Sub-Prime fiasco Pakistan Cannot be attacked anymore

[MastanKhan]

Energon,

You should have done a little more footwork before you posted your remarks about the navigable width of the strait----global security states it to be 2 miles wide at its narrowest plus a 2 mile buffer zone.

75 % of japan's oil flows through here---2/5th of the world's oil is shipped through here.

I am telling you guy---you are hiding behind the star spangled banner posing to be an american---you are no whitey. Your mind and analysis does not have the depth of a whitey. As a matter of fact, I firmly believe that you are my neighbour.

Let me share a gem of common sense with you---it might work in the future---all of us are prone to make mistakes---some bigger than the others---depends where we stand---but when we are not so sure of something----then it is better for us just to type in the words in the search engine---there are hundreds of articles on any given subject---.

Guys, here is a gem of an article----half way through, in one paragraph---in a scenario where many small craft in large numbers when they swarm a u s battle group in the straits---the navy is shocked to learn that it would have suffered losses of---16 ships within a very short time.


The New York Times carried a story Jan. 12, clearly leaked to it by the Pentagon, giving some context for U.S. concerns. According to the story, the United States had carried out war games attempting to assess the consequences of a swarming attack by large numbers of speedboats carrying explosives and suicide crews. The results of the war games were devastating. In a game carried out in 2002, the U.S. Navy lost 16 major warships, including an aircraft carrier, cruisers and amphibious ships — all in attacks lasting 5-10 minutes. Fleet defenses were overwhelmed by large numbers of small, agile speedboats, some armed with rockets and other weapons, but we assume most operated as manned torpedoes.


The rest of the link is here



The Strait of Hormuz Incident and U.S. Strategy | Stratfor - 33k -

 

[Goodperson]

Q1. What is US going to gain by attacking Pakistan ?
Q2. Why is US providing Aid to Pakistan and Arms too if later US herself is going to Attack?

Only reason I feel some Pakistani people think US is going to attack Pakistan is due to difference in Ideology and culture they see US as anti - Muslim. But this is not going to change so in their mind US will always be a threat.

 

[MastanKhan]

Hi Goodperson,

That is what we are all trying to say is, that u s is not going to gain anything by attacking pakistan. The whole of the world would be the loser. The pakistani public is going by the rhetoric in the presidential candidates statements and whatever poision the american and european news media is spewing and spreading. What is happening right now is softening up the public before a mega mega strike. It is a present day normal game strategy. You make the adversary look like such a pariah, that when it is destroyed and hanged by his neck, nobody would shed a tear for the sad demise of the nation---like the comment in ENERGON's post--- about pakistan. It is a normal psyops thing---make a nation look bad bad bad---say everthing bad about that nation---say everything bad about what that nation does---say bad things about the efforts of that nations millitary in fighting terrorism---say so many bad things that nothing they do is right---they are so bad that one day people will say thankyou for getting rid of them. This is exactly what is happening right now. Musharraf is bad---Musharraf is bad with the judiciary---Musharraf is bad with the political parties---Musharraf is not committed to the cause, so he is bad---Musharraf has no respect for constitution, so he is bad---Musharraf doesnot want to kill enough of his people so he is bad---every thing that pakistan and Musharraf does is bad. Kiyani---he is a good man.

It is not for the difference in religion but strategic power positioning and control of central asia and its trade routes. Why do you think that u s pulled its troops out of afghanistan and went to iraq---why is it that so many times they had HIM in the cross hair and then let HIM slip away---as late as last july---at the same old hunting grounds of tora bora---. Why is it that u s does not have enough troops in afghanistan to finish up the job. The reason being that they don't want to leave now. It was a God sent oppurtunity to the u s and they will make maximum use of it---they will stay and try to controll all the assets in this region till they are sent back.

Gwadar is no ordinary issue---its success and chinese influence would have the world twisted into a hair ball---america is trying its very best to take charge of pakistani politics---Benazir fiasco just backfired so bad that they are having a tough time recovering from it---they just could not believe that their heroine would stick her neck out of the bullet proof vehicle and fall prey to the assasins bullet---they have not been able to come to terms of her demise---no other politician would sell themselves to the british and the u s as Benazir would have---

Energon---your comments about gwadar reminded me of an incident around yr 2000---pakistani businessmen asked indians for help to setup the karachi stock exchange---the pakistanis got snubbed at, made fun of, insulted and ridiculed by the indians with the attitude that it was beneath them---it would never be successful---it was such a small project---the pakistanis decided to do it on their own---the karachi stock exchange ultimately went 1000 times beyong the imagination of those indians whose help was being sought by the pakistanis.

The so called aid---is payment for the services pakistan is providing the forces in afghanistan. All other major purchases are being paid by the pakistanis.

 

[A.Rahman]

MUSHARRAF WARNS U.S.
'I challenge anybody coming into our mountains': Musharraf
By Anthony Paul

IN RAWALPINDI - MR PERVEZ Musharraf, Pakistan's embattled president, warned that any unilateral intervention in his country by coalition forces fighting in Afghanistan would be treated as an invasion.

Unless agreed to by Pakistan, any entry by the United States or coalition forces into Pakistan's tribal areas would be resisted as a breach of Pakistan's sovereignty, Mr Musharraf told The Straits Times in his first interview with a newspaper since the assassination of Ms Benazir Bhutto on Dec 27.

Four American politicians, all Democrats contending for the party's nomination for the race to the White House, have called for US forces now in neighbouring Afghanistan to join the Pakistan Army's counter-insurgency campaign and to hunt down Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in Pakistan's tribal areas.

President Musharraf slammed the 'perception in the United States (that) what our army cannot do, they can do'.

Added the president: 'I challenge anybody coming into our mountains. They would regret that day.'

Mr Musharraf also took issue with US Senator Hillary Clinton's proposal, made on the eve of her New Hampshire primary victory, to place Pakistan's nuclear weapons under supervision by the US and the UK. Her statement, the president said, was 'an intrusion into our privacy, into our sensitivity... She doesn't seem to understand how well-guarded these assets are'.

The interview took place in an elegant red-brick building that dates to the British Raj in Rawalpindi's presidential compound. Sentries in the red livery and towering, starched turbans of the Azad Kashmir (or Free Kashmir) regiment - a unit first raised among 'freedom-fighters' of the 1947-48 war with India - formed a fierce-looking guard.

During the interview, President Musharraf also said he would resign if a government that emerged from the coming election sought his impeachment.

Most observers expect a sympathy vote to trigger a landslide for the Pakistan People's Party (PPP), the political movement led by the Bhutto family.

A PPP-only government or a coalition between the PPP and the Pakistan Muslim League-N (for Nawaz group, headed by Nawaz Sharif, the prime minister deposed by then army chief Musharraf in 1999), could conceivably command the two-thirds majority that the constitution requires for an impeachment process.

In the interview, President Musharraf repeated his advice to Afghan President Hamid Karzai to negotiate with the Taleban.

Not all Taleban wanted to behave barbarously, he said, and military action could not, by itself, provide an ultimate solution. A solution would come by moving simultaneously on the socio-economic, political and military fronts.

The road would be long, and in Afghanistan, coalition forces - the US, Nato, Australia and others - would have to have the stamina to persist.

If coalition forces depart without some stable government in place that is strong enough to defend itself, that would 'affect the stability of the whole region and the world', he said.

In these efforts to counter subversion, India had not been helpful, he told The Straits Times - sending weapons, intelligence and money through Afghanistan to elements in Balochistan, and 'training terrorists'.

But he had praise for China and other East Asian nations, 'even Japan'.

These countries, unlike many Western media, understood Pakistan's problems, he said. The Western media 'want to impose their understanding of democracy and human rights on our developing countries, while China and other eastern countries don't'.

Added President Musharraf: 'We have to insure that Pakistan is secure. Everything else is secondary.'
Free

 

[Energon]

Energon,

You should have done a little more footwork before you posted your remarks about the navigable width of the strait----global security states it to be 2 miles wide at its narrowest plus a 2 mile buffer zone.

75 % of japan's oil flows through here---2/5th of the world's oil is shipped through here.

I am telling you guy---you are hiding behind the star spangled banner posing to be an american---you are no whitey. Your mind and analysis does not have the depth of a whitey. As a matter of fact, I firmly believe that you are my neighbour.

Let me share a gem of common sense with you---it might work in the future---all of us are prone to make mistakes---some bigger than the others---depends where we stand---but when we are not so sure of something----then it is better for us just to type in the words in the search engine---there are hundreds of articles on any given subject---.

Guys, here is a gem of an article----half way through, in one paragraph---in a scenario where many small craft in large numbers when they swarm a u s battle group in the straits---the navy is shocked to learn that it would have suffered losses of---16 ships within a very short time.


The New York Times carried a story Jan. 12, clearly leaked to it by the Pentagon, giving some context for U.S. concerns. According to the story, the United States had carried out war games attempting to assess the consequences of a swarming attack by large numbers of speedboats carrying explosives and suicide crews. The results of the war games were devastating. In a game carried out in 2002, the U.S. Navy lost 16 major warships, including an aircraft carrier, cruisers and amphibious ships — all in attacks lasting 5-10 minutes. Fleet defenses were overwhelmed by large numbers of small, agile speedboats, some armed with rockets and other weapons, but we assume most operated as manned torpedoes.


The rest of the link is here



The Strait of Hormuz Incident and U.S. Strategy | Stratfor - 33k -

I appreciate your attempts at providing me with "gems of common sense", but I'm afraid HardKnoxU needs to have it's charter revoked.

1. Tankers do not sail sideways, and even if they did for some unknown reason, a couple of tankers still wouldn't incapacitate the entire strait and result in a global economic crash.

2. The Iranian revolution occurred in 1979 and ever since then there has been an extremely high threat perception in the Straits of Hormuz. Heck operation praying Mantis was carried out near the mouth of the straits where a few ships and a helicopter was destroyed. How much effort do you think has gone in over the past two decades building up safety measures in that strait? And are you really so naive as to believe that all the details are available on an open source internet site? In fact, please try and put your great wisdom to use and see how much information can be garnered on the NATO Musandam Peninsula base using your favorite search engine. Mind you the British have been there since the turn of the 20th century and up until the mid 90s, the entire region was off limits to most civilians.

3. Are you seriously under the impression that this speed boat rushing idea is a new one? And do you still believe that there are only 4 navigable miles spanning that entire 20 mile strait (width wise)? Also, how much money do you think the American war machine has invested over the last couple of decades keeping this scenario in mind?

4. In reference to the link... please investigate a bit further into the cozy relationship the Bush Administration has developed with Stratfor (please feel free to use your search engine); also look into how the current administration has used convenient "pentagon leaks" and briefs from certain think tanks to further their bogeyman agendas against energy rich nations. (You might also want to look into a couple of 2005-2006 documentaries made by Independent Lens and Frontline on your local PBS station regarding this topic)

5. Did you ever bother to consider the fact that unlike Iran, for Pakistan to launch an attack on the straits of Hormuz that they would first have to transverse the entire gulf of Oman thereby eliminating the chance of a meaningful "surprise" ? (note: search engines these days also have an image and map feature)

I think you've completely missed my point from the get go and turned it into a malicious diatribe "against your great nation." As I've said before, I really don't have a personal stake in this.

The Gwadar port is certainly a boon for Pakistan, but that is mostly from an economic point of view (which will hopefully be used to the max). If you think Pakistan has suddenly come across a strategic windfall which can be used as leverage against a nation like the USA by keeping the well being of the entire world hostage, then prepare to be disappointed, because all you've done is pointed out another location to be carpet bombed in the event of a showdown.

The primary reason for not invading Pakistan (other than the monetary issues of course) is the humanitarian one; which is far more important and grave than any supposed military threat. IMHO its imperative that people let go of this silly strategic reasoning and start thinking more rationally taking into account issues that really matter (humanitarian wellbeing first and foremost). No amount of histrionic displays of indignation or false posturing is going to change the fact that Pakistan doesn't really pose a threat to the USA in any theater of war; and indulging in this fantasy for the sake of nationalistic sentimentality is a total waste of time; the outcome of the policies of almost ever Pakistani leader so far is testament to this fact.

As far as the "whitey" nonsense goes, I'm chalking it up to a random misunderstanding induced neurotransmitter malfunction; I haven't found you to be the kind of guy to go down that alley; hope I'm right. If not, don't waste your time trying to engage me in a racial discourse because it does not warrant a dignified response of any kind.

 

[IndianMunda]

Why our friends thinking Pakistan will be attacked or not? This thinking is not showing something going wrong?