Fire in the hole! Now the Pakis are taking shots at US helos

[Onkel Neal]

Pakistani and American Troops Exchange Fire (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/26/world/asia/26military.html?em)


Time to get closer to India.

[Dowly]

Wasnt the U.S. the one to go over to Pakistan with Special Forces and later with choppers?

I mean, you wouldnt want russia to have their Spetznaz hunting terrorists on your backyard without permission right?

[Platapus]

Lemme get this straight

Pakistani security forces were manning a security check point within Pakistan

"Pakistani military checkpoint near Tanai district in Khost Province."

Nato/US claims that its helicopters were 1 mile inside Afghanistan air space

"American and NATO officials said that the two helicopters were flying about one mile inside Afghan air space

This means that the Pakistani's were shooting at a helicopter that was more than a mile away (depending on the altitude) assuming that the Pakistani checkpoint was exactly on the border? Almost 1800 meters? That is some shooting with small arms.

Me thinks there is more to this story.......

[Dowly]

If this is the same incident, the Finnish told this about a week ago. Also, the US Special forcers intrusion was told over 2 or so weeks ago. Hard to say what is true, but if US has gone to Pakistani territory, even if to hunt Al-qaida, I think US deserves to get slapped to it's hands.

Be it war on terrorism all they want, but if you want to be the good guys, follow the rules and respect other countries. If you dont, you just make yourselves look as bad as the terrorists.

Just my 2 cents, dont shoot me.

[Letum]

Whats with the ethnic slurs? :nope:
Not what I usually expect from you Neal.

*edit* Perhaps it doesn't have all the connotations in the US that it does here, but all the same...

[Sea Demon]

Yikes. :huh: So now there's bad blood with Pakistan?

[bookworm_020]

I saw the story about the earlier border incident with the troops over the border, and one yesterday about Pakistan shooting down a US drone. If America wants to go after people across the border, it better be upfront and not just say it was an accident, otherwise it's going to be hauled over the hot coals for it!

[Skybird]

Not the first time, Neal:

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=142117


Whats with the ethnic slurs? :nope:
Not what I usually expect from you Neal.

*edit* Perhaps it doesn't have all the connotations in the US that it does here, but all the same...
What ethnic slurs? He said "Pakistani and American troops exchange fire. Time to get closer to India." Is moving away from a hostile enemy already discrimination today...?

Time to make a decision. Shift forces there with determination and pull out the gloves regarding the pakistani, or give up the region and pull out. The road to victory in Afghanistan leads over Pakistan. they never were allies or friends - that is a self-deception only. they worked against Afghnaistan from the very beginning.

[Letum]

What ethnic slurs?

See the topic title.

"Paki" is a strong racial slur from the 50s/60s in the UK.. The equivalent of "Jap" or
"******", but for anyone of South Asian ethnicity.

[Skybird]

Oh, language-specific. In German you could use it without anybody thinking about it. It's a simple short form. i assume neal meant it that way, if your story really is half a century ago meanwhile.

I had a friend at university, a girl from Korea. I called her "rice-ball".

[RickC Sniper]

I have a neice that was born in S Korea. I call her rice-ball too, and we are very close.

Paki to me does not seem a derogatory term.

[Reece]

Paki to me does not seem a derogatory term.
And I doubt that Neal had any bad intentions.:)

[Sailor Steve]

Paki to me does not seem a derogatory term.
And I doubt that Neal had any bad intentions.:)
You never know. Those Texis can be pretty sneaky sometimes.:rotfl:

[Onkel Neal]

Whats with the ethnic slurs? :nope:
Not what I usually expect from you Neal.

*edit* Perhaps it doesn't have all the connotations in the US that it does here, but all the same...

Huh? what did I say? :o

[Onkel Neal]

What ethnic slurs?

See the topic title.

"Paki" is a strong racial slur from the 50s/60s in the UK.. The equivalent of "Jap" or
"******", but for anyone of South Asian ethnicity.

Oh, I see, in the title. Is Paki on the same level as n****?? Really? Color me surprised.

Honestly, I have no idea if Paki is a slur. I just used it because the length of my thread title was already too long and Pakistanis would not fit.

[Onkel Neal]

If this is the same incident, the Finnish told this about a week ago. Also, the US Special forcers intrusion was told over 2 or so weeks ago. Hard to say what is true, but if US has gone to Pakistani territory, even if to hunt Al-qaida, I think US deserves to get slapped to it's hands.

Be it war on terrorism all they want, but if you want to be the good guys, follow the rules and respect other countries. If you dont, you just make yourselves look as bad as the terrorists.

Just my 2 cents, dont shoot me.

Yeah, I suppose you're right. Ok, I agree they can fire off random shots at our aircraft as long as Special Forces get those terrorists hiding in their country.

[bookworm_020]

Their military units are reffered to as Pak uints in this article

http://news.smh.com.au/world/pakistan-slams-us-after-border-gunfire-20080926-4o8o.html

[joegrundman]

What ethnic slurs?
See the topic title.

"Paki" is a strong racial slur from the 50s/60s in the UK.. The equivalent of "Jap" or
"******", but for anyone of South Asian ethnicity.
Oh, I see, in the title. Is Paki on the same level as n****?? Really? Color me surprised.

Honestly, I have no idea if Paki is a slur. I just used it because the length of my thread title was already too long and Pakistanis would not fit.

it's a british thing.

[PeriscopeDepth]

Letting Pakistan have a free reign in Afghanistan for so long has been biting us in the ass for most of this decade now. I am not surprised if this is actually coming to both sides exchanging bullets now. What with us essentially invading a "friendly" foreign country and Pakistan's intelligence services almost certainly turning a blind eye to a man who murdered thousands of American civilians. Each side can only pretend to get along for their own respective interests for so long.

PD

[Skybird]

What ethnic slurs?
See the topic title.

"Paki" is a strong racial slur from the 50s/60s in the UK.. The equivalent of "Jap" or
"******", but for anyone of South Asian ethnicity.
Oh, I see, in the title. Is Paki on the same level as n****?? Really? Color me surprised.

Honestly, I have no idea if Paki is a slur. I just used it because the length of my thread title was already too long and Pakistanis would not fit.

it's a british thing.
Then Neal is excused. Texas never was part of the British empire! :D

[Skybird]

Letting Pakistan have a free reign in Afghanistan for so long has been biting us in the ass for most of this decade now. I am not surprised if this is actually coming to both sides exchanging bullets now. What with us essentially invading a "friendly" foreign country and Pakistan's intelligence services almost certainly turning a blind eye to a man who murdered thousands of American civilians. Each side can only pretend to get along for their own respective interests for so long.

PD
Yep, all the attention that was going to Iraq, should have been gone into Afghanistan - AND Pakistan as well. I mean they have close ties with the Taleban since thirty years and longer, the taleban are their creation, so what do you expect. After the field battle was won, one should have prepared for the inevitable comeback by mounting enough forces to take Pakistan out of the formula and discouraging them completely from sticking their nose into Afghan business any longer. As a matter of fact neither Pakistan nor Iran have any interest in a stable Afghanistan strong enough to meet them on same eye level.

[Onkel Neal]

What ethnic slurs?
See the topic title.

"Paki" is a strong racial slur from the 50s/60s in the UK.. The equivalent of "Jap" or
"******", but for anyone of South Asian ethnicity.
Oh, I see, in the title. Is Paki on the same level as n****?? Really? Color me surprised.

Honestly, I have no idea if Paki is a slur. I just used it because the length of my thread title was already too long and Pakistanis would not fit.

it's a british thing.
Then Neal is excused. Texas never was part of the British empire! :D

Haha, no but we were part of the Comanche, French, Spanish, and Mexican empires at various times :cool: Everyone but the British.

[Jimbuna]

What ethnic slurs?
See the topic title.

"Paki" is a strong racial slur from the 50s/60s in the UK.. The equivalent of "Jap" or
"******", but for anyone of South Asian ethnicity.
Oh, I see, in the title. Is Paki on the same level as n****?? Really? Color me surprised.

Honestly, I have no idea if Paki is a slur. I just used it because the length of my thread title was already too long and Pakistanis would not fit.

it's a british thing.
Then Neal is excused. Texas never was part of the British empire! :D

Haha, no but we were part of the Comanche, French, Spanish, and Mexican empires at various times :cool: Everyone but the British.

Only because we didn't realise at the time you had vast oil reserves :p

[UnderseaLcpl]

Lemme get this straight

Pakistani security forces were manning a security check point within Pakistan

"Pakistani military checkpoint near Tanai district in Khost Province."

Nato/US claims that its helicopters were 1 mile inside Afghanistan air space

"American and NATO officials said that the two helicopters were flying about one mile inside Afghan air space

This means that the Pakistani's were shooting at a helicopter that was more than a mile away (depending on the altitude) assuming that the Pakistani checkpoint was exactly on the border? Almost 1800 meters? That is some shooting with small arms.

Me thinks there is more to this story.......


I think so as well. Even light machine guns rarely have an effective range that long.

I think this was a case of some troops overreacting to a percieved challenge.

Perhaps the Pakistani troops were taking pot-shots at the choppers to vent some anti-american sentiment. Or perhaps the U.S. troops saw flares, or tracers, or whatever and decided to shoot first and ask questions later.

Stuff like that happens. It should be expected when young men are filled with national and military pride, given a gun, and pointed in a general direction. Troops are always looking for a threat or a fight. That's what they're supposed to do. It just has unforseen consequences sometimes.


The U.S. and Pakistan are in a very difficult position right now, but I don't think this little skirmish will escelate into war for the time being. Both countries have too much to lose. I expect the U.S. will continue to probe Pakistan searching for evidence that they are harbouring terrorists, and Pakistan will attempt to prevent such probes, either because they are hiding terrorists or because they fear heavy-handed U.S. military intervention in their domestic affairs. As such, I don't see much progress ever being made.

What a quandry. I guess we'll see how it plays out.

[Skybird]

The evidence they already have, Lance, it is obvious. It walks around and in and out of Afghanistan and grins at the americans when taking shelter in Pakistan. It's now about killing that walking around evidence inside Pakistan and not allow Pakistani troops to protect them. If they move out of the way, good, and if they position themselves in the way, shoot right through them at the taleban behind them.

as long as Pakistan is dealt with like in the past seven years, there is no real chance to ever decide afghanistan. It will turn into the Al-Quaeda announced twenty years of war indeed. I do not know why the american economy should be expected to pay that long for a war. Let those pay for it who not only created but still hiddenly protect the Taleban: Pakistan. I remind of Pakistan's highly questionable role - to put it politely - in international nuclear proliferation as well. For me, Pakistan is more dangerous than Iran and North Korea. It plays the tricks of North Korea, it is as islamic as Iran, and tolerant of Islamic terror if only it is not targetted itself - but different to iran, it already possesses nuclear weapons.

High time to show them the red line which to cross will be discouraging costly for them. Forget Iraq. don't think you can solve Afghanistan without solving pakistan first. Pakistan should become top priority. To get India and China into the boat, would be of tremendous help. Both are not happy for Pakistan's destabilizing role in the region. Getting India maybe is possible, China, of course, is extremely difficult: they will prefer to see America struggling around with a problem that damages America continously.

[UnderseaLcpl]

The evidence they already have, Lance, it is obvious. It walks around and in and out of Afghanistan and grins at the americans when taking shelter in Pakistan. It's now about killing that walking around evidence inside Pakistan and not allow Pakistani troops to protect them. If they move out of the way, good, and if they position themselves in the way, shoot right through them at the taleban behind them.

as long as Pakistan is dealt with like in the past seven years, there is no real chance to ever decide afghanistan. It will turn into the Al-Quaeda announced twenty years of war indeed. I do not know why the american economy should be expected to pay that long for a war. Let those pay for it who not only created but still hiddenly protect the Taleban: Pakistan. I remind of Pakistan's highly questionable role - to put it politely - in international nuclear proliferation as well. For me, Pakistan is more dangerous than Iran and North Korea. It plays the tricks of North Korea, it is as islamic as Iran, and tolerant of Islamic terror if only it is not targetted itself - but different to iran, it already possesses nuclear weapons.

High time to show them the red line which to cross will be discouraging costly for them. Forget Iraq. don't think you can solve Afghanistan without solving pakistan first. Pakistan should become top priority. To get India and China into the boat, would be of tremendous help. Both are not happy for Pakistan's destabilizing role in the region. Getting India maybe is possible, China, of course, is extremely difficult: they will prefer to see America struggling around with a problem that damages America continously.

You act like we disagree about this stuff. I just wanted to be as objective as possible. But, should we choose to "shoot through them" as you say, would Germany help? What about the other European countries?
These wars are bankrupting us almost as much as our own domestic policy is. We can't do all this stuff by ourselves.

(joking now:D ) It's high time you Germans got off your a$$es and started building some "wonderweapons" for the war on terror. God knows we could use them! '
But this time, make sure they arrive in a timely fashion!:D

[Brag]

The big problem is that the war is spreading beyond the tribal areas. American incursions will alienate the rest of Pakistan and we will have the Punjabis and Sindis joining in. That will be big trouble.

[Jimbuna]

That is a very possible consequence :yep:

Time to rethink the overall strategy in the area :hmm:

[Kipparikalle]

Skybird, why such a hatred against people of Pakistan?

They just are inconnect people man, its not like theyre hiding Osama bling O laden in their fridge

[Konovalov]

http://news.smh.com.au/world/pakistan-says-1000-militants-killed-near-afghan-border-20080927-4p0s.html

Not sure where the truth lies regarding numbers but Pakistan look to be doing something for a change. Perhaps they have realised it was not such a good idea all those years backing the Taliban (Afghan and Pakistan). You reap what you sow. I have lost count how may suicide bombings and other attacks there have been in Pakistan this year.

[Skybird]

Skybird, why such a hatred against people of Pakistan?

They just are inconnect people man, its not like theyre hiding Osama bling O laden in their fridge
Don't mistake "hate" with "determination". I just think the wars of the past 7 years have been handled in a very stupid way. The war in Afghanistan was given up far too early - and almost everybody knowing the region and the history of it a bit said so. But Bush and the Neocons wanted their stupid little adventure in Iraq, and so everything that should have been massed in Afghanistan to give Pakistan a strong message, instead went into this unneeded, unwanted WAR OF CHOICE in Iraq. Now we see half-hearted attempts to tell the Pakistani to stop supporting the taleban and providing them shelter on their territory. Íf you think you need to wage war, do it with determination, with focus, push as hard as is needed and then some more, and be sure of your motives. With Iraq I have a problem because it was unneeded, and counterproductive, and a war of unlegitimized attack anyway. with Afghanistan, after 9/11 giving shelter for the attackers behind that strike, my problem is that it was done without orientation from the beginning, and still so, instead there are plenty of illusions. The US instead should have completely stayed focussed on pakistan and Afghanistan exclusively. It also should have remained to be an American war, not a NATO issue, NATO simply has no business there, and remember: after 9/11 the Us refused to call for military assistance. If it later acts stupdily and brings itself into a situation where it wants and needs NATO help, then this is no legitimatiopn to do so by tterms of the defense case as stated in article 5 of the NATO treaty. I see no realistic orientation there in the present, and for the future. Thus I reject to see my country getting entangled there more and more, all for nothing but tapping around blindly in the Afghan maze. That is not what I am willing to send soldiers into battle for. That is not taking the responsibility for your men serious - that is wasting their life and health instead, for nothing. In other words: you commit a crime against your own side. conclusion: without Pakistan being taken out of the formula, there is no realistic perspective to ever bring Afghanistan to any "successful" end. You keep on fighting a useless and unnecessary war then, so: pull out. but if you want to "win" there, you must be willing to take the fight to the Pakistani side and hurting it so badly that they reconsider the answer to the question wether their support for the Taleban is worth it, or not. Battles are not won by caring for your enemy and saving him from harm - but by crushing him as badly as possible. If you are not ready to will that, don't wage war, and pull out. the choice you make regqarding your future goals dictates the tools you need to implement in order to get there. The methods of today - do not work, whioch after 7 years should have become obvious.

[Skybird]

http://news.smh.com.au/world/pakistan-says-1000-militants-killed-near-afghan-border-20080927-4p0s.html

Not sure where the truth lies regarding numbers but Pakistan look to be doing something for a change. Perhaps they have realised it was not such a good idea all those years backing the Taliban (Afghan and Pakistan). You reap what you sow. I have lost count how may suicide bombings and other attacks there have been in Pakistan this year.
yes. and now add to this the confused political situation there, and the recent drive of religious groups to more power and public influence and profile. It's a powderkeg, and the fuse is burning. Pakistan will give us much joy and delight in the future - guaranteed. Clock is ticking against the West.

[Skybird]

P.S. At the airport of Cologne-Bonn, german special commandos today have arrested two Islamist germans in a plane who were under surveillance since month and were booked as terror-activists. they wanted to get a dedicated terror-training and or joining the jihad, which in the end is the same, and were heading for - Pakistan.

An islamic terror-cell that was busted one year ago - all of them german converts with one foreign Muslim being the mastermind and escaping - received it'S terror training in - Pakistan. they planned bombings with several hundreds of kilograms of explosives.

If you read back over the last couple of years, most Muslims arrested over claims of terrorism, got their training and experience in - Pakistan.

Pakistan provides the manpower, or trains it. Saudi Arabia and Iran provide the money.

[Konovalov]

and now add to this the confused political situation there,
When has the political situation not been confused. :lol:

and the recent drive of religious groups to more power and public influence and profile.
Not sure about this. :-? Elections that were held back in February resulted in religious parties even in the tribal zones loosing significant support. They got hammered at the ballot box because the common Pakistani realised that they weren't offering anything and hadn't delivered anything tangible to the people in their constituencies. It would perhaps be fair to say that it is in flux with regards to the fortunes of the "religious groups".

The impression that I get from speaking with people on the ground (my wifes relatives and family) in Pindi, Islamabad and Azad Kashmir also point to a growing rejection of these political religious groups and more so the renunciation and disdain for the Pakistani Taliban and Al Qaeda associates who are perpetrating the many acts of violence and terror within the country. Anecdotally that is the impression that I have got over the last 8-10 months. I believe I have somewhat of a grounding in what is going on there not to mention I have travelled there now which was a real eye opener for an Aussie. A week doesn't go by without discussing it at the family dinner table or at the relatives homes.

I feel that there slowly is rising a sea change of opinion within Pakistan against these very forces that you suggest are on the advance. Over the last decade yes they have been on the advance. However the February elections blunted this. And at street level Pakistanis are beginning to realise that their own nation is under attack from within. Indeed this was mentioned in a CSM article I read earlier this month. Found it here. (http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0906/p01s01-wosc.html) Specifically from that article:


Ironically, it comes at a time when Zardari and the civilian government have been making progress in rallying public support for the war on terror, casting it as a Pakistani war, not a proxy war for America. Zardari reiterated that stance in a column in Thursday's Washington Post. "We stand with the United States, Britain, Spain and others who have been attacked," he wrote. "Fundamentally, however, the war we are fighting is our war. This battle is for Pakistan's soul."


And from a Peter Bergan article for CNN that I kept on file from Februaury 2008:

Now the violence from the al Qaeda and Taliban militants is blowing back into Pakistan itself. In 2006 there were a handful of suicide attacks there. Last year there were 60 suicide bombings, mostly directed against Pakistani soldiers, policeman and government officials. The most prominent victim of the attacks was, of course, Pakistan’s most popular politician, Benazir Bhutto. Director of National Intelligence, Mike McConnell, testified earlier this month that suicide attacks in 2007 had killed nearly 900 Pakistani forces and civilians, and another 500 deaths were caused by armed clashes with the militants. McConnell pointed out that “in 2007, Pakistanis’ losses [at the hands of the militants] exceeded the cumulative total of all the years between 2001 and 2006.”

This wave of militant violence in Pakistan has led to a sharp decrease in support for al Qaeda and the Taliban. The polling organization Terror Free Tomorrow released a poll last week that showed that if the Taliban were on the ballot in Monday’s election in Pakistan they would garner only 3% of the vote, while al Qaeda would secure only 1% of the vote. Similarly, the poll found that favorable views of both Osama bin Laden and the Taliban have halved since the summer of 2007. Favorable views of bin Laden in the North West Frontier Province of Pakistan where he is widely believed to be hiding have plummeted from 70% to 4%.

This sharp loss of public support, together with the attacks directed at Pakistani authorities, might make it easier for Pakistan’s military to eliminate the safe haven for the militants in Pakistan’s tribal areas on the Afghan border, something it has so far proven unable or unwilling to do. And the new government elected on Monday may have the mandate to demand that Pakistan’s militants be finally put out of business.


However having said the above there was a poll taken later this year in June which showed a desire to negotiate with the Taliban and cease fighting in conjuction with a general unhappiness with their own government in particular with the increasing struggles of every day life such as seen in the dramatic rise in food prices and essentials such as atta (flour).

Yet the last three months have seen some of the most horrific attacks by Al Qaeda and Pakistani/Afghan Taliban within Pakistans borders resulting in the deaths of many innocent civilians. In particular have been the suicide bombings killing Pakistani schoolgirls among others during the holy month of Ramadan 1429ah which is anathema to those I know. It would be interesting to see anoth poll of Pakistani public opinion at the end of this year. :hmm:

For reference you can compare the two polls that were taken here in June 2008 (http://www.terrorfreetomorrow.org/upimagestft/PakistanPollReportJune08.pdf) and earlier in Februaury 2008 here (http://www.terrorfreetomorrow.org/upimagestft/TFT%20Pakistan%20Poll%20Report.pdf).

[Konovalov]

If you read back over the last couple of years, most Muslims arrested over claims of terrorism, got their training and experience in - Pakistan.
Stating the obvious there mate. Except we could go back a lot longer than that to 9/11 and even many years earlier to Ramzi Yousef and the 1993 WTC bombing and the later foiled Bojinka plot which appeared like the inspiration for the recently foiled liquid bomb airline plot from last year. Training for all of these attacks/plots were centered in Pakistan.

Pakistan provides the manpower, or trains it. Saudi Arabia and Iran provide the money.
Correct again. :yep:

[Skybird]

You give an ambigous sitrep by that. We would need to wait and see, then. however, inaction is no option for the West with a war going on in Afghanistan and western soldiers risking their lives, so it should be started (or continued - a matter of perspective) with building a solid front against Pakistan so that even the most undecided Pakistani can see in all clearity that not fighting with determination against the taleban and kill them down and remaining in a comfortable stand of neutral passivity instead - is not an option that comes at no costly price. they have had decades to get their acts together and assess the Taleban, and their past record speaks against them. I stick with accusing their intel and military to strongly sympathize with them. So, as long as there is no massive cleaning taking place in their security apparatus (unlikely), it cannot be trusted and very probably will carry on to run double-plays.

[Konovalov]

You give an ambigous sitrep by that.
That would be because the very nature of Pakistani politics and internal affairs is one of incredible unpredictability which lends to great difficulty being an almighty sage and predicting Pakistans future. So yes, we will need to wait and see.

[Brag]

That is a very possible consequence :yep:

Time to rethink the overall strategy in the area :hmm:

Right Jimbo,
This type of war is won by finesse, not brutal force.

[Platapus]

This type of war is won by finesse, not brutal force.
:up:

[mrbeast]

This type of war is won by finesse, not brutal force.
:up:

I second that Platapus:up:

Think you hit the nail right on the head there Brag:up:

[Platapus]

This type of war is won by finesse, not brutal force.
:up:

I second that Platapus:up:

Think you hit the nail right on the head there Brag:up:

That Brag guy is pretty smart. He should write a book or something one of these days.

[Skybird]

Superior finesse and polite restraint and civilised dosages have been tried for years now.

Let's see how far this will lead you in the future years to come.

Ah, not necessary, I already know the answer.

Sang Roger Whittaker 30 years ago:
"Everybody is looking for an answer,
now that you tried your way -
why don't you try my way!" :know:

[Frame57]

"Never hate your enemies, it affects your judgement"


Don Vito Corleone

[Stealth Hunter]

What ethnic slurs?

See the topic title.

"Paki" is a strong racial slur from the 50s/60s in the UK.. The equivalent of "Jap" or
"******", but for anyone of South Asian ethnicity.

Heh, reminds me of the time that this fellow in the airport called me a "Sand Ni***r".:roll:

Racism is stupid as hell.

[AntEater]

How dare they?
A sovreign nation firing at armed foreign helicopters crossing their border?
:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

This is the Bush doctrine at its worst.
Why give a frackin damn about other nations, diplomacy, intelligence work, negotiations and all that other liberal pinko BS when we have the Delta Force?

Especially funny when you consider how critical the US was about Russia invading Georgia

[CCIP]

How dare they?
A sovreign nation firing at armed foreign helicopters crossing their border?
:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

This is the Bush doctrine at its worst.
Why give a frackin damn about other nations, diplomacy, intelligence work, negotiations and all that other liberal pinko BS when we have the Delta Force?

Especially funny when you consider how critical the US was about Russia invading Georgia

Indeed. The double standards here are pretty ridiculous. I can understand the impetus for the action, but I don't understand the need for the "moral superiority" facade. If you're going to act cynically out of neccesity, at least stop pretending everything is flowers and stars and stripes... makes the population stupid. Or is that the point? :hmm:

[Skybird]

"Never hate your enemies, it affects your judgement"


Don Vito Corleone

I say again, don't mistake hate with determination.

Otherwise I agree with CCIP on that the morale propaganda stampede is not needed. just crushing the Taleban wether they hide behind Pakistani border guards or not, would be sufficient. And if Pakistani troops insist on standing in the way, they can be made to feel the effect of that, I'm sure.

AntEater, could you please give realistic and specific advise on how to make Pakistan give up on the taleban after 40 years, and how to chnage the pakistani policy to destablize Afghansiatn and keep it weal so that a.) Pakistan can project influence there and b.) it does not become a major ally of the west that may be uncomforttable to have olurking around in your rear while you have a little war with India to carry out. And REALISTIC alternatives that after years of treating them with satin gloves all of a sudden would change things...? At least as long as you do not wish to question in general that we have a right to battle those talebans in the needed way that allows a victoriuous battle tactic and strat5egy to win the war, instead of keeping it running on and on and on and on.

[AntEater]

The answer is simple:
The world won't end because some Jihadis on the Pakistan side of the borders are not killed tonight. The war on terrorism won't be won by this either.
Like it or not, Jihadism, the Taliban or however you call them are a mass ideology, a people's movement which you can't kill by killing some bearded fanatics.
If there's one thing the global radical islam has enough of, it is bearded fanatics.
Maybe going after Osama himself would justify such a diplomatic mess, but nothing else.
If your enemy is hiding in another country, you have exactly two options: Invasion or alliance.
Sofar, the US has some kind of in-between solution.
Pakistan, while being a total mess, isn't Cambodia or Laos, which you can invade to go after your enemy's bases and the only one who care are a few peasants and some liberal journalists.
I mean maybe the US wants Pakistan to turn into some kind of super-Jihadistan so they can safely bomb the crap out of them.
Pakistan is such a mess right now that gung ho operations like those are what maybe will tip the balance toward civil war.
Maybe that is the US intention, because if all hell breaks loose in Pakistan, the Taliban will have a new playing field and leave the US alone.

Btw, why doesn't the US give up on that whole diplomacy BS alltogether?
I mean screw all that negotating and courtesy, you don't need to treat anyone as equal if you have no equals.
I would suggest the US scraps its entire foreign office and replace it with small military bases in third world nations. NATO could safely handle all normal contacts to allies.
Economic negotiations could be subcontracted to private companies.
Maybe even the "diplomatic" military missions could be subcontracted to PMCs, so direct US involvement would only be necessary in form of an airstrike
:hmm:

[Frame57]

They have not respnded well to current negotiations. So we threaten to stop all money to pakistan and as a bonus we advise them that India will be getting substantial military aide from us if they do not play ball. What is left after that? Bush said after 911 that any country that harbors terrorist will be dealt with so then we have to lower the boom on pakistan if all else fails. Seems simple enough to me.

[Skybird]

The answer is simple:
The world won't end because some Jihadis on the Pakistan side of the borders are not killed tonight. The war on terrorism won't be won by this either.
Like it or not, Jihadism, the Taliban or however you call them are a mass ideology, a people's movement which you can't kill by killing some bearded fanatics.
If there's one thing the global radical islam has enough of, it is bearded fanatics.
Maybe going after Osama himself would justify such a diplomatic mess, but nothing else.
If your enemy is hiding in another country, you have exactly two options: Invasion or alliance.
Sofar, the US has some kind of in-between solution.
Pakistan, while being a total mess, isn't Cambodia or Laos, which you can invade to go after your enemy's bases and the only one who care are a few peasants and some liberal journalists.
I mean maybe the US wants Pakistan to turn into some kind of super-Jihadistan so they can safely bomb the crap out of them.
Pakistan is such a mess right now that gung ho operations like those are what maybe will tip the balance toward civil war.
Maybe that is the US intention, because if all hell breaks loose in Pakistan, the Taliban will have a new playing field and leave the US alone.

Btw, why doesn't the US give up on that whole diplomacy BS alltogether?
I mean screw all that negotating and courtesy, you don't need to treat anyone as equal if you have no equals.
I would suggest the US scraps its entire foreign office and replace it with small military bases in third world nations. NATO could safely handle all normal contacts to allies.
Economic negotiations could be subcontracted to private companies.
Maybe even the "diplomatic" military missions could be subcontracted to PMCs, so direct US involvement would only be necessary in form of an airstrike
:hmm:
At least then say clearly you want an end of the engagement in Afghanistan, for these reasons, and pulling out there - that position I could respect, and I am close to that, for reasons not being so totally different. Just don'T say what you just did - and nevertheless keep the troops in Afghanistan and all the money going there. Pull the plug, metaphorically. either this, or that - just not two half things for comfprtably avpiding to announce unpopular decisions that will keep wetsern helpers and soldiers risk their lives for a war that in this fashion will never be won and will run on for years and years.

Also be prepared that Islamic vioence now focussing on Afghanistan and Pakistna will have free hands then to start activities elsewhere. that truth is the one great inner problem of the messy situation I found no other cure for then to accept confronting Pakistan unconditionally in an effort to annihilate the operaional capacity of the enemy for the immidiate future, and then again and again.

As long as germany does not understand this, I want the Bundeswehr out of Afghanistan completely. If the Germans decide they need to win agai8nst the Taleban, then it must be clear that this is an all-out war with needed logicstical engagement germany probaly cannot afford, and the defense budget cannot pay for. We are talking about hundreds of thousands of troops, then, and probably a full scale military engagement against Pakistan - under the threat of nuking nthem back to the status of one-cellular life if they even consider to touh their nuclear bombs.

Don't complain about me describing the brutal reality - I did not manouvre us into this stupid situation.

[AntEater]

I have no patent solution, but as we all know, the resources of the US and NATO are limited.
Opening yet another front is not the best way to deal with this.
Actually I don't think I know a solution to the current problem.
The easiest way would simply be military victory in southern Afghanistan, but that would not be an easy task even with ten times the troops.
If Pakistan blows, Afghanistan will be the least of our worries and I have the bad suspicion that the Indians will not let themselves be abused as a US proxy.
They will defend themselves, even nuke Pakistan but they will never occupy it.
If I had a patent solution on how to win against radical Islam, I might as well change career.
But my gut feeling tells me that you can't expect to "win" (in the sense of anihilating your enemy) against a revolutionary movement in its heroic phase.
Jihadists might look ridiculous to you and me, but to the people on the ground, these are popular revolutionaries.
You can win in the sense of successfully containing them until the enthusiasm cools down and they become just another bunch of people.

Re the Bundeswehr and Afghanistan, I totally agree with you.

[Skybird]

I have no patent solution, but as we all know, the resources of the US and NATO are limited.
Opening yet another front is not the best way to deal with this.
Actually I don't think I know a solution to the current problem.
The easiest way would simply be military victory in southern Afghanistan, but that would not be an easy task even with ten times the troops.
If Pakistan blows, Afghanistan will be the least of our worries and I have the bad suspicion that the Indians will not let themselves be abused as a US proxy.
They will defend themselves, even nuke Pakistan but they will never occupy it.
If I had a patent solution on how to win against radical Islam, I might as well change career.
But my gut feeling tells me that you can't expect to "win" (in the sense of anihilating your enemy) against a revolutionary movement in its heroic phase.
Jihadists might look ridiculous to you and me, but to the people on the ground, these are popular revolutionaries.
You can win in the sense of successfully containing them until the enthusiasm cools down and they become just another bunch of people.

That is a reference to the demographic factor, and the theory that the more male young people there are in a society, the more aggressive and expansionist the society is. In principal, I agree with this, but i do not like the conseqeunces.

Becasue 1.) the Islamic societies will become as overaged and old as Europe is - in 50-70 years from now on. For that long, referring to the social dynamic drive of these theories (whom I happen to agree with) they will remain to show the energy and potential to bhave like they do: aggressive, revolutionary, expanding. and 2.) Radical Islamic leaders know this as well. They know the yhave a certain time window only in which they must succeed with their plans to enforce islam in the areas they have targetted. After that, their societies will be so old that their will not be enough drive and energy of sufficient yung people to push their policies against others anymore. You can assume then that until they still have time, they will not be interested in negotiating, and going to rest. they will push with all power and energy - while it still is there.

50-70 years. I don't know aboiut youk, but I am in no way sure that we can hold out that long if just passively trying to sit them out.