US will forget Vietnam if it attacks 'FATA'

[RazPaK]

A conflict ain't gonna happen. PERIOD. Embargoes, sanctions etc at the most. That too after the US leaves Afghanistan. Right now, only diplomatic pressure is coming. Nothing else.

The US are the worst to their allies in the Middle East and in the region. While we went and cleaned out Swat and Fata on their orders, they were making secret deals with the Taliban. They want to exit the region and have Pakistan keep fighting till the end of time. They started this war, so how can they impose responsibility on Pakistan to clean up their mess?

 

[F86 Saber]

Your claim of taking out US bases in AFG and USN carriers in sea by missiles is absurd. I know Pakistan is not IRAQ and AFG but end result will be same... may be with slightly higher causality figure for US than previous wars.

Again my question, how is MRBM's taking out Air craft carriers and US bases in Afghanistan absurd?

 

[karan.1970]

Precisely the point I have been making all along, though VCheng and Karan appear to believe that the US would find a military victory over Pakistan, and the decimation of its security institutions and destabilization of the country, more beneficial than the status quo.

Err... I was talking about victory on Haqquanis and not Pakistan...

 

[great]

Just talk, talk and more talk. Come on US do something.



Yes, yes. I am enjoying this. Don't mind me I am shallow that way.

 

[VSS]

Again my question, how is MRBM's taking out Air craft carriers and US bases in Afghanistan absurd?

Is your missile that accurate to takeout moving carrier? And US bases are not defenseless

 

[F86 Saber]

Is your missile that accurate to takeout moving carrier? And US bases are not defenseless

You just lost all your credibility.... And here i was thinking you might actually have something smart hidden behind the one liners.....How wrong was I....

 

[VCheng]

Precisely the point I have been making all along, though VCheng and Karan appear to believe that the US would find a military victory over Pakistan, and the decimation of its security institutions and destabilization of the country, more beneficial than the status quo.

Whether a managed low grade civil war contained within Pakistan after rendering the strategic military assets inoperable (what you mis-characterize as "decimation of its security institutions and destabilization of the country") is regarded as more or less beneficial by the US will depend on the policies of Pakistan.

I stand by my assessment, which you should understand fully before commenting any further, please.

 

[karan.1970]

The only think AQ had was 'safe sanctuary', which, as I have pointed out, AQ, Haqqanis and other extremist and religious groups would also enjoy in a 'destabilized Pakistan' whose security institutions have been destroyed. After the collapse of the military and security institutions, these groups would be the 'biggest and most powerful guns in town' and would likely also attract former members of the security forces and become even more potent, and they would have even more 'free reign' to recruit from the population, especially since a destabilized society and nation would offer even fewer alternate opportunities to becoming part of a 'Holy Resistance'.


You still have not explained what this 'complete machinery of a country' Al Qaeda or any of these other groups enjoyed or currently enjoy, that they would not have even more access to in a destabilized nation and society with no security institutions.

In 1996, bin Laden moved to Afghanistan from Sudan. He came without invitation, and sometimes irritated Mullah Omar with his declaration of war and fatwas against citizens of third-party countries,[157] but relations between the two groups improved over time, to the point that Mullah Omar rebuffed his group's patron Saudi Arabia, insulting Saudi minister Prince Turki while reneging on an earlier promise to turn bin Laden over to the Saudis.[158]
Bin Laden was able to forge an alliance between the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. The Al Qaeda-trained 055 Brigade integrated with the Taliban army between 1997 and 2001. Several hundred Arab Afghan fighters sent by bin Laden assisted the Taliban in the Mazar-e-Sharif slaughter.[159] The so-called Brigade 055 was also responsible for massacres against civilians in other parts of Afghanistan.[13] From 1996 to 2001 the organization of Osama Bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri had become a virtual state within the Taliban state.
Taliban-Al-Qaeda connections were also strengthened by the reported marriage of one of bin Laden's sons to Omar's daughter. While in Afghanistan, bin Laden may have helped finance the Taliban.[160][161]
After the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Africa, bin Laden and several Al-Qaeda members were indicted in U.S. criminal court.[162] The Taliban rejected extradition requests by the U.S., variously claiming that bin Laden had "gone missing",[163] or that Washington "cannot provide any evidence or any proof" that bin Laden is involved in terrorist activities and that "without any evidence, bin Laden is a man without sin... he is a free man."[63][164]
Evidence against bin Laden included courtroom testimony and satellite phone records.[165][166] Bin Laden in turn, praised the Taliban as the "only Islamic government" in existence, and lauded Mullah Omar for his destruction of idols such as the Buddhas of Bamyan.[167]
Taliban - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I say, they had much more than a free reign to recruit from the local population in Afghanistan..

And also, when you talk of collapse of Pakistani state machinery, you have taken it for granted that Pakistani establishment is going to side with Haqquani against the US.. In which case, you are

And about safe sanctuaries, well they can be offered only in countries where the existing govt can prevent the Terrorist "hunters" from coming in and hitting them in their safe havens. That prevention can be diplomatic (like in case of Afghanistan before 2001) or even military.. If as per your assertion, Pakistani state machinery collapses, it wont be big/strong enough to prevent USA or NATO from doing what they want as they go after the Taliban. Hence the idea of SAFE sanctuary wont apply.. Just like it does not in Iraq or Afg at this time.. Strangely enough, as per Americans, it applies in case of Pakistan today..

You are the one that made the claim of 'complete resources of a functioning nation', so far you have offered nothing to support that claim, and the only 'complete resources' you have managed to illustrate credibly are 'safe sanctuary', which these groups would enjoy even more in case of a destabilized society and nation - the evidence backing up my argument lies in the fact that extremist groups existed and flourished in countries like Somalia, Afghanistan and Iraq when there was no credible government in place.

I dont think Al Queda has been able to launch a credible attack on any of the major Western Interests since the time they have been interdicted in Afghanistan... Hence the assertion that having the backing of "Complete resources" of a country does wonders for the reach of these terrorists..

It is also a 'matter of opinion' on how the content of VCheng's posts is interpreted - while concerns may have been publicly expressed by just two individuals on this thread, those who hold a similar opinion of his intent are quite significant in number, and have communicated their concerns in private.

But in any case, the point was merely that the poster has a right to offer his opinion about what he/she believes VCheng is implying - VCheng has the right to correct the impression, if it is indeed incorrect, by responding. Passing an analysis on an entire nation and peoples, as you did in your response to Sur, is neither appropriate nor relevant.

Surely the poster has a right to offer his opinion about what VCheng is implying, just like I have a right to offer an opinion on how that opinion represents a common stereotyping practice where in a lot of cases, Pakistanis who try to shoot holes in jingoistic comments and approaches of other Pakistanis are labeled as anti Pakistan or as the poster put it, against Pak Watan..

 

[RKhan]

Again my question, how is MRBM's taking out Air craft carriers and US bases in Afghanistan absurd?

MRBM stands for Medium Ranged Ballistic Missile. A carrier moves at 18 knots, around 25 miles per hour. Also these missiles are mean for non moving targets such as bases airstrips, cities..so you'll just be creating a big splash in the water.

 

[VCheng]

MRBM stands for Medium Ranged Ballistic Missile. A carrier moves at 18 knots, around 25 miles per hour. Also these missiles are mean for non moving targets such as bases airstrips, cities..so you'll just be creating a big splash in the water.

Advanced MIRV ICBMs can hit slow moving targets.

 

[RKhan]

The question is do we have any?

 

[RazPaK]

The question is do we have any?

How are you gonna say this we when you were on the other side before talking about we'll nuke you. You are scum.

 

[ares]

Advanced MIRV ICBMs can hit slow moving targets.

Only China claims they have developed one..neither Soviets nor American were able to develop one.
Ballistic missile having inertial guidance following parabolic path(ie fixed trajectory) can not hit a moving target...as target co-ordinate change continuously..where as a Ballistic has to be fed -target coordinates prior launch.

If the target co-ordinates change so will trajectory BM takes will have to change..but the problem is BMs can only maneuver during the boost phase before their engine cuts out.

 

[RKhan]

How are you gonna say this we when you were on the other side before talking about we'll nuke you. You are scum.

Nice name calling. A perfect name for you would be what Eric Foreman gets called by Red on every episode of That 70's Show. Try and guess
You try to turn the tables on me in this argument but you simply fail since I am right about every thing I have said so far.

Anyway, I was responding to what VCheng said and the ultra nationalists who think they can just nuke the United States and have no consequences.

 

[RazPaK]

Nice name calling. A perfect name for you would be what Eric Foreman gets called by Red on every episode of That 70's Show. Try and guess
You try to turn the tables on me in this argument but you simply fail since I am right about every thing I have said so far.

Anyway, I was responding to what VCheng said and the ultra nationalists who think they can just nuke the United States and have no consequences.

Change flag please, you are a disgrace. And I am a moderate.