US violates int’l laws; moves USS Enterprise into Pakistani water.

[Abu Zolfiqar]

alternatively, just do a few google searches

 

[Mav3rick]

Firend.....before I begin, my sincerest of request, start a new thread for this argument as these posts are getting longer and longer....quite unnecessarily.

My point is valid. It is important to understand that what went wrong in our foreign policy vis-a-vis USA and WOT.

Did the current leadership (military and civilian) succeeded in convincing Obama administration to give up drone strikes? Why did these drone strikes started occurring much more frequently in Post-Musharraf era?

Here; Pakistan: Drone attack in Pakistan: 2005-2012

Musharraf rule ended in mid of 2008.

For several years, the current leadership (including General Kayani) have been complicit with these operations. One of our own airbases was being used for this purpose. But this complicity was clandestine in nature. The leadership decided to keep entire nation in the dark about the ground realities of these operations. The official approach was acceptance of drone strikes (from inside) and protesting against it (from outside). What kind of policy is this? What kind of impression we were leaving on the foreigners with this policy?

Following happened in the aftermath:

1- US became bold
2- Anti-US, Anti-Governmental, and Anti-Kayani sentiments arose within Pakistan when revelations about this kind of clandestine dealing came from foreign sources
3- After the revelation, US adopted measures to ensure continuation of drone strikes on unilateral basis, in case Pakistani cooperation ends in this regard. And we have witnessed this trend since 2011.

Their is one additional strategic blunder on the part of our current leadership (military in particular); Kayani refused to do anything about North Waziristan upon US insistence. Once again, no reasonable explanation have been given for this decision. Typical argument is that we lack in resources. Seriously? Everybody buys this BS?

If we lack the resources to conduct military operations in just the Waziristan region of the country, how we will be able to manage to fight a full-scale war with a far greater military power?

If we are clandestinely supporting some Taliban factions (under the argument of protecting our interests in Afghanistan), then why conduct propaganda about commitment to WOT at international level? Please keep in mind that scope of WOT is not just restricted to TTP. It extends to Al-Qaeda and its affiliates (Taliban and vice versa) who have taken refuge inside Pakistan from Afghanistan. Musharraf acted against most of these anti-state elements and un-welcomed guests. Kayani does not. Now of course, US may have taken some steps against Pakistan in response to lack of cooperation from Kayani on the WOT front with respect to North Waziristan due to its growing frustation. And our media sources pick on and highlight such steps and signs of frustation of US to conduct Anti-US propaganda. Our gullible nation falls for the misreporting rather easily. US have made this clear many times that (FULL) Pakistani cooperation is needed to succeed in the Afghanistan front of WOT.

On top of all of the above, Osama Bin Laden was found in Abbottabad. This further infuriated US against Pakistan. Don't you think that this is a sign of major failure on the part of Pakistan? Even more disturbing thing is that many in Pakistan believe this to be a false flag operation. Once again, I note that a clear cut explanation from Pakistani leadership (military in particular) is lacking regarding the 'ground realities' of this particular operation as well.

How many times, our current leadership (military and civilian) will keep Pakistani populace in the dark?

You see! Their is a clear lack of vision and commitment in our current 'competent' leadership (military and civilian) in handling the foreign affairs and also the matters of national security.

Is it wise to keep the populace in the dark on important matters?

Musharraf was very open about his decisions at least. He kept the Pakistani populace informed on important decisions he took vis-a-vis WOT. And Musharraf preferred to handle the terrorism related issues in Pakistan with mostly Pakistani assets and not with direct US involvement. He even created a counter-terrorism unit of the Pakistan military.

Bro, when Musharraf took a decision at national level to ally with US in WOT. His successors should have upheld Musharraf's policy. But you know; Pakistani are famous for falling short on commitments.

US gave us a choice from the beginning: With US or Against US.

If Taliban was the choice, why didn't Pakistani populace made this clear during 2001? Pakistani people were sleeping? Now we suddenly remember our Afghan interests in Post-Musharraf era?

This nation really does need leadership which is competent in the matters of foreign affairs and this nation also needs to understand the importance of commitment. Point fingers at others is easy. US does this and that - is not an argument.

When presented with choices, Pakistani foreign policy related decision should be based on internal consensus and upheld on long term basis. This is my standing on this issue.

In Pakistan, neither their is unity, neither their is discipline, and neither their is faith.

Is US responsible for this whole mess? I don't think so.

Let me get right to the rebuttals and you can put them where they belong in your post.

I agree with your posts upto and including the first 2 points, on the third point I would say that our Military and Government is still complicit in the acts, drone strikes are still allowed by GoP as a 'Top Secret from their own citizens' policy. So basically, the US still did not have to be unilateral on any decision as everything is still in their favor....except Haqqanis.

My friend, why should we waste our manpower and other resources in a war in which we do not wish to engage? Especially when we consider Haqqanis our assets, as they will hold the real power in Afghanistan. So there, the only way we can even try and wriggle out of it is to say that we do not have adequate resources. In case of war, we would rip India a new one, don't you worry.

We are fully committed to WoT as long as it does not hurt our own interests. We may have tried the best we could to persuade the US that Haqqanis are not a threat to US as long as the US is not occupying Afghanistan.

Lets not discuss OBL operation right now, lets wait for the OBL Commission's report before we discuss it.

Iraq may have been defenceless in 2003. But it was far from defenceless in 1991. What happened back then?

I stand by my statements. Iraq was a very weak country because Saddam was not expecting to fight a war with the US, rather with a very weak Iran. Remember what a puny little Israel did to Iraq and all others that attacked it?

These are your assumptions. Try striking a US Carrier Group and see what happens. Also, try targeting US military bases in Afghanistan and see what happens. US will hit back hard. Temporary gains (if any), will result in complete and utter destruction of Pakistan.

Like I said, it is not wise to pick up a fight with a nation that is capable of annihilating you.

Let me say this in bold letters "I DO NOT WISH TO ATTACK US PROPERTY, NEITHER DO I WISH TO PICK A FIGHT", Now, having said that please also note "IF ATTACKED, I WOULD WANT TO FIGHT BACK LIKE A MAN INSTEAD OF BENDING OVER AND TAKING IT!"

Bro, Iraq was not 30 years behind US during 1991. Forget 2003. Focus on the Persian Gulf War 1991 instead which is a much more fair example to consider. And read this:

IRAQI MILITARY CAPABILITIES, 1990

At the time of the invasion of Kuwait, the Iraqi armed forces were, by any measure, a formidable and battle-tested fighting force. Iraq began the crisis with one of the world's larger armies, equipped with great numbers of tanks, armored personnel carriers and artillery, some of which were state-of-the-art models. It had a sizable air force with many top-line fighters and fighter-bombers (F-1s, MiG-29s and Su-24s) and a modern air defense command and control (C2) system. During the last six months of the Iran-Iraq war, the Iraqi army had demonstrated a capability to conduct multi-axis, multi-corps, combined-arms operations deep into hostile territory. The staff could conduct long-range planning; coordination of air and artillery preparations; timing of movements and operations; coordination of complicated logistics requirements; and movement of supplies, equipment, and troops to the right place at the designated time. They had developed excellent operational security and deception.

Iraqi armed forces were structured similarly to the British forces, but their operations were modeled more closely on Soviet armed forces. The senior military echelon in Iraq is the General Headquarters (GHQ), which integrates operations of the Republican Guard, Army, Navy, Air and Air Defense Forces, and Popular Army. It is dominated by ground force officers.

Iraqi ground forces were the largest in the Persian Gulf at the time of the invasion of Kuwait. They included the Republican Guard Forces Command, the regular Army, and the Popular Army. Iraqi ground forces had more than 5,000 main battle tanks, 5,000 armored infantry vehicles, and 3,000 artillery pieces larger than 100mm. These forces were supported by enough heavy equipment transporters to move a three-division heavy corps at one time. Iraqi troops were well practiced in conducting short-notice division moves across considerable distances, as well as other tactical operations.

The Iraqi military supply and transportation infrastructure was extensive and well-equipped, with ample supplies of ammunition, water, food and fuels. A modern transportation system had been built inside Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war to ease unit movement to and from combat areas and to keep them supplied. The logistic system was a hybrid of the Soviet system, in which materiel is delivered forward from higher echelons before it is needed, and the British system, in which lower echelons draw materiel as needed. In the Iraqi system, materiel was sent automatically from GHQ to the corps, based on estimated consumption requirements. Once at the corps depot, divisions and brigades drew replenishment supplies. (Source: Report to US congress on Persian Gulf War 1991)

Please educate yourself on the matters of history. Iraq was very powerful during early 1990s. USSR and China expected a long battle during Persian Gulf War 1991. Instead they were shocked by US performance. US had completely revolutionised its power projection capabilities after the debacle of Vietnam. We actually witnessed the birth of Shock and Awe warfare concept. Read about it here: http://www.dodccrp.org/files/Ullman_Shock.pdf

Saddam was a fool. He thought that he would pull of another Vietnam. He decided to fight US on its strong points. And he ended up dead.

You are advocating similar approach. If you are so confident about taking on US head-on and crushing its military might, why don't you take the initiative? Set an example for the entire nation by shooting down US drones and sending the US Carrier Group packing from Arabian Sea. What are you trying to prove on PDF?

Lets consider this for a moment, how many tanks did Iraq destroy in that war? How many planes did it shoot down? How many Carriers did it attack and sink? I mean what did Iraqi military do that the Talibaan did not better with just AK-47's? Seriously mate, pray tell me instead of posting ridiculous nonsense articles.

You need to learn a lot about Iraq. Forget 2003. Focus on what Iraq used to be in early 1990s.

War with Iraq left Iranian military capability in severely degraded form. I understand that Iran did not got funds and support like Iraq and therefore was not in the position to quickly reform and rebuild its military might in the manner of Iraq. Iran has progressed because it remained untouched by wars since late 1980s.

Funny you should mention Iran.....did you know that Iraqi Migs never engaged Irani F-14's and would always break away? That's how advanced the Iraqi Airforce was! Take it from there.

I never use Afghanistan as an analogy.

Still, you think that Cambodia had the resources to take on Taliban at its strong point and capture the whole country in 2001? Northern Alliance with backing from several regional powers failed in this task actually.

This was Taliban prior to US invasion:

My post was hypothetical my friend. Did Cambodia have the resources to transfer Military assets to Afghanistan? Don't take these things too seriously, they are supposed to offer insights and alternate things.

Are we talking about China?

Sawal Gundam; Jawab Channa!

However, to address your curosity;

- Thanks to that submarine related incident, US have significantly improved its ASW capabilities in recent years. US can now even track Russian Akula Class submarines.

- Chinese 5th generation fighter is far from deployment phase at the moment. In comparison, US already maintains a fleet of 5th generation fighters.

- Yes, China have developed the capability to shoot down satellites. In contrast, US is testing X-37B and similar vehicles to conduct spying operations.

- The effectiveness of Chinese ASBM technology remains to be seen. ASBM does not sounds like a very good concept to me. And US is constantly improving its AM capabilities with passage of time.

But the most important point is that China learned a lesson from Persian Gulf War 1991. We did not.

Yes, we are talking about China because most of our defensive/offensive capabilities are of Chinese origin. China has moved 2 generations from Song to Yuan to Qing Class submarines. You think China was sleeping all this time while the US was improving its ASW capabilities???? Come on mate!

The fact that Chinese 5th Gen Jet was tested when nobody expected it is testament to the achievements of the Chinese. Who the hell knows what they really have and what they do not have! Lets just leave it at that. But agreed that it is nowhere near the US F-22 or B-2.

Their ASBM capability is not meant to prevent spying operations, it is meant to take out the satellites that will be guiding the US military might through GPS.

Nice excuse.

It's not an excuse, it is the truth, face the reality!

If by the ability to strike back, you mean Ballistic Missile Arsenal - then sorry to disappoint you - these are not a war winning weapons.

Read this case: http://www.airdefenseartillery.com/online/2010/ADA In Action/IraqFreedom/OIF/1stPAC3Engage.pdf

Do you understand that how crucial the incident described in the above link was? If US C&C system had been knocked out earlier, the entire war effort would have been affected or delayed. Did any media source highlighted this fact?

But US is now prepared to defend against Ballistic Missile threats.

Regardless, Iran is firm on its foreign policy matters. Iran is an example of a true nation. Iranian populace is united, disciplined, and faithful.

Russia, China, and North Korea also have a firm standing on their foreign policies related matters.

PAC3 has gone through many iterations because it is not a flawless, unbeatable system. It requires continuous R&D to be able to engage newer threats. Besides, the US has a multi layered ABM capability but does it mean it is totally unbeatable? Come on man. The US had to purchase an S-300 system to find the flaws with PAC 1/2. It is common knowledge that S-300/S-400 are the best ABM systems in the world with no equal.

So the plan is to fight through Taliban? No comments.

Not really, just wanted to give you the options that we really have.....the US just cannot win and if it cannot win why would it engage?

Kayani seems to be doing a lot for Haqqani already. If according to the rumours, TTP and BLA have taken shelter in Afghanistan, then Haqqani should deliver them to Pakistan military without second thoughts. But we keep waiting.......

Well, TTP and BLA are trained, armed and equipped by RAW & CIA. They operate in areas that are under coalition control and hide amongst the general populace. But they will be taken care of the way BLA was taken care of in the 1990's once the supporting agencies are kicked out. Eventually.

Yes, we have highly competent leadership (military and civilian). It really knows how to mismanage affairs.

If the leadership was incompetent, they would not have been able to hold on to power continuously since the creation of Pakistan. Albeit in cycles. It is the disregard and corruption that is killing us!

 

[lkozhi]

May be they already know pakistan army is taking over

 

[CENTCOM]

On behalf of US CENTCOM, we would like to let the readers know that the news above is completely untrue. At no time, the USS Enterprise or its supporting ships have entered Pakistani waters.


Capt. Joseph Kreidel
DET-United States Central Command
U.S. Central Command

 

[Mav3rick]

On behalf of US CENTCOM, we would like to let the readers know that the news above is completely untrue. At no time, the USS Enterprise or its supporting ships have entered Pakistani waters.


Capt. Joseph Kreidel
DET-United States Central Command
U.S. Central Command

Thanks Capt. Kriedel......we all kinda knew that.

The arguments were on hypothetical situations, if bad goes to worse . We should be ready for the worst and hope and try for the best.

 

[LeGenD]

Firend.....before I begin, my sincerest of request, start a new thread for this argument as these posts are getting longer and longer....quite unnecessarily.

My friend, I believe that our responses are not irrelevant in the context of this thread.

I agree with your posts upto and including the first 2 points, on the third point I would say that our Military and Government is still complicit in the acts, drone strikes are still allowed by GoP as a 'Top Secret from their own citizens' policy. So basically, the US still did not have to be unilateral on any decision as everything is still in their favor....except Haqqanis.

I disagree with this assumption. US have a history of running covert operations within Pakistan. Some just do not realize this truth.

Their are lot of CIA informants in Pakistan. Dr. Afridi and Raymond Davis are two prominent examples in front of us.

You need to realize that US does not trusts ISI. Majority of the drone strikes are aimed on Haqqani network and its affiliates. Do you think that ISI will help CIA in this regard?

My friend, why should we waste our manpower and other resources in a war in which we do not wish to engage?

Remember the commitment part? Why make decisions in the first place when presented with a choice which cannot be upheld properly?

Especially when we consider Haqqanis our assets, as they will hold the real power in Afghanistan.

This is another assumption.

Remember the failure of ISI backed Hekmatyar led group in taking control of Kabul during the civil war in Afghanistan after the withdrawal of USSR? Hekmatyar led group was most efficient in combat and still failed.

It was the Taliban movement from Kandahar in Afghanistan which changed the game. And ISI supported it after realizing its potential.

Therefore, future is uncertain. Lot of Afghans are getting accustomed to the 'taste of freedom' they are currently experiencing in their country.

And we are fooling ourselves if we believe that we can control these militant groups. Seems like we have not learned any lesson from the Mujahideen. Taliban is now split in to several groups just like Mujahideen in the past and these groups may have different interests.

Also, the recent example of Taliban banning polio vaccination in North Waziristan does not rings any bells? Why should the children be deprived of this medical care under the garb of protesting against drone attacks?

These militant groups are a big hindrence to prosperity of Afghanistan. They will keep this country in dark ages. The sooner we realize this; the better.

So there, the only way we can even try and wriggle out of it is to say that we do not have adequate resources. In case of war, we would rip India a new one, don't you worry.

But is the world buying this argument? Specially US? I don't think so.

We are fully committed to WoT as long as it does not hurt our own interests. We may have tried the best we could to persuade the US that Haqqanis are not a threat to US as long as the US is not occupying Afghanistan.

This is bad strategic decision-making. Kayani seems to be out of his mind.

We can either choose between US or Haqqani; not both. US made it clear in the begining; with us or against us.

This decision is the root cause of all issues between US and Pakistan.

Lets not discuss OBL operation right now, lets wait for the OBL Commission's report before we discuss it.

Fine.

I stand by my statements. Iraq was a very weak country because Saddam was not expecting to fight a war with the US, rather with a very weak Iran.

Saddam was not expecting to fight a war with the US in 1991?

Remember what a puny little Israel did to Iraq and all others that attacked it?

This puny little Israel is a major military power in the Middle East. Also, Israel never fought a full-scale war with Iraq. It did played a fundamental role in disrupting Iraqi nuclear program though.

And which nation (excluding US) reduced Iraq to stone-age level in a full-scale war?

Let me say this in bold letters "I DO NOT WISH TO ATTACK US PROPERTY, NEITHER DO I WISH TO PICK A FIGHT", Now, having said that please also note "IF ATTACKED, I WOULD WANT TO FIGHT BACK LIKE A MAN INSTEAD OF BENDING OVER AND TAKING IT!"

Now this is legitimate reasoning.

Lets consider this for a moment, how many tanks did Iraq destroy in that war? How many planes did it shoot down? How many Carriers did it attack and sink? I mean what did Iraqi military do that the Talibaan did not better with just AK-47's? Seriously mate, pray tell me instead of posting ridiculous nonsense articles.

Bro, you need to understand the difference between military doctrines applied against Iraq and Afghanistan. OIF was far greater in scope and intensity then OEF.

Also, Iraqi resistance was much more intense in comparison to that of Taliban. US casualties are double in Iraq in comparison to in Afghanistan. But Iraqi resistance movement was confined within its borders. This is why it was possible to contain and defeat it. In contrast, Taliban resistance movement is not confined to Afghanistan borders. This is why US needs Pakistan's cooperation in defeating it.

Get the memo now?

Funny you should mention Iran.....did you know that Iraqi Migs never engaged Irani F-14's and would always break away? That's how advanced the Iraqi Airforce was! Take it from there.

Your example suggests that how potent US weapons became with passage of time.

My post was hypothetical my friend. Did Cambodia have the resources to transfer Military assets to Afghanistan? Don't take these things too seriously, they are supposed to offer insights and alternate things.

At least, give a better example.

Yes, we are talking about China because most of our defensive/offensive capabilities are of Chinese origin. China has moved 2 generations from Song to Yuan to Qing Class submarines. You think China was sleeping all this time while the US was improving its ASW capabilities???? Come on mate!

I am not saying that China has been sleeping. My point is that Pakistan is not as militarily strong as China.

The fact that Chinese 5th Gen Jet was tested when nobody expected it is testament to the achievements of the Chinese. Who the hell knows what they really have and what they do not have! Lets just leave it at that. But agreed that it is nowhere near the US F-22 or B-2.

Good

Their ASBM capability is not meant to prevent spying operations, it is meant to take out the satellites that will be guiding the US military might through GPS.

This is why US is developing alternatives. Also, you need to factor in the estensive jamming techniques that will be employed by US to blind Chinese radar and other guidance systems in case of major hostilities.

It is not just the US weapons that make it a potent military power. US military forces employ excellent surveillance and jamming technologies which enable them to fight battles on their own terms.

It's not an excuse, it is the truth, face the reality!

With silly assumptions like these, you advice me to face the reality? Please.

The first Gulf War was a watershed for Chinese military analysts. In 1991, the impressive onslaught of American military power against an opponent similar to the PLA in both weaponry and operational thinking raised concerns that China’s military was woefully ill-prepared
to fight a war against a technologically superior opponent, a lesson that subsequent conflicts have reinforced. (Source: RUSI - Chinese Military Update)

PAC3 has gone through many iterations because it is not a flawless, unbeatable system. It requires continuous R&D to be able to engage newer threats.

Isn't this the story with every weapon system?

Weapon systems are not foolproof by default. They are improved with passaege of time to deal with new threats.

PAC-3 is a battle-proven system and no longer a paper tiger. Initially it was focused against Ballistic Missiles. But it is being improved to counter even Cruise Missiles.

Besides, the US has a multi layered ABM capability but does it mean it is totally unbeatable? Come on man.

This is logical fallacy. Multi-layered AM capability will be very hard to breach.

A single launcher of PAC-3 carries 16 missiles. US can deploy several launchers in locations of importance. And PAC-3 is part of the first layer of the AM capability of US. If the first layer can be made so hard to breach, imagine the headache that several layers will give.

The US had to purchase an S-300 system to find the flaws with PAC 1/2. It is common knowledge that S-300/S-400 are the best ABM systems in the world with no equal.

US has a history of examining Russian weaponry.

Persian Gulf War 1991 itself taught US valuable lessons regarding AM systems. PAC-1 was more of a symbolic AM system rather then an effective AM system. However, situation changed with PAC-2.

And you need to do some digging on THAAD. S-300/S-400 are not the best ABM systems in the world. AM systems of US have considerably matured since 1991.

Not really, just wanted to give you the options that we really have.....the US just cannot win and if it cannot win why would it engage?

It is the premature conclusions like these that I detest.

Situation of Pakistan is immensely different from that of Afghanistan. Pakistan is much more susceptible to Awe and Shock doctrine then Afghanistan.

Well, TTP and BLA are trained, armed and equipped by RAW & CIA. They operate in areas that are under coalition control and hide amongst the general populace. But they will be taken care of the way BLA was taken care of in the 1990's once the supporting agencies are kicked out. Eventually.

No comments.

If the leadership was incompetent, they would not have been able to hold on to power continuously since the creation of Pakistan. Albeit in cycles. It is the disregard and corruption that is killing us!

Is this how you judge the competency of the leadership?

By your logic, Saddam and Gaddafi were extremely competent leaders because they lasted very long in power.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

*


English is 'the' international language. Hence the use on this forum.

By the way, was the west able to starve 1 Billion Chinese to death? Use that as a case study and be advised that there is a higher power then the US! @Mav3rick


No. In China, Vietnam, Kazakstan, Brazil etc English might be simply looked as the 'international language'. In Pakistan it is that and more.

The Supreme Court of Pakistan uses English. The Pakistani Police, the Military and all departments of government use English as the formal language. Higher education in Pakistan depends on English. Even military officer selection testing involves English. In Kakul Military Academy English is the main medium of instruction.

Most of our military is organized and labelled along English/American lines. Even rank structures are based on the British pattern.

Despite some changes and Islamic additions most of Pakistan law is still based on English common law. That is why every Advocate in Pakistan can and uses English. I don't very well think the Chinese, Brazilians or Kazaks have English so permeated in their society.

In fact in Pakistan you cannot possibly get any reasonable job without proficiency in English, so clearly in Pakistan English has a role that is far more multilayered than just a language of 'international communication'. That is because Anglo Saxon influence and traditions are pervasive within our polity on account of our past colonial history.

And no the West was not able to starve the 1 billion Chinese just like it took almost all of the west along with Russia 5 years to defeat the Germans. In Japan not only did it take 5 years but couple of atom bombs to chill the samurai spirit.

On the other hand all it took was couple of thousand English to enslave the entire South Asia and they only left 65 years ago. Sadly my grandad was born under the Union Jack. At the same time the Turks, Iranian's, Afghan's, the Chinese, the Japanese, the Thai managed to hold onto their liberty.

Hint: We are not Turk's, Iranian's, Afghan's, Japanese and most definitely are not Chinese. So please stop equating Pakistan with 1 billion plus China?

I can punch so could 'Iron' Mike Tyson but I would be delusional to start comparing my self with him.


** I am lost as to where this hawkishness comes from? Why this need for aggressive posture? There is precious little in our past 65 years to give any substance to this posture. In 1947-48 Pakistan cocked up big time with Kashmir and ended with LOC. 2 wars, a Kargil in between, 64 years of posturing and bloating. Where are we today?

A half starved swamp called India has stopped us from even moving 1 feet north from the LOC. The line is still there where it was in 1948. So clearly we have not managed to browbeat a malnourished emaciated India.

In this situation when we have not even sorted out India you are advocating that Pakistan now get tangled up with the biggest bully in the school yard. The friggin USA.

Would it be at all possible to first clobber India and free Kashmir than by all means go and teach the Yanks a lesson in manners.

*** It riles me big time [ I come from that part of the South Asia ] when the Kashmir valley is being raped by India with the people being subjected to untold suffering yet Pakistani's across the LOC who having singularly failed to help/liberate my people from India for 64 years [ when they were responsible for the mess in the first place ] now feel so uppity that they think they can take on a superpower.


How about thumping the neighbourhood bully before moving on to take on the world bully?

 

[Farooq]

On behalf of US CENTCOM, we would like to let the readers know that the news above is completely untrue. At no time, the USS Enterprise or its supporting ships have entered Pakistani waters.


Capt. Joseph Kreidel
DET-United States Central Command
U.S. Central Command

Thank you for clarifying as we all know that US is Pakistan's most trusted ally

 

[VelocuR]

.............................

It seems in the most of your posts are fully defend USA against Pakistan in your logical sense, correct? would you consider to apply blue passport?

Strange, you hardly discuss Pakistan internal matters. US topic is only your favourite discussion? Even your avatar show Abram tank,wtf.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

*
RaptorRx

Now that depends on your perspective. Could it be that LeGenD is advancing Pakistan interest? Could it be that he thinks we need to focus on our real enemy India and help our Kashmir brethren instead of getting involved in a no win self destructive tangle with a superpwer? Thereby is it possible he is a real patriot because he want's the best for Pakistan.

How is having a Abram as a avatar wrong? Maybe he thinks it is a great tank? I see lots of avaatar's that use Us built F-16s so what is the problem here?

My views almost mirrors LeGenD's, are you questioning my patriotism? Instead of questioning a man's patriotism why not instead give a reasoned riposte.

Read my post #367 which gives some reasons why I oppose any tangle with US.

 

[Mav3rick]

*


English is 'the' international language. Hence the use on this forum.

By the way, was the west able to starve 1 Billion Chinese to death? Use that as a case study and be advised that there is a higher power then the US! @Mav3rick


No. In China, Vietnam, Kazakstan, Brazil etc English might be simply looked as the 'international language'. In Pakistan it is that and more.

The Supreme Court of Pakistan uses English. The Pakistani Police, the Military and all departments of government use English as the formal language. Higher education in Pakistan depends on English. Even military officer selection testing involves English. In Kakul Military Academy English is the main medium of instruction.

Most of our military is organized and labelled along English/American lines. Even rank structures are based on the British pattern.

Despite some changes and Islamic additions most of Pakistan law is still based on English common law. That is why every Advocate in Pakistan can and uses English. I don't very well think the Chinese, Brazilians or Kazaks have English so permeated in their society.

In fact in Pakistan you cannot possibly get any reasonable job without proficiency in English, so clearly in Pakistan English has a role that is far more multilayered than just a language of 'international communication'. That is because Anglo Saxon influence and traditions are pervasive within our polity on account of our past colonial history.

And no the West was not able to starve the 1 billion Chinese just like it took almost all of the west along with Russia 5 years to defeat the Germans. In Japan not only did it take 5 years but couple of atom bombs to chill the samurai spirit.

On the other hand all it took was couple of thousand English to enslave the entire South Asia and they only left 65 years ago. Sadly my grandad was born under the Union Jack. At the same time the Turks, Iranian's, Afghan's, the Chinese, the Japanese, the Thai managed to hold onto their liberty.

Hint: We are not Turk's, Iranian's, Afghan's, Japanese and most definitely are not Chinese. So please stop equating Pakistan with 1 billion plus China?

I can punch so could 'Iron' Mike Tyson but I would be delusional to start comparing my self with him.


** I am lost as to where this hawkishness comes from? Why this need for aggressive posture? There is precious little in our past 65 years to give any substance to this posture. In 1947-48 Pakistan cocked up big time with Kashmir and ended with LOC. 2 wars, a Kargil in between, 64 years of posturing and bloating. Where are we today?

A half starved swamp called India has stopped us from even moving 1 feet north from the LOC. The line is still there where it was in 1948. So clearly we have not managed to browbeat a malnourished emaciated India.

In this situation when we have not even sorted out India you are advocating that Pakistan now get tangled up with the biggest bully in the school yard. The friggin USA.

Would it be at all possible to first clobber India and free Kashmir than by all means go and teach the Yanks a lesson in manners.

*** It riles me big time [ I come from that part of the South Asia ] when the Kashmir valley is being raped by India with the people being subjected to untold suffering yet Pakistani's across the LOC who having singularly failed to help/liberate my people from India for 64 years [ when they were responsible for the mess in the first place ] now feel so uppity that they think they can take on a superpower.


How about thumping the neighbourhood bully before moving on to take on the world bully?

English language has deep roots in our culture mostly because we are still fresh from occupation by the British and because of influence of Britain and US on all our foreign policies. It can be phased out if necessary.

Deliberating upon your example of Germany & occupation of South East Asia by the British, I wondered whether you realized that the Brits were welcomed here as traders and not as invaders until they had setup deep roots and bought whomever they could not defeat in battle as opposed to being in war that Germany was with the rest of the world. The Brits came, spent time, learned how divided the regions were and how corrupt the leadership was.....they exploited these to their advantage. You also, quite conveniently forgot, how the Japanese occupied China.

You may consider India weak but India has always been stronger.....even at the time of partition, Pakistan was deprived of her rights to division of Military and Military assets. We had no real Military at the time of independence. There is also a big difference b/w engagements with India and the US whereby it has always been Pakistan that initiated wars with India whereas the US threatens us. I am not speaking of waging a war, rather the resolve to defend the country by any means necessary or to go down fighting.

Also remember a very important fact, look at history especially American history of wars. America maintains excellent relations with all neighbours because even a weak neighbour can cause damage. One should hold excellent relations with all neighbours.

*
RaptorRx

Now that depends on your perspective. Could it be that LeGenD is advancing Pakistan interest? Could it be that he thinks we need to focus on our real enemy India and help our Kashmir brethren instead of getting involved in a no win self destructive tangle with a superpwer? Thereby is it possible he is a real patriot because he want's the best for Pakistan.

How is having a Abram as a avatar wrong? Maybe he thinks it is a great tank? I see lots of avaatar's that use Us built F-16s so what is the problem here?

My views almost mirrors LeGenD's, are you questioning my patriotism? Instead of questioning a man's patriotism why not instead give a reasoned riposte.

Read my post #367 which gives some reasons why I oppose any tangle with US.

If you consider defence of loss or life and property by an external force translates to advancing Pakistans interest then by all means keep defending. We just have very different views of 'advancing' Pakistans interest.

By the way, we have lots of F-16's, they form the backbone of our Air Force hence I do not see any harm in having an F-16 as an avatar. An M1 on the other hand, well you know where I want to go with that, right?

 

[Mav3rick]

My friend, I believe that our responses are not irrelevant in the context of this thread.

Yes, but the length is making these posts rather unattractive.

I disagree with this assumption. US have a history of running covert operations within Pakistan. Some just do not realize this truth.

Their are lot of CIA informants in Pakistan. Dr. Afridi and Raymond Davis are two prominent examples in front of us.

You need to realize that US does not trusts ISI. Majority of the drone strikes are aimed on Haqqani network and its affiliates. Do you think that ISI will help CIA in this regard?

Strictly speaking of Drone strikes, I am quite confident that they are allowed by the GoP, otherwise the US would not be carrying them out. Besides, most of the drone strikes are killing innocent civilians instead of Haqqanis so nobody really cares in the Government of Military.

And yes, I agree the CIA is involved in covert operations in Pakistan especially against our Nuclear assets. I remember the Mariott Blast, which exposed the operations of Black Water in Pakistan as they were the target. But by not deporting those that are caught with illegal weapons in tinted vehicles with illegal license plates, illegal/forged documents and in disguises is clear proof that our Military/Agencies and Government does not have a will to stop them.

Remember the commitment part? Why make decisions in the first place when presented with a choice which cannot be upheld properly?

If you are speaking of the choices presented to us post 9/11, the super power was prepared to exact an exemplary revenge against an imaginary threat for the benefit of her citizens. We did not really have any other option, besides our own existence was not directly under threat if we complied. But when our own existence, when our own interests are threatened then we have to rethink the commitments.....from both sides.

This is another assumption.

Remember the failure of ISI backed Hekmatyar led group in taking control of Kabul during the civil war in Afghanistan after the withdrawal of USSR? Hekmatyar led group was most efficient in combat and still failed.

It was the Taliban movement from Kandahar in Afghanistan which changed the game. And ISI supported it after realizing its potential.

Therefore, future is uncertain. Lot of Afghans are getting accustomed to the 'taste of freedom' they are currently experiencing in their country.

And we are fooling ourselves if we believe that we can control these militant groups. Seems like we have not learned any lesson from the Mujahideen. Taliban is now split in to several groups just like Mujahideen in the past and these groups may have different interests.

Also, the recent example of Taliban banning polio vaccination in North Waziristan does not rings any bells? Why should the children be deprived of this medical care under the garb of protesting against drone attacks?

These militant groups are a big hindrence to prosperity of Afghanistan. They will keep this country in dark ages. The sooner we realize this; the better.

ISI created Talibaan, if anybody doubts that he/she is in denial. But it does not mean we control them, we are allies of sorts whereby they do not hit our interests and we don't hit theirs. And it does not matter in how many groups they break, Talibaan are still the main force and are led by Mullah Omer.

Now, when I speak of Talibaan I am referring to Mullah Omer's factions and Haqqanis and their allies, basically anybody who is accepted by Mullah Omer as a friendly combatant. When you speak of Talibaan, you also include TTP and other anti Pakistan elements who have never been accepted by Mullah Omer as part of the Taliban. We can more forward more intelligently if we make this clear.

I am sure Talibaan would not have banned polio vaccines, and if they did then they must have given a good reason for it. Perhaps the vaccination comes with foul play whereby the original vaccine is replaced by something that is eventually harmful for the kids?

But is the world buying this argument? Specially US? I don't think so.

should we care if they are buying it or not? Have they not cost us a loss of almost US$ 80 Billion directly and probably a loss of US$ 20 Billion (loss of Rs. 18,000 Crore due to corruption and bad governance) indirectly for supporting the election of this corrupt Government? Let them compensate us, treat us as allies are treated and then we can provide the protection that they need by bringing the Haqqanis to the discussions that the Americans are desperate for.

This is bad strategic decision-making. Kayani seems to be out of his mind.

We can either choose between US or Haqqani; not both. US made it clear in the begining; with us or against us.

This decision is the root cause of all issues between US and Pakistan.

The US needs to realize that we cannot abandon Haqqanis or Mullah Omer, we have invested too much in to them. The best we can do is perhaps persuade them to ceasefire with NATO forces and to give NATO a window of safe withdrawal if the US is willing to cede to their legitimate demands.

Saddam was not expecting to fight a war with the US in 1991?

No, he wasn't.....otherwise he would not have invaded Kuwait.

This puny little Israel is a major military power in the Middle East. Also, Israel never fought a full-scale war with Iraq. It did played a fundamental role in disrupting Iraqi nuclear program though.

And which nation (excluding US) reduced Iraq to stone-age level in a full-scale war?

When Israel took out the Iraqi Nuclear Reactors and halted the Iraqi Nuclear program, they invited a full scale invasion. Any reasonably strong country would not have hesitated a moment in doing that. However, what was Iraq's response? What was the response of this supposedly mighty military power? Does it not speak wonders of the capability of Iraqi Military?

Bro, you need to understand the difference between military doctrines applied against Iraq and Afghanistan. OIF was far greater in scope and intensity then OEF.

Also, Iraqi resistance was much more intense in comparison to that of Taliban. US casualties are double in Iraq in comparison to in Afghanistan. But Iraqi resistance movement was confined within its borders. This is why it was possible to contain and defeat it. In contrast, Taliban resistance movement is not confined to Afghanistan borders. This is why US needs Pakistan's cooperation in defeating it.

Get the memo now?

Well......in Iraq, the US was fighting a large military after all but in Afghanistan the US was fighting a small militia. Despite the huge difference in manpower in the Iraqi military and Afghan militia the stats of KIA enemy combatants is not that big, the ratio should have been 1:10 or better but it is more like 1:2 with the recent years being harder on the US military and allies in Afghanistan then the earlier ones.

Furthermore, coercion with threats takes one only as far, now coercion with $$$ would make wonders happen for the US. Treat us with respect that we deserve, repay us for the losses we have incurred including similar payments to the wounded and dead that the US pays for her own soldiers and see the shift in attitude.

Your example suggests that how potent US weapons became with passage of time.

Or how weak the Iraqi Air Force was. They did not have access to the comparable R-77 BVR while the Iranians had access to AIM-54. Also, weapons get potent all the time, across the board. The US does not hold exclusive licenses to weapons and their potency. I am trying to establish the fact that Iraqi's never really had it in to them to fight.

I am not saying that China has been sleeping. My point is that Pakistan is not as militarily strong as China.

Ofcourse not, but we have access to their state of the art weaponry. All I state is that we have the ability to hit back, before going out. If going out is our fate, lets go out with a fight.

This is why US is developing alternatives. Also, you need to factor in the estensive jamming techniques that will be employed by US to blind Chinese radar and other guidance systems in case of major hostilities.

It is not just the US weapons that make it a potent military power. US military forces employ excellent surveillance and jamming technologies which enable them to fight battles on their own terms.

The US definitely has superb jamming and eavesdropping capabilities, no doubts there. But what is to say we do not have the same in Chinese equipment? As jamming techniques evolve, so do anti jamming and anti jamming jamming and so on.

With silly assumptions like these, you advice me to face the reality? Please.

The first Gulf War was a watershed for Chinese military analysts. In 1991, the impressive onslaught of American military power against an opponent similar to the PLA in both weaponry and operational thinking raised concerns that China’s military was woefully ill-prepared
to fight a war against a technologically superior opponent, a lesson that subsequent conflicts have reinforced. (Source: RUSI - Chinese Military Update)

I can't post the same answer again and again, for this look at my original answer.



I

sn't this the story with every weapon system?

Weapon systems are not foolproof by default. They are improved with passaege of time to deal with new threats.

PAC-3 is a battle-proven system and no longer a paper tiger. Initially it was focused against Ballistic Missiles. But it is being improved to counter even Cruise Missiles.

Correct. All weapons systems require continuous evolution. But as anti weapon systems are advanced so are the weapons they are supposed to stop. When faced with each other, somethings gotta give and no system would be 100% fool proof. Barrages of missiles with MIRV's and decoys are no joke.

This is logical fallacy. Multi-layered AM capability will be very hard to breach.

A single launcher of PAC-3 carries 16 missiles. US can deploy several launchers in locations of importance. And PAC-3 is part of the first layer of the AM capability of US. If the first layer can be made so hard to breach, imagine the headache that several layers will give.

When an adversary attacks US even for defence, it will examine all the possibilities and all protections. Only then will attempts be made.

US has a history of examining Russian weaponry.

Persian Gulf War 1991 itself taught US valuable lessons regarding AM systems. PAC-1 was more of a symbolic AM system rather then an effective AM system. However, situation changed with PAC-2.

And you need to do some digging on THAAD. S-300/S-400 are not the best ABM systems in the world. AM systems of US have considerably matured since 1991.

It is you my friend who needs to have a closer look at THAAD and PAC systems. The US military purchased the S-300 system after continuous failure of PAC to study S-300 for development of PAC. THAAD has not had the level of success that was expected of it neither has the PAC system.
Their success rates are highly controversial and debated.

It is the premature conclusions like these that I detest.

Situation of Pakistan is immensely different from that of Afghanistan. Pakistan is much more susceptible to Awe and Shock doctrine then Afghanistan.

On the contrary, if Pakistan destroys the Air Bases and Sea Bases where these jets take off from, then what shock and what awe?

Is this how you judge the competency of the leadership?

By your logic, Saddam and Gaddafi were extremely competent leaders because they lasted very long in power.

You need independent analysis of the rules of Saddam and Qadhafi to even begin to debate on the topic with me!

 

[baqai]

On behalf of US CENTCOM, we would like to let the readers know that the news above is completely untrue. At no time, the USS Enterprise or its supporting ships have entered Pakistani waters.


Capt. Joseph Kreidel
DET-United States Central Command
U.S. Central Command

Thank you Capt Joseph, If you do decide to come over than do check out Waheed Kabab house at Burns Road for some yummy kabab's that is IF you come in peace, if you come with some other intentions we can introduce you to areas as Layari and Katti Pahari

 

[Hasbara Buster]

U.S. violates International Law? Wow, that never happened before..

When will people understand that International law doesn't apply to the West?

 

[IceCold]

U.S. violates International Law? Wow, that never happened before..

When will people understand that International law doesn't apply to the West?

lol true but in this case they did not. This news is false indeed.