Printable View
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7396366.stm
Interesting developments. I don't know what might come of this, but Pakistan is quickly becoming a joke, and if a war did occur between the US and Pakistan, there is quite the worrying possibility of amid the pandemonium, some nukes may go missing...Quote:
Originally Posted by BBC News
Guess we just see how it goes.
Nuke Pakistan. No more problems.
Except for the Nukes that fly back.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caius
Its normal that when you are soldier and you see foreign military helicopters landing into your country, you can shot them. Americans should be absolutely aware of it.
From what little google-fu i've done, there's hardly much chance of nukes flying back the other way. Maybe a few military bases hit, a tragedy, yes, but no major Western population centres. On the other hand though, if Pakistan decided to just go all out crazy with the end in sight, they could quite happily fire a few off at India, and i imagine India wouldn't be too happy about that, and would probably want to retaliate some way, and thus make the rest of the Arab world rather miffed...Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
Either way, it isn't a great thing. Plus, hitting the military bases starts that way, but what about the fallout?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikeus Caesar
Why do people talk about nuclear weapons like they're popcorn...
Not a good, trying to cross the border into Pakistan. Things are very heated up in Pakistan and could go wrong very quickly...
A few immediate deaths a few miles downwind, and a massive longterm increase in cancer rates for a few hundred miles downwind, presuming that a fair few nuke are used.Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
This is a good thing, or it could be. If we lead incursions into Waziristan that are countered with larger Pakistani troop numbers, we would be getting what we want. We simply want Pakistan to do their jobs in the west and that job includes a larger military presence with more independent action.
They can use the pretext of securing the border from Americans in order to hammer hidden Afghan and Pashtun insurgents - this will make the actions less sensational to traditionalist Muslims.
We can keep it cordial while they keep pressing the enemy. Pakistan would prefer war with terrorists over any sort of confrontation with the U.S. that they couldn't back out of - so let them choose that option instead of putting the choice on the back burner.
The Nuclear option is absurd. Pakistan is a lazy ally, not the enemy. These incursions will help get their eyes back on the ball.
~:rolleyes:Quote:
This is a good thing, or it could be.
Its just one of a long line of incidents between the coilition and the Pakitani army / border police /frontier force.
There are no positives about it as each incident has led to less co-operation between the Pakistani government and the coilition and more co-operation between the taliban and elements of the armed forces , plus every stike and incursion has meant more hostility towards the coilition by the local tribes and every government move at working with the coilition has led to increased hostility to the government from the population nationwide .
No these incidents mean that they take away the ball and stop any semblance of being on the same team .Quote:
These incursions will help get their eyes back on the ball.
What would you have done? Even Obama has proposed incursions into Waziristan and the rest of the border regions without adequate Pakistani action. If anything, the Bush administration has avoided it for too long.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
The reality about the Pakistan/Afghan border is that the regions are ethnically and linguistically identical. Couple this with the fact that the border is about the size of the border between Mexico and the United States and you have a serious strategic problem. I know that since you are Irish you don't have a horse in this race, but NATO is in Afghanistan and nearly everyone on this forum believes that the war there was both legal and necessary. How would you do it differently; just keep fighting the same way in Afghanistan while the border creeps east without us? Or should we be any nicer to the Pakistani government than we have been over the past 25 years?
I said that it could be a good thing because sometimes incursions get people on the ball. Colombia went into Ecuador - who is a quasi enemy - just this year and it almost sparked a war. In the end though, Ecuador was pressured to increase its anti-insurgency action along the common border. We have a long standing and pleasant diplomatic relationship with Pakistan. It's time that we cashed some of that in for firm action on the part of their government in response to these wild accusations that Afghan insurgents are living scot free within their Federal border lands.
It could go both ways, but I'm putting out an alternate scenario to all the talk of "cataclysmic nuclear holocaust" that we have in this thread.
Ridiculous to think that this is good in any way. For instance Pakistani leaders are already threatening to join the Taliban if the US military illegally enter their territory. By continuing this absurd and let me state again, completely illegal practice, the US is creating an enemy of the one of the few significant allies they have in that area. It is mind bogglingly stupid. However if the illegal incursions are continued what BS story is going to be used to justify it this time? Damn those democratic Arab countries, they make invasion so hard!
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:Quote:
We have a long standing and pleasant diplomatic relationship with Pakistan.
Hold on , I thought the american backed dictator just lost power:inquisitive:
I do wish someone would sticky my Iraq and Afghanistan posts so people don't keep asking the same questions year after year .Quote:
What would you have done?
Yes because they are now so backed into a corner . They is buggered ain't they.Quote:
Even Obama has proposed incursions into Waziristan and the rest of the border regions without adequate Pakistani action.
Actually the Bush administration screwed the Afghan plan from day 1 , its not just that they avoided the issue of the tribal belt , its that they blundered blindly during the whole Afghan fiasco .Quote:
If anything, the Bush administration has avoided it for too long.
Well no thats not fair really , they were not blind , the Armed forces had lots of studies on what to do if the area and what not to do , the administration decided not to just ignore the whole lot but to go against many of the core theories at the planning stage, so they wasn't blind just stupid .
Here's a pretty good article.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/158861/page/1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caius
Nuke The whole reigon, then we will have no more problems, but to logical for people....
This, ladies and gentleman, is a breakthrough in geopolitical thought! For to many years we have been shackled with problems of the world when the answer has been staring us in the face the whole time. Nuclear weapons the solution to all your petty disagreements.Quote:
Originally Posted by |Sith|3|AntiWarmanCake88 Toyosada88
Sith have you considered running for public office? Your exactly what this country needs a headstrong leader who follows his gut that'll show those people over there. Who are they all high and mighty with there oil walking around in there damn pajamas all day. The Heathens.
I am with JAG. Pakistani's borders should be respected.
NUKE THE WORLD. NO PROBLEMS. EVER AGAIN.
Looks like I’m going to get the jump on Tribesy here. There is no officially recognized border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. (I believe) The official position of Afghanistan is that the border (drawn by the British over 100 years ago) needs to be redefined as it was to last for only 100 years. Much like the Hong Kong lease agreement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
That place is beardistan the pakistan government has no power there but it's still theirs. Entering someone's border I wouldn't really call redefining, and it only weakens the power of that very government you need.
I will point americans who don't get why Europeans dislike them to this thread.
As a sidenote, I have had family dying in Afghanistan. NO I am not american, I am Swedish, so was the trooper.
You see, USA long ago gave up on that war, and left other countries to do their dirty job of cleaning up.
So, contrary to, well, 90% of the other posters in this therad, I am up to date with what happens there...
And no, NUKES is not the solution.
I do think the world would be a better place if someone nuked USA, would get some sence of vulnerability back, and, would make them understand what nukes does to people, for generations.
*sigh*
I got very sad when I read this thread.
Also, it creeps me out that the ONLY country ever to have used such a malign weapon as nukes, is the one claiming the morale highground, while their teenage (I hope you are teenage) citizens are screaming for more nukes...
Scary...
Frag,
The issue here is that people saying the US is crossing the border with Pakistan. We're not redefining the border, there isn't one. It's not just that there is no control of the region.
Yes. Nukes aren't the solution in less it is your solution. :yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
I am not saying I am for it, i am against people getting killed and wounded in any and all ways.
I am however saying I think that would stop the happy attitude some US citizens has towards nukes... And maybe they would start seeing the world in a different way.
I mean... name one country, other than the US, that has not gone 10 years without waring? And this is the country talking about morale highground and mission from god?
Point A - That the United States has given up in Afghanistan as of 9/15/2008: CRAZYQuote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
Point B - The world would be a better place if someone were to Nuke the United States: CRAZY
But other than that you sound pretty up to date...
The talking points of the current administration do not necessarily reflect that of the majority of the populace.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
But you are sadly mistaken if you think a nuclear explosion in the US would have your desired effect. 9/11 made us "feel vulnerable", but look at the response. Pity the country with a reactor that matches the radioactive signature of the material. Whoever is in charge after an attack would respond in kind, vengeance would be demanded by the populace. Sad to say, there would be no period of reflection, the country as a whole is not wired that way. Fear plus power is not a good combination.
This is BS. Why's everyone getting so up in arms over the US crossing into Waziristan? Tell me this; if you're chasing Bin Laden and his cronies all through Afghanistan, you're finally chasing them down, you see the "welcome to Pakistan, have a nice day!" sign, do you suddenly just stop? The Taliban and Al Qaeda are breaking international law with their movements all over international borders; as far as I'm concerned, if Pakistan's not going to get off its :daisy: and start actually DOING something like they're supposed to be, then we've got to hunt the :daisy:'s down even if it crossing the border. Or I suppose the Euros would rather the war in Afhanistan just go on forever while we try to play whack-a-mole trying to pin down forces whose bases we cannot extinguish and who's movements we cannot predict or monitor.
jurisdiction (from the Latin ius, iuris meaning "law" and dicere meaning "to speak") is the practical authority granted to a formally constituted legal body or to a political leader to deal with and make pronouncements on legal matters and, by implication, to administer justice within a defined area of responsibility.Quote:
Originally Posted by makaikhaan
Or in common English: Jurisdiction is the authority given to a legal body, or to a political leader (Prime Minister, President, etc.) to deal with legal matters, and to pronounce or enforce legal matters.
So we should give someone legal jurisdiction of a territory even when they have no actual authority over it? Pakistan as a government has somewhere between zero and no actual power over Waziristan.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
It doesn't matter. The last thing we need to do is push this country over the edge and you know what will tick these guys off? Poaching on their sovrigenty. Im willing to let a few bad guys get away to keep an ally. a nuclear allyQuote:
Originally Posted by makaikhaan
ALLY? :laugh4:
I doubt that. If they were an ALLY, there would be all kinds of hell being raised on their border with Afghanistan; the previous ruler of the country was a former general, and had full support of their military. Yet, the situation only dissolved the longer he was in power. Musharraf did NOTHING to stop the influx of militant groups into his OWN country, and the new government has done little better. And now we've got a democratically elected government, whom I'm sure just LOVES how we propped up the regime of a man who usurped power from, of all things, A DEMOCRACY. That Pakistan is actually an ally to us is a laughable to me.