Talibanization of Pakistan
-
Barely 48 hours after Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari warned that Taliban was "trying to take over Pakistan", his government appeased the ultra Islamic extremist group by signing an agreement on Monday with pro-Taliban leader Sufi Mohammad to impose Islamic law, sharia, in Swat in return for a 10-day ceasefire by the Taliban.
Link[^] I simply cannot understand how the USA considers Pakistan a Major non-NATO Ally[^], a list that contains countries like Australia, Israel, and Japan.
Cheers, Vıkram.
I've never ever worked anywhere where there has not been someone who given the choice I would not work with again. It's a job, you do your work, put up with the people you don't like, accept there are probably people there that don't like you a lot, and look forward to the weekends. - Josh Gray.
-
Barely 48 hours after Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari warned that Taliban was "trying to take over Pakistan", his government appeased the ultra Islamic extremist group by signing an agreement on Monday with pro-Taliban leader Sufi Mohammad to impose Islamic law, sharia, in Swat in return for a 10-day ceasefire by the Taliban.
Link[^] I simply cannot understand how the USA considers Pakistan a Major non-NATO Ally[^], a list that contains countries like Australia, Israel, and Japan.
Cheers, Vıkram.
I've never ever worked anywhere where there has not been someone who given the choice I would not work with again. It's a job, you do your work, put up with the people you don't like, accept there are probably people there that don't like you a lot, and look forward to the weekends. - Josh Gray.
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
I simply cannot understand how the USA considers Pakistan a Major non-NATO Ally[^], a list that contains countries like Australia, Israel, and Japan.
I've noticed all the ally-ing that Australia and Japan have been doing. Meanwhile Israel wants badly to get us involved in a shooting war with Iran. Why shouldn't Pakistan be included in such a warm and fuzzy list? And for that matter, France and Germany participate so little in NATO, they should be in that list, too. The US has had one real over-seas ally for the last 150+ years and that is England. And only one on this side of the Atlantic and that's Canada. We may argue with each other, insult each other, and disagree vehemently, but when the chips are down those are the two countries that have our back and the two whose back we should have.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
Barely 48 hours after Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari warned that Taliban was "trying to take over Pakistan", his government appeased the ultra Islamic extremist group by signing an agreement on Monday with pro-Taliban leader Sufi Mohammad to impose Islamic law, sharia, in Swat in return for a 10-day ceasefire by the Taliban.
Link[^] I simply cannot understand how the USA considers Pakistan a Major non-NATO Ally[^], a list that contains countries like Australia, Israel, and Japan.
Cheers, Vıkram.
I've never ever worked anywhere where there has not been someone who given the choice I would not work with again. It's a job, you do your work, put up with the people you don't like, accept there are probably people there that don't like you a lot, and look forward to the weekends. - Josh Gray.
Amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics. :) We need a land route to supply our forces in Afghanistan, aerial supply can't move anywhere near the needed volume. Russia, never someone we'd trust fully in the 1st place, is pressuring the *stans to kick us out. We're certainly not going to be able to ship via Iran. :rolleyes: That leaves Pakistan as hobson's choice. The only way we could cut the pakis out now would be if your country were able to occupy and pacify the northern half of Pakistan for us, unless preempted an invasion of that level would almost certainly go nuclear. Speaking personally I don't feel comfortable gambling millions of civilian lives on our intelligence agencies being able to locate and target their entire nuclear inventory.
Today's lesson is brought to you by the word "niggardly". Remember kids, don't attribute to racism what can be explained by Scandinavian language roots. -- Robert Royall
-
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
I simply cannot understand how the USA considers Pakistan a Major non-NATO Ally[^], a list that contains countries like Australia, Israel, and Japan.
I've noticed all the ally-ing that Australia and Japan have been doing. Meanwhile Israel wants badly to get us involved in a shooting war with Iran. Why shouldn't Pakistan be included in such a warm and fuzzy list? And for that matter, France and Germany participate so little in NATO, they should be in that list, too. The US has had one real over-seas ally for the last 150+ years and that is England. And only one on this side of the Atlantic and that's Canada. We may argue with each other, insult each other, and disagree vehemently, but when the chips are down those are the two countries that have our back and the two whose back we should have.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
Right or wrong, Australia has troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. What more do you expect? France and Germany have soldiers serving in Afghanistan. Japan has US bases. At the very least, none of these countries are hostile to the US. I simply can't fathom how Pakistan can be an MNNA when large sections of the population are totally opposed to the US, elements in the state apparatus actively aid terrorists in their war against the US a few hundred kilometres to the west and against India in the east, and the US sees it necessary to carry out missile strikes in sovereign Pakistani territory because the Pakistani "government" is neither willing nor able to take action against these elements.
Cheers, Vıkram.
I've never ever worked anywhere where there has not been someone who given the choice I would not work with again. It's a job, you do your work, put up with the people you don't like, accept there are probably people there that don't like you a lot, and look forward to the weekends. - Josh Gray.
-
Amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics. :) We need a land route to supply our forces in Afghanistan, aerial supply can't move anywhere near the needed volume. Russia, never someone we'd trust fully in the 1st place, is pressuring the *stans to kick us out. We're certainly not going to be able to ship via Iran. :rolleyes: That leaves Pakistan as hobson's choice. The only way we could cut the pakis out now would be if your country were able to occupy and pacify the northern half of Pakistan for us, unless preempted an invasion of that level would almost certainly go nuclear. Speaking personally I don't feel comfortable gambling millions of civilian lives on our intelligence agencies being able to locate and target their entire nuclear inventory.
Today's lesson is brought to you by the word "niggardly". Remember kids, don't attribute to racism what can be explained by Scandinavian language roots. -- Robert Royall
dan neely wrote:
if your country were able to occupy and pacify the northern half of Pakistan for us
India is loathe to strike Pakistan. The Taliban has already offered its suicide bombers to the Pakistani army against India[^] On a lighter note, occupying the southern reaches of Pakistan would be easier :) And oh, even if we managed to do that, good luck trying to move men and materials through Indian territory. :doh: The US could have simply told Pakistan, "We're using your territory to move supplies to Afghanistan, don't resist if you don't want to become rubble". Pakistan was made an MNNA in 2004, three years after the Afghan invasion. If anything, Pakistan is shiftier now.
Cheers, Vıkram.
I've never ever worked anywhere where there has not been someone who given the choice I would not work with again. It's a job, you do your work, put up with the people you don't like, accept there are probably people there that don't like you a lot, and look forward to the weekends. - Josh Gray.
-
Right or wrong, Australia has troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. What more do you expect? France and Germany have soldiers serving in Afghanistan. Japan has US bases. At the very least, none of these countries are hostile to the US. I simply can't fathom how Pakistan can be an MNNA when large sections of the population are totally opposed to the US, elements in the state apparatus actively aid terrorists in their war against the US a few hundred kilometres to the west and against India in the east, and the US sees it necessary to carry out missile strikes in sovereign Pakistani territory because the Pakistani "government" is neither willing nor able to take action against these elements.
Cheers, Vıkram.
I've never ever worked anywhere where there has not been someone who given the choice I would not work with again. It's a job, you do your work, put up with the people you don't like, accept there are probably people there that don't like you a lot, and look forward to the weekends. - Josh Gray.
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
Australia has troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan
How many?
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
What more do you expect
More than 20. Unlike George Bush, I am not trying to fool anyone into thinking there's a coalition there.
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
France and Germany have soldiers serving in Afghanistan. Japan has US bases.
French have no combat troops; Germans aren't allowed off their base at night because it gets dangerous in Afghanistan after dark.
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
Japan has US bases.
Which is financially extremely advanatageous to Japan. If we pulled back to Pearl, as we should, Japan would discover how expensive being a sovereign nation can be.
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
I simply can't fathom how Pakistan can be an MNNA
I can't fathom why India allows Pakistan to exist. The war is coming, everyone knows it, but you guys keep talking. Who are you trying to impress, Australia?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
dan neely wrote:
if your country were able to occupy and pacify the northern half of Pakistan for us
India is loathe to strike Pakistan. The Taliban has already offered its suicide bombers to the Pakistani army against India[^] On a lighter note, occupying the southern reaches of Pakistan would be easier :) And oh, even if we managed to do that, good luck trying to move men and materials through Indian territory. :doh: The US could have simply told Pakistan, "We're using your territory to move supplies to Afghanistan, don't resist if you don't want to become rubble". Pakistan was made an MNNA in 2004, three years after the Afghan invasion. If anything, Pakistan is shiftier now.
Cheers, Vıkram.
I've never ever worked anywhere where there has not been someone who given the choice I would not work with again. It's a job, you do your work, put up with the people you don't like, accept there are probably people there that don't like you a lot, and look forward to the weekends. - Josh Gray.
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
The Taliban has already offered its suicide bombers to the Pakistani army against India
So what? People die in war. Get over it.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
I simply cannot understand how the USA considers Pakistan a Major non-NATO Ally[^], a list that contains countries like Australia, Israel, and Japan.
I've noticed all the ally-ing that Australia and Japan have been doing. Meanwhile Israel wants badly to get us involved in a shooting war with Iran. Why shouldn't Pakistan be included in such a warm and fuzzy list? And for that matter, France and Germany participate so little in NATO, they should be in that list, too. The US has had one real over-seas ally for the last 150+ years and that is England. And only one on this side of the Atlantic and that's Canada. We may argue with each other, insult each other, and disagree vehemently, but when the chips are down those are the two countries that have our back and the two whose back we should have.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
Oakman wrote:
The US has had one real over-seas ally for the last 150+ years and that is England.
Whereas Wales and Scotland hate America's guts.
-
Oakman wrote:
The US has had one real over-seas ally for the last 150+ years and that is England.
Whereas Wales and Scotland hate America's guts.
Steve_Harris wrote:
Whereas Wales and Scotland hate America's guts.
Nope, but they hate England's.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
Australia has troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan
How many?
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
What more do you expect
More than 20. Unlike George Bush, I am not trying to fool anyone into thinking there's a coalition there.
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
France and Germany have soldiers serving in Afghanistan. Japan has US bases.
French have no combat troops; Germans aren't allowed off their base at night because it gets dangerous in Afghanistan after dark.
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
Japan has US bases.
Which is financially extremely advanatageous to Japan. If we pulled back to Pearl, as we should, Japan would discover how expensive being a sovereign nation can be.
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
I simply can't fathom how Pakistan can be an MNNA
I can't fathom why India allows Pakistan to exist. The war is coming, everyone knows it, but you guys keep talking. Who are you trying to impress, Australia?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
Oakman wrote:
How many?
Wikipedia says 350. Per capita, more than the USA.
Oakman wrote:
If we pulled back to Pearl, as we should, Japan would discover how expensive being a sovereign nation can be.
So the US has troops in Japan because the Japanese like it?
Oakman wrote:
I can't fathom why India allows Pakistan to exist
Because most of us simply want to be left alone.
Oakman wrote:
The war is coming, everyone knows it
As somebody who lives right here, instead of observing from the other side of the planet, I don't see any way India will attack Pakistan in the current scenario. Of course, if there is another Mumbai-style attack, all bets are off. Also: if India had gone for an all-out war in 1999, we would have faced the Pakistani military and maybe a few other nuts. Today, we will have to face not only the Pakistani army and the Taliban, but also homegrown terrorists right inside India.
Oakman wrote:
Who are you trying to impress, Australia?
Again, most of us just want to be left alone.
Cheers, Vıkram.
I've never ever worked anywhere where there has not been someone who given the choice I would not work with again. It's a job, you do your work, put up with the people you don't like, accept there are probably people there that don't like you a lot, and look forward to the weekends. - Josh Gray.
-
Steve_Harris wrote:
Whereas Wales and Scotland hate America's guts.
Nope, but they hate England's.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
Did you therefore mean to say that Britain was the US's ally, not England? England != Britain.
-
Oakman wrote:
How many?
Wikipedia says 350. Per capita, more than the USA.
Oakman wrote:
If we pulled back to Pearl, as we should, Japan would discover how expensive being a sovereign nation can be.
So the US has troops in Japan because the Japanese like it?
Oakman wrote:
I can't fathom why India allows Pakistan to exist
Because most of us simply want to be left alone.
Oakman wrote:
The war is coming, everyone knows it
As somebody who lives right here, instead of observing from the other side of the planet, I don't see any way India will attack Pakistan in the current scenario. Of course, if there is another Mumbai-style attack, all bets are off. Also: if India had gone for an all-out war in 1999, we would have faced the Pakistani military and maybe a few other nuts. Today, we will have to face not only the Pakistani army and the Taliban, but also homegrown terrorists right inside India.
Oakman wrote:
Who are you trying to impress, Australia?
Again, most of us just want to be left alone.
Cheers, Vıkram.
I've never ever worked anywhere where there has not been someone who given the choice I would not work with again. It's a job, you do your work, put up with the people you don't like, accept there are probably people there that don't like you a lot, and look forward to the weekends. - Josh Gray.
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
Wikipedia says 350. Per capita, more than the USA.
Actually each of em has about 3500. You may have accidently dropped a zero. However, here'ds what another European said[^]: "But NATO's exasperated secretary general, Jaap De Hoop Scheffer, said if Europe wants a greater voice, it needs to do more. "The Obama administration has already done a lot of what Europeans have asked for including announcing the closure of Guantanamo and a serious focus on climate change," he said. "Europe should also listen; When the United States asks for a serious partner, it does not just want advice, it wants and deserves someone to share the heavy lifting."
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
So the US has troops in Japan because the Japanese like it?
The Japanese Government does. I know that the inhabitants of Okinawa want the Marines to go.
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
Because most of us simply want to be left alone
Said the ostrich.
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
I don't see any way India will attack Pakistan in the current scenario.
Probably not, but I doubt your children will thank you for your restraint.
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
Today, we will have to face not only the Pakistani army and the Taliban, but also homegrown terrorists right inside India.
And tomorrow?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
Did you therefore mean to say that Britain was the US's ally, not England? England != Britain.
Steve_Harris wrote:
Did you therefore mean to say that Britain was the US's ally, not England?
Pretty much, yeah.
Steve_Harris wrote:
England != Britain
As the ghost of Owen Glendower reminds me.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
dan neely wrote:
if your country were able to occupy and pacify the northern half of Pakistan for us
India is loathe to strike Pakistan. The Taliban has already offered its suicide bombers to the Pakistani army against India[^] On a lighter note, occupying the southern reaches of Pakistan would be easier :) And oh, even if we managed to do that, good luck trying to move men and materials through Indian territory. :doh: The US could have simply told Pakistan, "We're using your territory to move supplies to Afghanistan, don't resist if you don't want to become rubble". Pakistan was made an MNNA in 2004, three years after the Afghan invasion. If anything, Pakistan is shiftier now.
Cheers, Vıkram.
I've never ever worked anywhere where there has not been someone who given the choice I would not work with again. It's a job, you do your work, put up with the people you don't like, accept there are probably people there that don't like you a lot, and look forward to the weekends. - Josh Gray.
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
India is loathe to strike Pakistan.
Which leaves us in the unenviable place of putting on our realpoltic masks and paying kissyface with a group of scum we like almost as little as you do.
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
On a lighter note, occupying the southern reaches of Pakistan would be easier
I'm not sure why, but all the talk I had on another forum about this (which included a several active/retired mid level US army officers) focused on the Khyber pass as the optimal supply route.
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
Pakistan was made an MNNA in 2004, three years after the Afghan invasion. If anything, Pakistan is shiftier now.
Probably a case of throwing them another bone to try and keep their govt happy.
Today's lesson is brought to you by the word "niggardly". Remember kids, don't attribute to racism what can be explained by Scandinavian language roots. -- Robert Royall
-
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
Wikipedia says 350. Per capita, more than the USA.
Actually each of em has about 3500. You may have accidently dropped a zero. However, here'ds what another European said[^]: "But NATO's exasperated secretary general, Jaap De Hoop Scheffer, said if Europe wants a greater voice, it needs to do more. "The Obama administration has already done a lot of what Europeans have asked for including announcing the closure of Guantanamo and a serious focus on climate change," he said. "Europe should also listen; When the United States asks for a serious partner, it does not just want advice, it wants and deserves someone to share the heavy lifting."
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
So the US has troops in Japan because the Japanese like it?
The Japanese Government does. I know that the inhabitants of Okinawa want the Marines to go.
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
Because most of us simply want to be left alone
Said the ostrich.
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
I don't see any way India will attack Pakistan in the current scenario.
Probably not, but I doubt your children will thank you for your restraint.
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
Today, we will have to face not only the Pakistani army and the Taliban, but also homegrown terrorists right inside India.
And tomorrow?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
India is loathe to strike Pakistan.
Which leaves us in the unenviable place of putting on our realpoltic masks and paying kissyface with a group of scum we like almost as little as you do.
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
On a lighter note, occupying the southern reaches of Pakistan would be easier
I'm not sure why, but all the talk I had on another forum about this (which included a several active/retired mid level US army officers) focused on the Khyber pass as the optimal supply route.
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
Pakistan was made an MNNA in 2004, three years after the Afghan invasion. If anything, Pakistan is shiftier now.
Probably a case of throwing them another bone to try and keep their govt happy.
Today's lesson is brought to you by the word "niggardly". Remember kids, don't attribute to racism what can be explained by Scandinavian language roots. -- Robert Royall
dan neely wrote:
I'm not sure why, but all the talk I had on another forum about this (which included a several active/retired mid level US army officers) focused on the Khyber pass as the optimal supply route
I was talking about occupying large tracts of Pakistani territory, not getting supplies to Kabul. Also, with Karachi and Gwadar in enemy hands, the Punjabi heartland would be utterly cut off.
Cheers, Vıkram.
I've never ever worked anywhere where there has not been someone who given the choice I would not work with again. It's a job, you do your work, put up with the people you don't like, accept there are probably people there that don't like you a lot, and look forward to the weekends. - Josh Gray.
-
dan neely wrote:
I'm not sure why, but all the talk I had on another forum about this (which included a several active/retired mid level US army officers) focused on the Khyber pass as the optimal supply route
I was talking about occupying large tracts of Pakistani territory, not getting supplies to Kabul. Also, with Karachi and Gwadar in enemy hands, the Punjabi heartland would be utterly cut off.
Cheers, Vıkram.
I've never ever worked anywhere where there has not been someone who given the choice I would not work with again. It's a job, you do your work, put up with the people you don't like, accept there are probably people there that don't like you a lot, and look forward to the weekends. - Josh Gray.
We need a supply line running through the northern part; your overunning the southern half of the country and leaving the nuts in control of the north would cut the supply lines we need and run the risk of US forces being to repulse your invasion and reopen them. That would be a disaster for both of our countries.
Today's lesson is brought to you by the word "niggardly". Remember kids, don't attribute to racism what can be explained by Scandinavian language roots. -- Robert Royall