US will forget Vietnam if it attacks 'FATA'

[Peshwa]

It would be very foolish for the US to engage in full on, overt confrontation with Pakistan. Almost all of the US bases are in Eastern Afghanistan close to the Pakistan border region, Pakistan can easily destroy them in missile strikes, & then cut off the supply route from Pakistan. The US won't be able to launch drones into Pakistan: the bases will be destroyed, & even if there are some that aren't, Pakistan shutting off the supply routes would mean that fuel won't be able to reach Afghanistan to operate these drones. The route through Central Asia is even more dangerous than the Pakistan route, because the IMU's stronghold in Uzbekistan, Tajikistan & Northern Afghanistan (Kunduz, Takhar), as well as various other Al-Qaeda factions. Not to mention that it takes almost twice the time to get the supplies through this route, as well as the much higher costs. The US Forces will be trapped inside Afghanistan.

Get back to reality Mr. Bill Haider...you're starting to sound like a fanboy...

Do you really think that you can cut off US supply without them completely blockading you economically? Your country can hardly sustain a war with India for a fortnight....forget about the US.
Missile strikes on US bases...LOL...seriously?!!!

Do remember that your economy is on crutches....Money funds wars....NOT empty rhetoric and jingoism!

 

[karan.1970]

One important difference between the fate suffered by the Soviets in Afghanistan and the US in Vietnam, and the current US endeavor in Afghanistan, is the fact that there is pretty much no other major party supporting the side opposing the US.

The Soviets and the US had their arses handed to them in Afghanistan and Vietnam because of other major powers supporting the local forces fighting the two respective superpowers. Heck, even if Pakistan alone had chosen to support the Taliban with a limited amount of sophisticated weapons such as anti-tank and anti-air missiles (like the US did when supporting the Mujahideen against the Soviets), US casualties would be along the lines seen by the Soviets in Afghanistan, and the US would be 'crashing and burning' like it did in Vietnam.

Ah! You seem to be forgetting the 3rd Newtonian law while fantasizing about the Crashing and Burning of USA.

 

[53fd]

Get back to reality Mr. Bill Haider...you're starting to sound like a fanboy...

Do you really think that you can cut off US supply without them completely blockading you economically? Your country can hardly sustain a war with India for a fortnight....forget about the US.
Missile strikes on US bases...LOL...seriously?!!!

Do remember that your economy is on crutches....Money funds wars....NOT empty rhetoric and jingoism!

The US sends Pakistan $500 million per year, whereas the Pakistani diaspora sends Pakistan $12 billion every year. The IMF & World Bank do not fall under the jurisdiction of the US: when Pakistan had sanctions imposed on it by the US in the 90s, Pakistan was still engaged with those two. So there goes your talk about the economic blockade.

I've already explained to you the ramifications the US will have to face if it engages in a direct confrontation with Pakistan: it will be a disaster for the US Forces in Afghanistan. Instead of getting emotional, it would be better if you resorted to facts & looked at things objectively. The US cannot open a new war front now, especially against one of the biggest & most professional Army in the world, as well as the 7th populous country in the world that won't be afraid to fight. The economy is in dire straits, the people want the troops to come home, & there is excessive pressure on the civilian government to pull out. The best option the US has is to pressurize Pakistan or act covertly, but if Pakistan does not give into US pressure, the US will be left frustrated in Afghanistan & won't be able to do anything about it.

 

[Patrician]

The US sends Pakistan $500 million per year, whereas the Pakistani diaspora sends Pakistan $12 billion every year. The IMF & World Bank do not fall under the jurisdiction of the US: when Pakistan had sanctions imposed on it by the US in the 90s, Pakistan was still engaged with those two. So there goes your talk about the economic blockade.

I've already explained to you the ramifications the US will have to face if it engages in a direct confrontation with Pakistan: it will be a disaster for the US Forces in Afghanistan. Instead of getting emotional, it would be better if you resorted to facts & looked at things objectively. The US cannot open a new war front now, especially against one of the biggest & most professional Army in the world, as well as the seventh populous country in the world that won't be afraid to fight. The economy is in dire straits, the people want the troops to come home, & there is excessive pressure on the civilian government to pull out. The best option the US has is to pressurize Pakistan or act covertly, but if Pakistan does not give into US pressure, the US will be left frustrated & won't be able to do anything about it.

Your knowledge of war seems to suggest that you've never heard of covert war.

US doesn't need boots on ground to go to war with Pakistan.

They are already all over you.

You seem to have forgotton a certain military advancement called 'drones'.

The same one your National Assembly has passed a resolution against, in May 2011 i.e.

The same one that your armed forces dread to shoot down or shall I say, Kayani has himself invited to operate in your airspace.

The same one which every other day makes it presence felt over Pakistani skies.

Why then the US needs boots on the ground?

 

[53fd]

Your knowledge of war seems to suggest that you've never heard of covert war.

Maybe you need to read a little carefully:

I've already explained to you the ramifications the US will have to face if it engages in a direct confrontation with Pakistan: it will be a disaster for the US Forces in Afghanistan.

The best option the US has is to pressurize Pakistan or act covertly, but if Pakistan does not give into US pressure, the US will be left frustrated in Afghanistan & won't be able to do anything about it.

They are already all over you.

If they are all over Pakistan, then why are the ones that are complaining & frustrated?

 

[Patrician]

If they are all over Pakistan, then why are the ones that are complaining & frustrated?

I'm sorry my knowledge of English fails me when it comes to that sentence.

 

[53fd]

You seem to have forgotton a certain military advancement called 'drones'.

Drone strikes are killing 95-97% terrorists, & there is detailed evidence (even from the local media sources) that supports that. The Pakistani Administration sanctions drones because it is good for the country as it kills terrorists most of the time, but there shouldn't be even 3-5% civilian casualties.

 

[utraash]

yea rite it is accepted america could beat/invade any country including both pak and india. However they would face what americans regard as unacceptable casulties in invading Pakistan

It is also true that US will never invade pakistan for some other reason... but if they none can stop them.... we all know US always play for longer race u never know they may need ur help again...

 

[Patrician]

Drones are killing 95-97% terrorists, & there is detailed evidence (even from the local media sources) that supports that. The Pakistani Administration sanctions drones because it is good for the country as it kills terrorists most of the time, but there shouldn't be even 3-5% civilian casualties.

Either it is you who is lying or it is the people/media/body politik/national assembly of Pakistan that is/are lying.

Which one is it?

BTW, I would very much like to see a Pakistani Official claiming that ratio of 95-97/5-3 %.

 

[Peshwa]

The US sends Pakistan $500 million per year, whereas the Pakistani diaspora sends Pakistan $12 billion every year. The IMF & World Bank do not fall under the jurisdiction of the US: when Pakistan had sanctions imposed on it by the US in the 90s, Pakistan was still supported by those two. So there goes your talk about the economic blockade.

You're talking about America not being able to sustain a war or open a new front in light of its "economic plight"....

Have you seen Pakistan's economic condition? Do you even have the resources to rehabilitate the victims of the sindh floods let alone try to fantasize about sustaining a war with a mammoth like America...

Overestimating Pakistan and completely underestimating the US is what i see from your line of arguments....this kind of attitude is exactly what will benefit the Americans when they come knocking at your country's door...

NOTE: IMF and WB are heavily influenced by the US. In fact its funny you forget that America had to use its weight to persuade the IMF to make exceptions for Pakistan when your lack of economic reforms led to IMF skipping on your bailout

I've already explained to you the ramifications the US will have to face if it engages in a direct confrontation with Pakistan: it will be a disaster for the US Forces in Afghanistan.

And Ive mentioned how laughable your attempt at playing Nostradamus is...

Instead of getting emotional, it would be better if you resorted to facts & looked at things objectively.

Hardly emotional as this has nothing to do with my country or my people....though your tone wreaks of denial stemming from a blinkered view of ground realities

The US cannot open a new war front now, especially against one of the biggest & most professional Army in the world, as well as the seventh populous country in the world that won't be afraid to fight

If this is not jingoism...what is?

You do realize that the F-16s you fly as the pride of your AF are American right? Id love to see your country use those against American troops...LOL!

The economy is in dire straits, the people want the troops to come home, & there is excessive pressure on the civilian government to pull out.
The best option the US has is to pressurize Pakistan or act covertly, but if Pakistan does not give into US pressure, the US will be left frustrated & won't be able to do anything about it.

Ever considered the implications of a naval blockade of Pakistan? Do you really think your armed forces can sustain without oil?
Your economy is in the dumps and you're willing to bet that the Americans with the largest economy in the world as well as largest reserves of gold will blink first....ha..

I am willing to bet that the Americans can achieve their objectives without facing any of the "dire" consequences your speak of...by hook or by crook.

 

[53fd]

Either it is you who is lying or it is the people/media/body politik/national assembly of Pakistan that is/are lying.

Which one is it?

BTW, I would very much like to see a Pakistani Official claiming that ratio of 95-97/5-3 %.

Statistics generated from the reports coming out from the local media outlets claim that much. I've given out the link & the statistics on another thread, with detailed information as to the names of the people killed in various strikes, what the locations of those strikes was, very detailed information.

There is nothing wrong with the NA of Pakistan saying otherwise to the media.

 

[Dr. NooB NinjA]

Why is almost everybody saying that is US attacks then Pakistan can cut off supply lines, can bomb their bases in afganistan and blah blah blah..... Dont u think if these options can come to ur mind; are the Americans that stupid that they wont think of every possible step Pakistan might take to stop them??!! If ever they attack Pakistan, it will be a fully planned operation, not a fanboy commando type suicide military strike........ buT anyway its not gonna happen... Their economy just doesnot permit another war what so ever....!!

 

[Patrician]

There is nothing wrong with the NA of Pakistan saying otherwise to the media.

Ohh!

So is it normal for the Pakistani NA to lie to the Pakistani people by falsely claiming that an exaggerated number of innocent civilians are being killed in the drone strikes when it is not so?

Oh and generic statements are no use. When you give figures such as 95-97/5-3 %, be ready to back them up with some official Pakistani claim.

Or else your ruse will fail to impress those it's intended to.

 

[DelhiDareDevil]

People are saying USA cant afford a war?

Well I am sure USA could get another 1 trillion dollar loan from China, also its a known fact on this website that Pakistan has plenty of untapped resources too.

 

[SyrianChristianPatriot]

From What I can tell the Pakistani Society is radical, Pakistan has at least 5 times the population then Iraq and Afghanistan did, theres is alot of Anti American feelings in Pakistan, and it's not that hard to get a gun in Pakistan, invasion on Pakistan indeed would be a mistake, Would China supply Pakistan weapons if the USA invaded ? Likely yes.