US will forget Vietnam if it attacks 'FATA'

[VCheng]

I have thought about it - despite the self-congratulatory spin some US commentators are trying to put on the 'Arab Spring', in terms of it being a result of the US invasion of Iraq, there is no correlation between what has happened in Iraq and the Arab uprisings, which were catalyzed by the Tunisian uprising, which itself was based on domestic grievances, and not on any desire to replicate the 'shining democracy of Iraq'.

I am sure we can take up this thought elsewhere, but not in this thread.

Yes there is - if the Afghan war is still 'ongoing a decade later' how on earth will a war with Pakistan, a nation significantly larger and with the overwhelming majority of the populace hostile to the US and supportive of the military, be 'quick and effective'?

The initial steps will be quick and effective in laying the groundwork for later developments; that is what I mean.

Again, 'long term presence' and 'ongoing war' do not equate 'quick and effective'.

There is a difference in "presence" and "war". The war will be short, the presence will be longer.

The entire premise of a 'deterrent' (conventional or unconventional) is based on 'blackmail', and if the US can threaten to 'blackmail' Pakistan into doing its bidding by threatening war and economic sanctions, then Pakistan can do the same through whatever means it has available.

Please read my comment again: This "deterrent" that Pakistan is counting on will simply not work.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I am sure we can take up this thought elsewhere, but not in this thread.

Sure.

There is a difference in "presence" and "war". The war will be short, the presence will be longer.

Sure, but you argued that the 'war in Afghanistan is still ongoing', despite the 'quick and effective initial war', so how will Pakistan be different in terms of not having an 'ongoing war', and just a 'long term presence'?

Please read my comment again: This "deterrent" that Pakistan is counting on will simply not work.

If it doesn't work, then the world can pay through their noses and watch their economies tumble for the price of unprovoked US aggression against Pakistan.

 

[VCheng]

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


Sure, but you argued that the 'war in Afghanistan is still ongoing', despite the 'quick and effective initial war', so how will Pakistan be different in terms of not having an 'ongoing war', and just a 'long term presence'?

Please note the word "INITIAL". The initial war was quick and effective, and the remaining war is still to be wrapped up. Wars have different phases.

If it doesn't work, then the world can pay through their noses and watch their economies tumble for the price of unprovoked US aggression against Pakistan.

The effect on the world economy will be no more than a manageable short dip, nothing more than that, I am sure.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Please note the word "INITIAL". The initial war was quick and effect, and the remaining war is still to be wrapped up. Wars have different phases.

So we are in agreement then that there will be no such thing as a 'quick and effective war', and any war with Pakistan will likely be even more prolonged than the Afghan war.

The effect on the world economy will be no more than a manageable short dip, nothing more than that, I am sure.

Depends on how quickly the oil infrastructure will be restored - it was certainly not restored very quickly in Iraq - the price spike and shortage could possibly last years, and that is more than enough time to wreak havoc on the economies and average consumer. And while the US may, in all its irrationality, find it fit to make its economy and citizens suffer over 'strategic domination globally', Europe and Asia certainly have no desire for it.

 

[notorious_eagle]

Nice one VCheng good to see sane men are still around. US will never land troops. The next war with Pakistan if it ever happens it will be an air and sea war and it will last exactly 16 - 24 hours to take out all strategic assets.

Indeed, i dont think anyone is questioning here that US cannot take out most of Pakistan's strategic assets. American air and sea power is simply unmatched, and taking out defences of a country with relatively primitive defences such as Pakistan would not be a problem for the US military. The question is after all the bombardment, whats the end result?

Do you honestly think that after these bombings, Pakistani people are going to sit back and do nothing. You can be sure of one thing, the american casualty rate in Afghanistan is going to spike and you are going to have a lot more grieving mothers and widows asking why their sons have had to sacrifice their lives. The domestic pressure and America's financial crisis makes it next to impossible for America to get on a head on shooting war with Pakistan. If they wanted to get into a shooting war, Iran would have been on their number 1 hit list as they are causing huge problems for American interests in the region.

I know many strategic think tanks in US who are ready to call Pakistans nuclear bluff which they feel is a myth propogated by Pakistanis living safely overseas.

Well i say than the US should go for it, Pakistanis didn't really sacrifice all this blood and treasure just to bluff their way out. Be sure of the fact that there are enough think tanks sitting in GHQ right now, and i can tell you no think tank in Pakistan or even South Asia does as many threat analysis as those think tanks do. Those think tanks you are talking about based in the US don't know jack sh** about Pakistan's nuclear arsenal, only very few privileged Pakistanis are aware of our program.

 

[great]

In case of war, all America has to do is bomb all strategic assets like nuclear installations and military infrastructure. If they can, take all nuclear weapons too.

 

[Safriz]

In case of war, all America has to do is bomb all strategic assets like nuclear installations and military infrastructure. If they can, take all nuclear weapons too.

america no more has the money to do that...
why you think their participation.in libya was minimum?

 

[mautkimaut]

when a cat gets randy, it is not killed , it is just neutered , I guess US will not attack Pakistan but just disable it with crippling sanctions

 

[Khan_patriot]

In case of war, all America has to do is bomb all strategic assets like nuclear installations and military infrastructure. If they can, take all nuclear weapons too.

they may bomb us to the ''stone age'' but they got troops garrisons in Afghanistan we will storm the porous border by the millions and shove our Aks up their @$$ and dude to the west we have the Balochs and Pathans for whom war is a temptation......

 

[RKhan]

A strategy western powers always use is divide and conquer. They'll ally themselves with a minority in Pakistan and promise them power in the next government. And to those who keep saying that Pakistan would defeat America.....I say sweet dreams.

 

[karan.1970]

. Those think tanks you are talking about based in the US don't know jack sh** about Pakistan's nuclear arsenal, only very few privileged Pakistanis are aware of our program.

It only takes 1 who is willing to sell ....

 

[karan.1970]

they may bomb us to the ''stone age'' but they got troops garrisons in Afghanistan we will storm the porous border by the millions and shove our Aks up their @$$ and dude to the west we have the Balochs and Pathans for whom war is a temptation......

I thought standard weapon in PA was a G3 where as AK's are more a weapon of choice of terrorists/Taliban in the area.. Freudian slip??

 

[sandilanaresh]

I think they won't do it right now. Because they know what's gonna happen. . .

Another attack on a country will lead Amarica to a very adverse situation and amarica can not afford its econmy will suffer a lot
and more and more taxpayers money will go to fianance a awar or so called war on terror

 

[WAQAS119]

^^When US has economic problems they go on war.....!

 

[Star√ation]

This times we gonna see how well the American could learn from the Vietnam War.
Everyone knows that one of the main reasons why the US had lost the war was they did devastatingly bomb the North Vietnam but could do nothing to its main supply sources come from China and USSR (for weapon, ammunition, medical equipment, transportation clothes,... all kinds of things).
The same situation the US has in Afghanistan for now, the main supply sources for terrorist and insurgent groups come from outside Afghanistan.

The affair of attacking inside Pakistan territory but without be considered "an act of war" should be the responsibility of American diplomats.