now? There is something called shelf life.

No not those. Anza MkIII has better performance than Stingers in fact. The MkII is around the same performance as Stingers..and everyone knows how effective they were. Both are indigenously produced in Pakistan.

 

[Keysersoze]

What Stingers? The one's from soviet occupation times? Why arent US aircrafts going down in Afghanistan now? There is something called shelf life.

Actually the U.S. have been offering silly money for the missiles and the launchers (In Afghanistan $500000 per missile)

Also the shelf lives of these have been severely underestimated. A lot of the components have a shelf life of 20 years. And savvy people can replace batteries if they have enough tech know how......

 

[Adux]

I thought the war head and booster its fuel, will have corroded by now.
Since we dont see any US aircrafts going down cuz of missile's, we can effectively rule it out,