US will forget Vietnam if it attacks 'FATA'

[lem34]

If that is the case then dont let rogue groups use your soil for terrorist activities.

you mean like afghans allow america

 

[SyrianChristianPatriot]

The USA does have the Power to Invade Pakistan however it would be a Bloodbath.

 

[lem34]

The USA does have the Power to Invade Pakistan however it would be a Bloodbath.

Exactly would the price americans have to pay be worth it for them? I think not

 

[SyrianChristianPatriot]

"Pakistan is a large country with various types of terrain. Some of the terrain is as bad as that in Afghanistan - much worse than in North Korea - though admitadly parts of Pakistan are flat. Also consider the length of the supply lines - much longer than those in Iraq or North Korea." All this says to me is bigger air campaign. "In any case, the Muslim world would go berserk if Pakistan was invaded causing massive problems for the U.S. the world over." Nah, Muslims are weak willed. They are historically emboldened when shown an easy hand. I think everyone in the Muslim world would probably go berserk, but for different reasons. They would cower in fear that they could be next. "In fact, the most likely scenario for such an invasion would be if a fanatical Islamist government seized power in Pakistan..." I agree completely. "Also bear in mind that after the international public relations disaster of the Iraq War, U.S. would likely have to carry out this invasion without allies." I wouldn't characterize the attention whoring of the United Nations, France, and other members of the "international community" as a disaster. I'd call it laughable. The failure to attain basing rights from Saudi Arabia, and Turkey didn't seem to matter much in the end. Pakistan borders four nations. China, India, Afghanistan, and Iran. It's safe to say we won't get basing rights from Iran, or China. We will get them in Afghanistan, and we might get them in India. Afghanistan's current government owes everything to the United States. India's will be concerned only with the effect their involvement (or non-involvement) will have on their own security. None of the issues of the Iraq war would see the light of day. Politics won't affect the logistics of this war much, aside perhaps from securing support from Britain. (The only other nation that could reasonably be expected to commit a sizable number of ground troops.) "It took 250,000 troops to invade Iraq. Somehow, I truly doubt 300,000 U.S. troops would be sufficient to invade a country much larger in size and with a population fully 6 times greater than Iraq." The 300,000 figure was based on India's involvement. "The Pakistani armed forces are also larger (610,000 men) than Iraq's and of higher quality too (and I would venture to say that Pakistani military potential in a war is significantly greater than North Korea's if you take mobilization into account). " North Korea has over a million men in their armed forces. Iraq had two million in 1991. How would they be able to mobilize while at war with the United States? Even if they could train conscripts with a fair amount of impunity, they wouldn't have enough time, or enough vehicles to make an impact. "Furthermore, unlike Iraq with the Shia and the Kurds, Pakistan does not have major ethnic groups that would be sympathetic and willing to aid or at least not oppose the U.S. invasion" Do you think it would have made any kind of a difference in Iraq if we had to fight the kurds too? "So if you combine this fact with the fact that Pakistan has 6 times Iraq's population, the obvious conclusion is that the insurgent forces would be much, much larger than in Iraq." The bulk of the Iraqi insurgents are former government officials, and foreign terrorists. The population appears to be unwilling to join with these groups against us. I don't see a nationwide anti-U.S. resistance taking place. The situation will likely be similar to Iraq, and the people, even if they are Sunnis, will be given a clear choice between the old and the new. Most people will not opt for harsh dictatorship over self-determination. Especially when restoring the harsh dictatorship involves combat against the United States army. This would make the invasion of Pakistan much more difficult and make occupation hellishly difficult.

 

[Peshwa]

Exactly would the price americans have to pay be worth it for them? I think not

There are ways of hurting your enemy without the traditional "bloodbath"

Hurting your economy would be just one of many ways....political isolation another.

 

[Patrician]

Exactly would the price americans have to pay be worth it for them? I think not

I'm sure that whatever price it might be, it would exact a far heavier toll on Pakistan, both monetary and military, than it would on the US.

 

[53fd]

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...

Pakistan's economy is doing fine, its growing faster than the US economy despite being involved so heavily in the WOT.

Overestimating Pakistan and completely underestimating the US is what i see from your line of arguments....

No one's over or underestimating anyone, I've only laid out the geopolitical facts; if you can't dispute them, too bad.

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

Not really, the IMF & WB function independently, & I've given you factual evidence about how the US imposed sanctions on the Pakistan in the 90s, but Pakistan was working with the IMF & the WB during the same period. The IMF not 'bailing out' Pakistan is purely Pakistan's decision, & is not influenced by the US or anyone else. No connection between the two things.

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

When the US can't even control most of Afghanistan, especially the Eastern provinces of Afghanistan; or stop attacks on their embassy or have their Chinook shot down in broad daylight, or prevent the President's brother, the governor & the ex-President of Afghanistan from getting assassinated: it doesn't take Nostradamus to predict the outcome of a direct confrontation with Pakistan.

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

My tone is absolutely fine, you're the one who's wreaking with desperation & frustration because you continue to engaged in this thread, which even you have admitted has nothing do with your country or your people.

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!

There is no need for Pakistan to attack the US, the damage caused by a full scale confrontation against Pakistan in Afghanistan & the nearby regions will suffice.

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..

How will the US cause a naval blockage against Pakistan? The US has nothing to do with Pakistani oil, so I don't know where you're getting this. And the IPI pipeline will become operational soon, so all of Pakistan's energy requirements will be fulfilled from that independent of the US.

The US economy almost defaulted, so they are cutting back expenditures in the war. Hence, I don't think they'd be using lesser resources against a country almost 5 times the population of Pakistan. The economy is going down the pit, the external & state debts are skyrocketing, they cannot afford a war with Pakistan. Simple.

 

[President Camacho]

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.

Can you please provide the link to 95%-97% statistics? I am asking that because somewhere I read the ratio of Militants to People killed in that area is somewhere around 80% to 20%. That means for every 4th terrorist killed, one innocent person dies too.

Oh, and I am talking specifically about the drone strikes. So if yours is about something other than the drone strikes, please excuse me.

 

[DelhiDareDevil]

You cant compare economic growth of a developed nation to a developing nation, it makes no sense at all.

 

[perplexed]

"Pakistan is a large country with various types of terrain. Some of the terrain is as bad as that in Afghanistan - much worse than in North Korea - though admitadly parts of Pakistan are flat. Also consider the length of the supply lines - much longer than those in Iraq or North Korea." All this says to me is bigger air campaign. "In any case, the Muslim world would go berserk if Pakistan was invaded causing massive problems for the U.S. the world over." Nah, Muslims are weak willed. They are historically emboldened when shown an easy hand. I think everyone in the Muslim world would probably go berserk, but for different reasons. They would cower in fear that they could be next. "In fact, the most likely scenario for such an invasion would be if a fanatical Islamist government seized power in Pakistan..." I agree completely. "Also bear in mind that after the international public relations disaster of the Iraq War, U.S. would likely have to carry out this invasion without allies." I wouldn't characterize the attention whoring of the United Nations, France, and other members of the "international community" as a disaster. I'd call it laughable. The failure to attain basing rights from Saudi Arabia, and Turkey didn't seem to matter much in the end. Pakistan borders four nations. China, India, Afghanistan, and Iran. It's safe to say we won't get basing rights from Iran, or China. We will get them in Afghanistan, and we might get them in India. Afghanistan's current government owes everything to the United States. India's will be concerned only with the effect their involvement (or non-involvement) will have on their own security. None of the issues of the Iraq war would see the light of day. Politics won't affect the logistics of this war much, aside perhaps from securing support from Britain. (The only other nation that could reasonably be expected to commit a sizable number of ground troops.) "It took 250,000 troops to invade Iraq. Somehow, I truly doubt 300,000 U.S. troops would be sufficient to invade a country much larger in size and with a population fully 6 times greater than Iraq." The 300,000 figure was based on India's involvement. "The Pakistani armed forces are also larger (610,000 men) than Iraq's and of higher quality too (and I would venture to say that Pakistani military potential in a war is significantly greater than North Korea's if you take mobilization into account). " North Korea has over a million men in their armed forces. Iraq had two million in 1991. How would they be able to mobilize while at war with the United States? Even if they could train conscripts with a fair amount of impunity, they wouldn't have enough time, or enough vehicles to make an impact. "Furthermore, unlike Iraq with the Shia and the Kurds, Pakistan does not have major ethnic groups that would be sympathetic and willing to aid or at least not oppose the U.S. invasion" Do you think it would have made any kind of a difference in Iraq if we had to fight the kurds too? "So if you combine this fact with the fact that Pakistan has 6 times Iraq's population, the obvious conclusion is that the insurgent forces would be much, much larger than in Iraq." The bulk of the Iraqi insurgents are former government officials, and foreign terrorists. The population appears to be unwilling to join with these groups against us. I don't see a nationwide anti-U.S. resistance taking place. The situation will likely be similar to Iraq, and the people, even if they are Sunnis, will be given a clear choice between the old and the new. Most people will not opt for harsh dictatorship over self-determination. Especially when restoring the harsh dictatorship involves combat against the United States army. This would make the invasion of Pakistan much more difficult and make occupation hellishly difficult.

continue with ur rant and [pakistan will be on its way to another break up. May be balochs will want to go with Iran. and NWFP can go to Afganisthan.

 

[lem34]

continue with ur rant and [pakistan will be on its way to another break up. May be balochs will want to go with Iran. and NWFP can go to Afganisthan.

why is that a rant? something you dont want to hear? sounds good to me

 

[SyrianChristianPatriot]

continue with ur rant and [pakistan will be on its way to another break up. May be balochs will want to go with Iran. and NWFP can go to Afganisthan.

Why would Baluchs want to be apart of Iran ? Iran has insurgency of it's baluch area's they want to be free of Both Iran and Pakistan. NWFP don't the pustuns want an Independent Pushtunistan free of Afghan and Pakistan ?

 

[S.M.R]

 

[SyrianChristianPatriot]

The USA could Invade Pakistan but the problems are here compared to both Afghan and Iraq, Pakistani population is 10'x bigger 180 million the iraqi and afghan population combined is 44 mill, the USA had difficultly trying to to get the Insurgency in Iraq under control from a few thousand militants so an Insurgency in Pakistan would be Worse then Vietnam, I've been to Karachi, Lahore, Islamabad and several other places and it's not hard to get a gun, next the Pakistani army is far better then Iraqi army and most of the middle east, invasion would unite the Whole country, it took about 250,000 US troops to hold Iraq, the Idea of Holding Pakistan would be around 3 million or more, not to mention both China and Iran would aid Pakistan, Invading Pakistan yes the USA could but it would be stupid the lives lost would make it hell on earth.

 

[Patrician]

Pakistan's economy is doing fine, its growing faster than the US economy despite being involved so heavily in the WOT.

A simple analogy:

An ant growing faster than an elephant doesn't make the ant stronger than the elephant.

Not really, the IMF & WB function independently,

Really? You obviously have no idea how much influence Uncle Sam exercises over the global economy. My advice, ask an economist.

...and please make sure it's not Riaz Haq you refer to.

The IMF not 'bailing out' Pakistan is purely Pakistan's decision.

I'm truly dumbfounded at your appereciation of your self-worth.

May be you're not aware of your PM pleading IMF for a loan waiver a few months back.

You are probably also not aware of the IMF's disquiet over your country's failure to implement a better tax regime.

When the US can't even control most of Afghanistan, especially the Eastern provinces of Afghanistan; or stop attacks on their embassy or have their Chinook shot down in broad daylight, or prevent the President's brother, the governor & the ex-President of Afghanistan from getting assassinated: it doesn't take Nostradamus to predict the outcome of a direct confrontation with Pakistan.

You are overestimating the losses to the US and underestimating the losses to Pakistan.

Just to make yourself seem somewhat better off, I guess?

My tone is absolutely fine, you're the one who's wreaking with desperation & frustration because you continue to engaged in this thread, which even you have admitted has nothing do with your country or your people.

So sorry, Mr. wannabe mod. Did we hurt your feelings ?

I'm chooooo choooleeeeeee.

How will the US cause a naval blockage against Pakistan?

The way they are caused. Although, I'm sure it won't come to that.

The US doesn't have to wage a full fledged war on Pakistan to meet its objectives. It's not the world's sole superpower for nothing.