US Presidential Elections thread - the fate of the world to be decided (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter Zlatan
- Start date
- Status
Pakistan has allways been a sensible target in terms of real politiks because its the nr 1 destabilizing anarchy hotspot in overall, after the Taliban went from running Afghanistan to hiding in caves ans waging guerrila warfare.
Pakistan is only rivalled by your big peaceful little allies the saudis (or aka the untouchable kingpin dealers to your highly addictive drug, oil), in being connected to terrorism. Not as directly as Pakistan as in actually recruiting or training them there (not the govt, but the "people"), but indirectly as in they fund pretty much anything and everything. But both having in common ofcourse being real power players, Pakistan for being a hotspot venue, and the Saudis for being backers of every little anti-western little movement while being the diplomatically closest to the west (or I should say to the US, I mean, haha, the Bush govt even made it illegal for CIA operatives to mention ANYTHING to do with the saudis in terrorism investigations, despite their vital job being following the money trail).
Again, in terms of real politiks, they are like 1000% more legit targets and culprits then Iraq (the totally inexistent players in foreign affairs) ever was and been. But ofcourse, much easier to make up a scapegoat, then go after the real culprits.
Pakistan is only rivalled by your big peaceful little allies the saudis (or aka the untouchable kingpin dealers to your highly addictive drug, oil), in being connected to terrorism. Not as directly as Pakistan as in actually recruiting or training them there (not the govt, but the "people"), but indirectly as in they fund pretty much anything and everything. But both having in common ofcourse being real power players, Pakistan for being a hotspot venue, and the Saudis for being backers of every little anti-western little movement while being the diplomatically closest to the west (or I should say to the US, I mean, haha, the Bush govt even made it illegal for CIA operatives to mention ANYTHING to do with the saudis in terrorism investigations, despite their vital job being following the money trail).
Again, in terms of real politiks, they are like 1000% more legit targets and culprits then Iraq (the totally inexistent players in foreign affairs) ever was and been. But ofcourse, much easier to make up a scapegoat, then go after the real culprits.
But what do you do after you invade Afghanistan (with the whole worlds support), "rattle" the cage a litte, and realise you dont really want to defeat your enemies? But make sure they get away and keep running around?
Because their existense gives you the undeniably convenient excuse to do whatever you want, fund whatever you want, attack whoever you want (Everything cant be as convenient enemies as the big ol soviets where, so they had to get creative). I mean, how convenient wasnt it that you withdrew from there exactly when you were about to really bury them? And then go attack pretty much the only country in that part of the world that had like zero connection to terrorism or where a threat to anyone but its citizens?
Because their existense gives you the undeniably convenient excuse to do whatever you want, fund whatever you want, attack whoever you want (Everything cant be as convenient enemies as the big ol soviets where, so they had to get creative). I mean, how convenient wasnt it that you withdrew from there exactly when you were about to really bury them? And then go attack pretty much the only country in that part of the world that had like zero connection to terrorism or where a threat to anyone but its citizens?
You didn't watch the vid did you? 
He doesn't accept the amount of dead that have been claimed to have happened. That's probably stupid considering what we know of history but it doesn't make him anti-Semitic. You claim that Vietnam didn't win the Vietnam war, there's something very wrong with that as well but you're not a racist for thinking that
I don't know what he said on his UN visits, do you have a video?
You make it sound like as if Pakistan is lacking in the department. Do you realize that the region these people are supposedly hiding in is one of the most rugged and mountainous areas in the world? Do you also realize that most of these terrorists have been living there since the Soviet-Afghan war? Do you then realize how hard it is to distinguish between friend and foe?
It's not as easy as you think; you can't expect Pakistan to just go there and start bombing. You're mistaken if you think that the US can do anything, just as it can't do shit in Afghanistan to track Osama because it's like finding a needle in a haystack; it's the same exact scenario in the NWFP part of Pakistan. I know, because I've been there.
This is just another way to divert people's attention because there's obvious failure. What happened right after the invasion of Afghanistan and the failure to capture Osama? "Let's invade Iraq and get that Sad'dam' guy"
Oh get off it. The United States is just as connected to terrorism as Pakistan. The CIA has been helping out 'terrorist' groups longer than most our grandparents have been alive and that's a damn fact; everywhere from Mexico to freakin' Japan.
The biggest crime Pakistan has made is that it has one of the most powerful intelligence agencies in the world and because of that it's been involved with everything in the region ever since Soviet war.
Yea, lets take out Pakistan, that's a more reasonable idea...oh wait, they have Nukes!
Bummer.
He doesn't accept the amount of dead that have been claimed to have happened. That's probably stupid considering what we know of history but it doesn't make him anti-Semitic. You claim that Vietnam didn't win the Vietnam war, there's something very wrong with that as well but you're not a racist for thinking that I don't know what he said on his UN visits, do you have a video?
You make it sound like as if Pakistan is lacking in the department. Do you realize that the region these people are supposedly hiding in is one of the most rugged and mountainous areas in the world? Do you also realize that most of these terrorists have been living there since the Soviet-Afghan war? Do you then realize how hard it is to distinguish between friend and foe?
It's not as easy as you think; you can't expect Pakistan to just go there and start bombing. You're mistaken if you think that the US can do anything, just as it can't do shit in Afghanistan to track Osama because it's like finding a needle in a haystack; it's the same exact scenario in the NWFP part of Pakistan. I know, because I've been there.
This is just another way to divert people's attention because there's obvious failure. What happened right after the invasion of Afghanistan and the failure to capture Osama? "Let's invade Iraq and get that Sad'dam' guy"
Oh get off it. The United States is just as connected to terrorism as Pakistan. The CIA has been helping out 'terrorist' groups longer than most our grandparents have been alive and that's a damn fact; everywhere from Mexico to freakin' Japan.
The biggest crime Pakistan has made is that it has one of the most powerful intelligence agencies in the world and because of that it's been involved with everything in the region ever since Soviet war.
Yea, lets take out Pakistan, that's a more reasonable idea...oh wait, they have Nukes!
Bummer.
I would love to argue with you for the first time ever in this forum, but I dont dispute any of the above I am frankly insulted you even need to say the first paragraph like I would disagree with it (by gazillions of rants about the cold war-ish foreign policy in this forum attests to otherwise).
When I say Pakistan, I dont mean the goverment as the direct responsible one, but the fact its a country that cant really police itself well enough (and when it can, its reluctant too because of the backlash its bound to get from its extremist populace) and controll all the difference factions and the violatile extremists, in parts it has been a total anarchy with not only being a hotbed for terrorism sentiment, but actually training them there (and yeah, the trainings started out there way back when the US "trained" them for the soviet-afghani war).
One of thee only few redeeming qualities Musharraff had in my eyes was the way he dealt with this gigantic task, tip-toing around that delicate balance with very little resources (you have nukes, but its like thats your whole resources to scare away boogey men, that and ISA, because your practical military forces are way over its head in day to day bussiness in dealing with "rebels").
And dealing with the above, with its direct involve in terrorism or its strategic impoartance to the taliban war (talibans having safe haven just by crossing your borders etc, or the counterproductive influence Pakistan has had in Afghanistan throughout its modern history), does not just mean invading Pakistan and not advocating something that drastic. But with whatever way its deemed, big or small, its something that has to be dealt with if ones whole task is to deal with terrorism.
Because besides the Saudis, the country that has most involvement it is Pakistan, however unvoluntarily it is (Forced into it by power plays by the extremists etc. though that does not mean your govt is by any means innocent, the ISA you are bragging about is shady as fuck). And as I said in the above post, and meant it strictly in pragmatic real politik a devils advocates kinda way, its way more legit target to take care of terrorism then Iraq that had zero to with it.
I am frankly insulted you even need to say the first paragraph like I would disagree with it (by gazillions of rants about the cold war-ish foreign policy in this forum attests to otherwise).When I say Pakistan, I dont mean the goverment as the direct responsible one, but the fact its a country that cant really police itself well enough (and when it can, its reluctant too because of the backlash its bound to get from its extremist populace) and controll all the difference factions and the violatile extremists, in parts it has been a total anarchy with not only being a hotbed for terrorism sentiment, but actually training them there (and yeah, the trainings started out there way back when the US "trained" them for the soviet-afghani war).
One of thee only few redeeming qualities Musharraff had in my eyes was the way he dealt with this gigantic task, tip-toing around that delicate balance with very little resources (you have nukes, but its like thats your whole resources to scare away boogey men, that and ISA, because your practical military forces are way over its head in day to day bussiness in dealing with "rebels").
And dealing with the above, with its direct involve in terrorism or its strategic impoartance to the taliban war (talibans having safe haven just by crossing your borders etc, or the counterproductive influence Pakistan has had in Afghanistan throughout its modern history), does not just mean invading Pakistan and not advocating something that drastic. But with whatever way its deemed, big or small, its something that has to be dealt with if ones whole task is to deal with terrorism.
Because besides the Saudis, the country that has most involvement it is Pakistan, however unvoluntarily it is (Forced into it by power plays by the extremists etc. though that does not mean your govt is by any means innocent, the ISA you are bragging about is shady as fuck). And as I said in the above post, and meant it strictly in pragmatic real politik a devils advocates kinda way, its way more legit target to take care of terrorism then Iraq that had zero to with it.
there were no extremists in Pakistan...those people have been created become that way because we started supporting the US on its treasure hunt for OBL...and it is the ISI btw...the people that live near the border with Afghanistan are of the same ethinicity as the Afghans and naturally have a bond with them, which Pakistan has been forced to turn its back on because of the US
you're right but to a certain degree...those "extremists/fundamentalists" were CIA pawns when they were fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan for 9 years...back then they were mujaheddin/freedom fighters...but like I said earlier, they share the same ethnicity so their activities have crossed over to Pakistan...the people that are hurting Pakistan these days, with the rash of suicide bombings, THOSE people have been organised because of the US war in Afghanistan
I would love to argue with you for the first time ever in this forum, but I dont dispute any of the above I am frankly insulted you even need to say the first paragraph like I would disagree with it (by gazillions of rants about the cold war-ish foreign policy in this forum attests to otherwise).
When I say Pakistan, I dont mean the goverment as the direct responsible one, but the fact its a country that cant really police itself well enough (and when it can, its reluctant too because of the backlash its bound to get from its extremist populace) and controll all the difference factions and the violatile extremists, in parts it has been a total anarchy with not only being a hotbed for terrorism sentiment, but actually training them there (and yeah, the trainings started out there way back when the US "trained" them for the soviet-afghani war). One of thee only few redeeming qualities Musharraff had in my eyes was the way he dealt with this gigantic task, tip-toing around that delicate balance with very little resources (you have nukes, but its like thats your whole resources to scare away boogey men, that and ISA, because your practical military forces are way over its head in day to day bussiness in dealing with "rebels"). And dealing with the above, with its direct involve in terrorism or its strategic impoartance to the taliban war (talibans having safe haven just by crossing your borders etc, or the counterproductive influence Pakistan has had in Afghanistan throughout its modern history), does not just mean invading Pakistan and not advocating something that drastic. But with whatever way its deemed, big or small, its something that has to be dealt with if ones whole task is to deal with terrorism. Because besides the Saudis, the country that has most involvement it is Pakistan, however unvoluntarily it is (Forced into it by power plays by the extremists etc. though that does not mean your govt is by any means innocent, the ISA you are bragging about is shady as fuck). And as I said in the above post, and meant it strictly in pragmatic real politik a devils advocates kinda way, its way more legit target to take care of terrorism then Iraq that had zero to with it.
I am frankly insulted you even need to say the first paragraph like I would disagree with it (by gazillions of rants about the cold war-ish foreign policy in this forum attests to otherwise).When I say Pakistan, I dont mean the goverment as the direct responsible one, but the fact its a country that cant really police itself well enough (and when it can, its reluctant too because of the backlash its bound to get from its extremist populace) and controll all the difference factions and the violatile extremists, in parts it has been a total anarchy with not only being a hotbed for terrorism sentiment, but actually training them there (and yeah, the trainings started out there way back when the US "trained" them for the soviet-afghani war). One of thee only few redeeming qualities Musharraff had in my eyes was the way he dealt with this gigantic task, tip-toing around that delicate balance with very little resources (you have nukes, but its like thats your whole resources to scare away boogey men, that and ISA, because your practical military forces are way over its head in day to day bussiness in dealing with "rebels"). And dealing with the above, with its direct involve in terrorism or its strategic impoartance to the taliban war (talibans having safe haven just by crossing your borders etc, or the counterproductive influence Pakistan has had in Afghanistan throughout its modern history), does not just mean invading Pakistan and not advocating something that drastic. But with whatever way its deemed, big or small, its something that has to be dealt with if ones whole task is to deal with terrorism. Because besides the Saudis, the country that has most involvement it is Pakistan, however unvoluntarily it is (Forced into it by power plays by the extremists etc. though that does not mean your govt is by any means innocent, the ISA you are bragging about is shady as fuck). And as I said in the above post, and meant it strictly in pragmatic real politik a devils advocates kinda way, its way more legit target to take care of terrorism then Iraq that had zero to with it.
Nukes is the only (as if it's only) resource to scare away the boogyman? Dude, what do you know about the military of Pakistan? They're no pushovers, history shows that. You're mistaken if you think they're an Iraq or an Afghanistan. They have one of the most powerful army's in the world. It has had to been one because of its conflict with India.
I'm not bragging about the ISI, it's a known fact that they're powerful. It's ranked in the top 5 amongst all intelligence agencies in the world.
No Tahir I have no idea that the border between Pakistan and Afganistan has some of the most mountainous terrain in the world. In fact I'm pretty sure there is no such thing as a mountain. No I'm a dumb American. I don't know what a Soviet is and I don't care. All that matters is that Pakistan is a bunch of terrorists. Now before you go and berate and accuse you may want to get the fuck off your high horse.
All I said was that it is impossible for Pakistan to keep ahold of its borders. That is true. I assumed most of the people posting in this thread knew that there were mountains there and that agents of terror had been living there for the last 20 years. I assumed this knowledge was known as the subject has been discussed on this forum many times. I did not act like some pompous ass and attempt to belittle and berate someone for no reason.
All I posted is that the new leader in Pakistan, whatever his name is, is not to fond of US patrols or planes flying across the border. I made no blame. Now that you open the door I'm ready to play your game. The truth is that Pakistan has been ruled by a dictator who took US funds but did fuck all to help the situation. The truth of the matter is that Al Queada is rampant in that area and in order to complete the US goal of "conquering terrorism" troops will probably need to cross the Pakistan-Afganistan border at one time or another. Which is why I said the situation would be interesting. Because it will be.
All I said was that it is impossible for Pakistan to keep ahold of its borders. That is true. I assumed most of the people posting in this thread knew that there were mountains there and that agents of terror had been living there for the last 20 years. I assumed this knowledge was known as the subject has been discussed on this forum many times. I did not act like some pompous ass and attempt to belittle and berate someone for no reason.
All I posted is that the new leader in Pakistan, whatever his name is, is not to fond of US patrols or planes flying across the border. I made no blame. Now that you open the door I'm ready to play your game. The truth is that Pakistan has been ruled by a dictator who took US funds but did fuck all to help the situation. The truth of the matter is that Al Queada is rampant in that area and in order to complete the US goal of "conquering terrorism" troops will probably need to cross the Pakistan-Afganistan border at one time or another. Which is why I said the situation would be interesting. Because it will be.
- Status