Pakistan: how long until finally, finally the gloves are taken off?

[Skybird]

Since years it is an open secret for everybody even just slightly familiar with the matter that most of the Pakistani ISI and major parts of the Pakistani military establishement are conspirating with and supporting the enemy in Afghanistan, and that they are not one bit less bloodthirsty and ruthless like just any terrorist.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704689804575536241251361592.html?K EYWORDS=isi+pakistan

Targetted assassinations via drones and missiles, drastically decimating the commanding, influential ranks of the ISI and military, agents infiltrating and commandos raiding the property of key personnel and kill them while they sleep. If they try to strike back, starting to pound regular Pakistani garrisons, units, and the government itself. They are no ally, never were an ally, they are part of the enemy union, and with them having the helm there will never be any progress in Afghanistan.

Time to get tough on them, its' overdue. And stop that silly, insane, irresponsible military aid to them. Western politicians are so very, so extremely stupid regarding matters in Afghanistan - from beginning on. Where Bush ended, Obama picked up and continued.:damn: European NATO states meanwhile learned to act and behave even more clueless than the Americans.

People need to finally understand that the enemy we really fighht against in Afghanistan, is Pakistan. It should be called the Pakistan war, therefore.

[SteamWake]

It seems like the US has been unwilling to fight a war to win since Vietnam even Korea to some extent.

I suppose were afraid of offending someone.

[TLAM Strike]

We are not fighting Pakistan because they have around 50 fission bombs and around 5 fusion bombs... :03:

[Skybird]

We are not fighting Pakistan because they have around 50 fission bombs and around 5 fusion bombs... :03:

I know that. I also know that 5000 fission bombs are more than 50.

And that leaves only two options left: either tell them what will happen to their country and the socalled holy sites of Islam in all the world if they ever dare to use one of these devices against a Western city or Western military. And you better mean what you say.

Or do not do that and thus leave Afghanistan 8 years ago. It is pointless to fight in Afghanistan if you rule out to kill the enemy and strike him where it hurts him most. That is the same insaity like in Vietnam, SteamWake pointed to it, and not attacking Chinese advisors and Chinese supplies stockpiled around Hanoi and not to disrupt their Chinese supply lines in order to not threaten those precious, those fabulous, those great and fantastic and trustful Paris peace talks.

The US should have focussed on forming as close as possible ties with India. Isarael needs to reshift its focus away from the Islam-drunken, antisemitic West, and to India. India is a natural bastion against China. India can become the dominant maritime power in the Indian ocean.

Pakistan should never have been allowed to become a nuclear power. Even destroying it cojmpletely would have done better service to the world, than to accept it. Pakistan was born in violence, lived in violence, it breeds and exports violence, and nothing else but violence will ever come from it.

As far as I know the US is still paying Pakistan "military aid", or not?! Why not bowing in front of a terrorist, line one's head up with his weapon's aim, and give him a nod.

If the supply of troops in Afghanistan cannot be guaranteed or arranged via supply lines leadingh through uncritical terrains/nations, then fighting a war there with ground troops obviously is not the best way to fight at all. One then should switch to other strategies that do not depend on ground troops being maintained in afghnaistan. That might neither liberate Afghanistan (if that ever was an option anyway), nor will it win ground, and acchieve "victory". But it can kill enemies. Especially if targetting them in Pakistan. And if the killing goes up the ladder of the establishement and reaches those in command, they might finally understand that their life is more precious to them than playing games of fame and power.

[Diopos]

We are not fighting Pakistan because they have around 50 fission bombs and around 5 fusion bombs... :03:

Yeap! :up:

Plus the whole Afgan thingy posses two fundamental "problems"

1. A complete landlocked theater. (US is fundamentaly a "sea power").
2. A lack of fundamental decisions regarding the overland supply lines. Which means: (a) "Securing" Pakistan or (b) Going to bed with the Russians and proRussian countries bordering Afganistan to secure a (albeit long) supply line or (c) Going "through" Iran (and we all know what that means).

.

[TLAM Strike]

I also know that 5000 fission bombs are more than 50. 50 nukes is still a lot, would you be willing to trade 50 western cities for the entire ME?

The US should have focussed on forming as close as possible ties with India. Isarael needs to reshift its focus away from the Islam-drunken, antisemitic West, and to India. India is a natural bastion against China. India can become the dominant maritime power in the Indian ocean. India seems to be willing to sell arms to the Islamic countries in the region as long as they are not Pakistan. Iran's Kilo class subs use Indian made battries, and the Iranian police drive Indian built motorcycles, Iranian, Saudi, UAE and Omani military personnel are trained in India, Sudan has radars from India.

[Tribesman]

50 nukes is still a lot, would you be willing to trade 50 western cities for the entire ME?

Western cities besides being somehow anti semitic and part of a global conspiracy are full of muslims and poor people who should be stopped from breeding, so Sky would probably have an orgasm if 50 western cities were fried.
And that leaves only two options left: either tell them what will happen to their country and the socalled holy sites of Islam in all the world if they ever dare to use one of these devices against a Western city or Western military. And you better mean what you say.

Damn, Sky really hates them jews doesn't he, he wants to threaten to nuke Jerusalem:doh:

[Skybird]

50 nukes is still a lot, would you be willing to trade 50 western cities for the entire ME?


Ask the other way around. Would they be willing to commit suicide and see all Pakistan turned into a lifeless mass-grave and destroy the important local hotspots of Islam around the world just to stay in control of Afghanistan...?

I seriously doubt it.

Anyhow, if you do not accept to destroiy your enemy, don't continue to fight him, but withdraw. Else ypou commit a crime against your own people, and your own troops. ASn army is not to be wasted like this, over nothing but illusions and increasing a poltical party's chance at next election.

Regarding this war now, the road to Afghanistan leads over Pakistan. Leave Pakistan untouched, and you have lost Afghanistan. You do not like that? Then turn Pakistan into as much agony as is needed to make them stay out of the formula, and as much as is needed to make sure they do not dare to re-engage later again.

[AngusJS]

I know that. I also know that 5000 fission bombs are more than 50.

And that leaves only two options left: either tell them what will happen to their country and the socalled holy sites of Islam in all the world if they ever dare to use one of these devices against a Western city or Western military. And you better mean what you say.Population of Mashad: 2.5 million
Mecca: 1.7 million
Medina: 1.3 million
Karbala: 500,000
Najaf: 550,000
Samarra: 350,000

I assume you'll forgo nuking Jerusalem.

So you're saying we should be serious about murdering at least 7 million people, who don't even live in Pakistan.

Isarael needs to reshift its focus away from the Islam-drunken, antisemitic WestWow.

Pakistan should never have been allowed to become a nuclear power. Even destroying it cojmpletely would have done better service to the world, than to accept it.Population of Pakistan: 170 million. Are you saying smashing the state, or the people? Because so far you're advocating being ready to murder 7 million people - if you mean the latter, it'll balloon to 180 million.

Seriously, Skybird - get a grip.

[Schroeder]

Then turn Pakistan into as much agony as is needed to make them stay out of the formula, and as much as is needed to make sure they do not dare to re-engage later again.
How would that be achieved? It's not like the government has everything under control in their own country. The militants won't back down just because you kill some of them. The collateral damage would probably be greater than the actual losses of the Taliban and their sympathisers, which in return will increase their numbers. Remember moral bombing in WW2? Didn't work at all no matter which side used it.
I actually don't see much of a chance for winning this anymore if we don't use alternative resupply routes and close the border to Pakistan in a Berlin Wall style.:damn:

[Skybird]

I'm saying stop making your enemy strong.

I'm saying stop being intimidated by your enemy and what he might do to you - but only can do at the cost of completely wiping out himself.

I'm saying either go for the throat of your enemy - or pack your things and leave the battlefield and accept to reward him victory.

Since 8 years the war in Afghanistan is halfheartedly being fought - and while we accepted oh so many fears and concerns binding our hands on our backs, the enemy said thank-you and became stronger and kills our troops while we even pay him for doing that, and our minds are occupied not with how to kill and destroy him, but how to not provoke him and how to deonstrate to him that we do not mean serious business and want to save him.

No wonder that Iran pushes on and on. It knows by our own pityful demonstration that we have no determination.

All what I have heared in the past 8 years is a thousand excuses why the war in Afghanistan shall not be fought and shall not be won and why the enemy must be saved. And may I be forgiven - in the first one or two years maybe I even fell for such excuses myself. If that is all the West is capable of, it could have withdrawn in 2002 and leave the place to Pakistan already back then.

Either you will to admit defeat and get your people out there not to see them loosing thewir health and life for nothing, or you start hurting the enemy where it really hurts him. So far, he is laughing and spends our own money we give him on killing our troops, and tankers. Some months ago, in one night 120 fuel-tankers were brought up into flames near the Pakistani capital. If anyone thinks that was possible, to set 120 vehicles ablaze, without the Pakistani military, running tight patrols in and around the capital, knowing it and allowing it, then I cannot help such naivety. That was no artillery attack and no missile barrage striking in just some seconds - that were six men doing it all alone, oin the ground. That needed time. And nobody noted anything over there!? If somebody believes that BS, he can as well believe then that I am the new emperor of China.

The simple point is - nothing the West is doing hurts Pakistan, nothing of it hurts it so sufficently as if they would stop doing what they are doing. They see that the way they run the game serves them well and brings victory closer to them every week. If you continue to accept playing by these rules, not only defeat is guaranteed, but infamy as well. You will leave one day not only as a loser, but as somebody who has made a complete idiot of himself.

Either fight a war right, or don't fight it at all.

[Tribesman]

I'm saying stop making your enemy strong.
Like ranting about nuking millions of innocent people as though Al-qaida is paying you to do their propoganda shots?

If anyone thinks that was possible, to set 120 vehicles ablaze,. wiothout the Paklistani military knowing it and allowing it, then I cannot help socu ba naivety
Sounds like Paris.....oh but they can torch more than 120 vehicles a night in Paris can't they:har::har::har:


Seriously, Skybird - get a grip.
You ask too much I think.

[Skybird]

How would that be achieved? It's not like the government has everything under control in their own country. The militants won't back down just because you kill some of them. The collateral damage would probably be greater than the actual losses of the Taliban and their sympathisers, which in return will increase their numbers. Remember moral bombing in WW2? Didn't work at all no matter which side used it.
I actually don't see much of a chance for winning this anymore if we don't use alternative resupply routes and close the border to Pakistan in a Berlin Wall style.:damn:

Kill their officers, intel and military. Kill their experts, and analysts. Kill their key figuresthat run public life, and keep their economy alive. Drones, missiles, cruise missiles, no matter what. The political class. The religious leaders. The preachers. Shoot them, poison them, bomb them, no matter how - but bring death to them, no matter how. No safe haven anywhere anymore. Collateral damage? I'm sorry, but let nothing come between you and your military targets. This is war. Like WWII was a war. Nobody thouight about saving Nazi key figures, and not provoking themn, and not attacking them becasue they might strike back. Killing the key personnel of your enemy is a military objective - it are relevant targets. Bring chaos to Pakistan like they bring chaos to Afghanistan. Their troops do not stay neutral? Target them. They supply info to the Taliban, even orders? Kill them. They meet somewhwere? Strike them. They meet in a camp - strike there. They meet in a cafe - strike there.

No safe havens for any target person anymore. No diplomatic washup. I do not say that it should be the intention to kill civilians in scores as high as possible. But I say do not allow the presence of civilians to make you hesitate to acchiedve your objectives and kill your targets. If the target is free of civilians - good. If civilians happen to be near - destroy the objective and kill the targets nevertheless.

That'S cruel. That is brutal. That is war. I thinlk of it in terms of detemrination. We lack this determination to not allow being stopped by the enemy. We accept to play by his rules. That's why we have lost - I say that since many years, since 2005.

So either let's get dirty hands, or pull out. If only we would want it, we would be far superior in coimbat power and firepower. But our concerns, oh our precious, civilised, cautious, fearsome concerns. "Let's fight a little war - but let's fight it sensitivly, will we please." Oh dear.:dead:

[TLAM Strike]

Nobody thouight about saving Nazi key figures, and not provoking themn, and not attacking them becasue they might strike back.

They did! Only four high ranking Nazis were assassinated during the war, all by partisan groups. The British SAS tried and failed to assassinate Rommel and we took out Yamamoto but those are the exceptions.

[Tribesman]

So kill loads of people in Pakistan so you are then able to go and kill loads of people in Afghanistan at which point you will have to return to Pakistan to kill loads more people so you can go back to Afghanistan to kill loads of people.
Is someone on the loose from the asylum?:doh:

[AngusJS]

Kill their officers, intel and military. Kill their experts, and analysts. Kill their key figuresthat run public life, and keep their economy alive...They meet in a cafe - strike there.

No safe havens for any target person anymore.Good job. That won't completely destabilize Pakistan, and essentially create another Afghanistan writ large.

:roll:

Are you still ready to apparently nuke random Muslim cities around the world, or were you able to dial back your hate?

[JU_88]

Only 50 bombs? 1 is all it takes to kill you and everything you hold dear. Any idea what America or Europe would like after just 5 of these bombs?
Oh and screw all the women and children in Pakistan too - i guess they are just extremists waiting to happen.

Skybird, why dont you stop wasting your time ranting here, its as if we subsimmers have some kind of authority to launch a war with Pakistan?
Why not instead, print one of your posts off, stick it in an evelope and mail it to White house or the U.N or something.
If your idea is really so great - world leaders will surley give it some consideration and if not i guess you will just have deal with living in an imperfect world where you cant always have your way, or commit genocide against people that YOU dont like.

Its your time you are wasting!

[Ducimus]

/obligatory

http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd7/rkba2da/humor/NukeOrbit.jpg

edit:

To be fair though, I'd be lying if i said i never thought about retaliating against islamic bombings by nuking one of their holy sites, and to do so each and every time they decide to blow something up. Violence does indeed seem to be their language, so we might as well start communicating in a meaningful way. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOvH-7lcjb0)

[Skybird]

Good job. That won't completely destabilize Pakistan, and essentially create another Afghanistan writ large.



What do you mean by "completely destabilize"? It isan unpredictable, unstable state. It is a failed state. Most command structure of the ISI and a major part of their miliutary is sympathising or supporting the Taliban. Key posts in the ISI are held by Taliban-supporters. The relgious nutheads must be cofno9rnted and killed, in as high quantities as possible - before they get control and access of the nuke warheads. If that would happen, THEN we really have a problem - a worse one than with Iran or NKorea. I think indeed that superior power is the one form of lamngauge that undert these circumstaqnces has the best chances to get any message delivered to to trigger thoiught processes that they so far refuse to engage in. Failed states do not react to sensible negotiations, nor are they trustworthy. What they understand is sheer brutal overwhelming power - and the determination to use it.

Pakistan to me is the most dangerous hotspot on Earth. To allow that one gets inactive and paralysed because of them, is the worst of all options. That way, they act, while we react. And that is suicidal. I do n ot accept this status of paralysis - I want them being paralysed. Whether they would like that or not, is not my concern. The ammount of force needed to make them play ball in Afghanistan - and that would be not to play at all - is the ammount of force I am willing to use.



Are you still ready to apparently nuke random Muslim cities around the world, or were you able to dial back your hate?

If threatening that would make Muslim states using their influence to pressure Pakistan to back down, yes. If that is what makes the Pakistani military come to its senses and concentrate all its power , not just that smaller fraction of power that is left after guarding against India, to launch an cleaning process against the religious, then that is worth it.

Becasue what the West does not seem to be aware of is that Pakistan slowly but surely accumulates and reaches critical mass. Just sitting and watching and hoping for the best, does not work.

To allow a rogue nation like Pakistan nuclear weapons, maybe can be marked as one of the biggest mistakes in all human history. Compared to it, NKorea is a haven of peace and stability.

However, I wonder if I should read anything from the fact that nobody seem to has anything to comment on the original essay this thread was about, but sees fine to tell us why we should not fight against a clearly identified enemy whi is killing our troops and encourages not only to take collateral damage into account, like I admit I do accept under certain circumstances, but even demands his subordinates to maximise siuch collateral damage where ever possible in order to spread terror and submission and to prevent a stable settlement in Afghanistan, but to ascertain ongoing war, since the desire for war is what keeps this enemy going.

[antikristuseke]

Unless you are actually going to go through with it it would only be an empty threat and the world needs a nuclear war like it needs more religious nutcases, which such action would breed even more.

[Skybird]

Unless you are actually going to go through with it it would only be an empty threat and the world needs a nuclear war like it needs more religious nutcases, which such action would breed even more.

What the world instead needs is a peaceful spreading of nukes to more and more factions until you cannot track them anymore and the likelihood of an evil-doer finally using them by surprise is every growing.

That is so much better! It keeps the dream alive. And even if it lived for just short time, it nevertheless has lived. :yeah:

[AngusJS]

If threatening that would make Muslim states using their influence to pressure Pakistan to back down, yes.So, say Pakistan attacks the West anyway, and your response will be to kill millions of innocent people in other countries whose only connection with Pakistan is religion.

Pardon the cliche, but you would then literally be no better than the terrorists. You could quit defending civilization from the big bad Muslims, because you would have just lost your claim to it.

However, I wonder if I should read anything from the fact that nobody seem to has anything to comment on the original essay this thread was aboutSorry, I guess I got kind of sidetracked by the whole nuclear genocide thing.

[Freiwillige]

I get his point. One should avoid war at all costs but when war is declared their should be no controls or limits. America has haphazardly wandered in and out of far to many wars this last century for little gain.

Vietnam is a shining example of why we should have avoided these wars in the first place, but if we are going to fight, make that commitment, then by all means lets take the kiddie gloves off and smash them into oblivion!!!

Go general Patton on them or go home.

[JU_88]

Vietnam is a shining example of why we should have avoided these wars in the first place, but if we are going to fight, make that commitment, then by all means lets take the kiddie gloves off and smash them into oblivion!!!

Go general Patton on them or go home.

like this right?
http://www.oknation.net/blog/home/blog_data/43/43/images/Pun.jpg

:dead:

[Ducimus]

like this right?
http://www.oknation.net/blog/home/blog_data/43/43/images/Pun.jpg

:dead:


It is well that war is so terrible - lest we would grow too fond of it.
- Robert E. Lee

“War is cruelty. There's no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over.”
-William Tecumseh Sherman

[Tribesman]

Pakistan to me is the most dangerous hotspot on Earth.
Wow, a few weeks ago it was as you have been said since many years that "Sunni" Iran is the most dangerous hotspot:rotfl2:

It really is a case just like his destroy freedom because of threats to freedom rants Skybird is now proposing being a crazy lunatic because there are too many crazy lunatics.

Though I do wonder how someone can go on about the Pakistan military being part of a failed state because of their links to terrorists yet is unable to put 2+2 together.
Then again since he says that europe and the americas are also failed states he must be advocating nuking everywhere to teach them a lesson, it would certainly help with his dream of stopping people breeding:doh:

[Skybird]

And more good news.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-11498443

I always was totally and completely against outsourcing military capacities to private business. When in Europe the private armies of private entrepreneurs (=mercenaries) got sorted out and replaced with regular standing armies wearing "the king's colours", it resulted in higher combat efficiency and better cointrol and discipline, also, private business no longer was that able to interfere with politics in order to prevent war because peace meant no income and profits. - And now we are going back to those times of Landsknechte and Condottieris.


In novella 181 of his Trecentonovelle, the fourteenth-century storyteller Franco
Sacchetti has John Hawkwood encounter two Franciscan monks near his fortress
at Montecchio. The monks greet the Englishman.

‘‘Monsignore, God grant you peace,’’ said the monks.
‘‘And may God take away your alms,’’ Hawkwood responded immediately.

‘‘Lord, why do you speak to us this way?’’ asked the frightened monks.

‘‘Indeed, because you spoke thus to me,’’ replied John.
‘‘We thought we spoke well,’’ said the monks.
‘‘How can you think you spoke well,’’ said Hawkwood, ‘‘when you approach me and
say that God should let me die of hunger? Don’t you know that I live from war and
peace would destroy me? And as I live by war, you live by alms. So that the answer I


gave you is the same as your greeting.’


Hawkwoord was an English mercenary and successful soldier in the 14th century. He started in the hundred-years war, later fought in France and finally Italy. He fought both during wars with his army, and in times of peace, marauding with bands of bandits then, to get them fed and make some cash.

[Skybird]

I get his point. One should avoid war at all costs but when war is declared their should be no controls or limits. America has haphazardly wandered in and out of far to many wars this last century for little gain.

Vietnam is a shining example of why we should have avoided these wars in the first place, but if we are going to fight, make that commitment, then by all means lets take the kiddie gloves off and smash them into oblivion!!!

Go general Patton on them or go home.
Right that.

[Skybird]

So, say Pakistan attacks the West anyway, and your response will be to kill millions of innocent people in other countries whose only connection with Pakistan is religion.

Pardon the cliche, but you would then literally be no better than the terrorists. You could quit defending civilization from the big bad Muslims, because you would have just lost your claim to it.

Sorry, I guess I got kind of sidetracked by the whole nuclear genocide thing.

To le tthem have no doubt what would happen to them and their ideologic buddies, would make sure that right this would not happen and other nations like them would try to pressure them into giving up.

Beyond that, you have just declared that in case of somebody attacking you first, you will not retaliate. In other words you have already declared your intention to surrender in case of being attacked.

And you want to be taken as serious by our enemies? You have just given them card blanche: that when they press hard enough, you will give up.

Pakistan was born in violence due to religiously motivated ambitions, it lives in violence, and bvrings violence upon others, and it never will be anything else but a source of spreading violence. It was, it is, and it will be like that. No Islam - no Pakistan. No Islam - no Pakistani export of terror and Pakistani proliferation of nuclear knowledge. That is what links it to other Muslim nations - as if that was so difficult to see. ;)

[MH]

When you want to shoot just shoot dont talk.


World is suffering Chamberlain syndrome all over again.
As then europe rolled its self on the back till too late it is happening again.

[Blood_splat]

I feel bad for our guys who are fighting, it must be so frustrating.

[Freiwillige]

When General Sherman marched into the south (C.S.A.) during the civil war he was brutal. But effective.

Warfare is not politically correct, Its ugly and horrible in the worst way and should be resoundingly avoided at all costs.

But I doubt Pakistan would even flinch if we told them that half of our nuclear arsenal is pointed at them and if they are feeling froggy go ahead and jump.

Obliteration is the greatest deterrent and builds respect for the ones who could turn your nation into a parking lot. Right now they play us as fools because they know that there will be no repercussion for there actions.

Sherman, Patton, Genghis Khan, Stalin, Hitler, Spartans all had the right idea's on how to fight a war just make sure your fighting it for the right reasons!!!!!

Be defensive in nature but if that fails you go on such a brutal offensive that they think twice before attacking you again!

[AngusJS]

When you want to shoot just shoot dont talk.


World is suffering Chamberlain syndrome all over again.
As then europe rolled its self on the back till too late it is happening again.But you can swiftly go from just this


http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/9071/chicofd.jpg

to this.

http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/3471/badap.jpg

[Oberon]

I prefer:

http://content8.flixster.com/photo/11/69/55/11695526_gal.jpg

[Tribesman]

World is suffering Chamberlain syndrome all over again.

Really? in what way?
Oh in no way:doh:
I thought you would have been really pissed off with Skybirds proposal to wipe Israel off the map and wreck the economy of the world....but hey alls fair in love and war:har:

When General Sherman marched into the south (C.S.A.) during the civil war he was brutal. But effective.

The succesioniosts held very little territory , had miniscule finances or backing had had absolutely no real second string to fall back with their slave state ideology.
So general sherman can burn the **** out of Pakistan and Afghanistan and it won't have any positive effect at all.
Happy Times is the only one to put forward a possibly workable at a real long stretch plan, and that was to turn the world in to a one party dictatorship where every aspect of every persons life will be strictly controlled on all levels by a new one world state police

[AngusJS]

To le tthem have no doubt what would happen to them and their ideologic buddies, would make sure that right this would not happen and other nations like them would try to pressure them into giving up.Ah, so now you can trust the untrustworthy ISI and the Pakistani religious fanatics, so you won't have to go through with your threat of mass murder?

Beyond that, you have just declared that in case of somebody attacking you first, you will not retaliate. In other words you have already declared your intention to surrender in case of being attacked.No, I haven't. And at least I would retaliate against the attackers, and not random civilians in other countries. Crazy idea, I know.

[MH]

lol you realy succided in puting out of context all Skybird wrote here.
I thought it was about fighting war actully to win it instead of losing lifes of soliders for nothing.

[antikristuseke]

MH, the subject has been discussed here already, there is no concrete enemy to fight here, you just can't declare total war against every single muslim in the middle east just because some small minority of them are complete *******s.
What skybird has suggested in this thread, unless I misread it, is to destabilize another country like Afghanistan by killing off its entire political and military leadership, as if that would produce anything more than complete and utter chaos and turn more people to the cause of those religious ****nuts. I am going to leave his nuking ideas untouched in this post as I simply don't have anything more to say to that.

Yes, Afghanistan is a quagmire, but that won't be helped by turning Pakistan into the same kind of quagmire.

[Tribesman]

lol you realy succided in puting out of context all Skybird wrote here.

Really its putting skybirds nonsense into context.
After all he wants to threaten nuking every so called holy site anywhere in the world which means both screwing the vital resource which almost every industry relies upon plus wiping Israel off the map.


I thought it was about fighting war actully to win it instead of losing lifes of soliders for nothing.
And the solution he gives to solve the problem of a lawless crazy state is to make another lawless crazy state and then make another lawless crazy state followed by another lawless crazy state.
To put it in context it makes sense if your ideal is a world with no countries at all and just a very few rich people left still having a couple of babies in their isolated little eco friendly super technical very rural villages just to preserve human civilisation.
But of course to understand that you would have to put his afghan/pakistan vision into the context of his visions on such topics...and you don't even have to go as far as his regular Mein Kampf quotes to see how crazy it is.

[joegrundman]

I think, and i may be going out on a limb here, that Skybird's thinking on the matter is strongly influenced by Clausewitzian notions, particularly pertaining to the desirability of escalating to "ideal war" (which is i suppose total war).

I feel that Skybird does not adequately ask himself why, since the end of ww2, with the advent of nuclear weapons, and the increase in insurrectionary conflicts, the escalation to total war is not a viable option.

Also to say that since total war is not an option, the only other choice is to stay at home, is also something that can be challenged.

All great empires end up in situations of small, persistent conflicts around the periphery. And the US is a kind of great empire. What may be required is staying power and a means of handling the conflicts in a way that is not a long-term net-drain on resources (of all kinds) and not overly likely to produce war-weariness at home, something that modern democracies are rather prone to, once initial war-euphoria has worn off.

Nonetheless, these small persistent conflicts can add up, and in time do great harm to the empire.

So, i see the decision rather than as a need to raise the issue to one of a total conflict to permanently eliminate the opposition, an option which really is out of the question (even disregarding the SUBSIM flights of fantasy regarding pakistani atom bombs on western cities), the real question is, is it worth it in the long run, and if it is at present an unreasonable drain on resources, how soon can it be expected to be reduced to more manageable levels?

[joegrundman]

BTW Skybird,

big kudos for referencing Sir John Hawkwood :up:

[Skybird]

The more "asymmetrical" a war is:

- the less Clausewitzian ideas can be applied

- the more difficult if not unwinnable the war becomes for the side sticking with the principles and demands of the Hague Landwarfare Convention (while the other side, whose participation in the conflict make that conflict qualifying for a description of being asymmetric, does not obey them - that is an inherent characteristic of "asymmetric wars").

But that is not the point so much, although these conclusions are dictated by any reasonable assessement of the matter of asymmetrical wars.

The point is: determination - or lack of.

If the latter, then the question is why you even started to fight at all. You are committing a crime against your own troops that way (which always has been one of my biggest criticisms of Bush, if you recall past debates in 2003, 04, 05, on Iraq). I am also criticising the Germans since long time to have absolute, total illusions about the nature of their military engagement in Afghanistan, and what can be achieved with an engagement like Germany's. I do not often say "Trapped in the Afghan maze" for no reason.

Either you are determined to do whatever is needed to crush the enemy and acchieve the military objective of the war, or you are not. Fighting kindly, and in the more beautiful way, with no sweat on your shirt and no blood on your hand, may earn you fine notes from the referees of the wellmeaning PC brigade. But it is meaningless. This is not basketball, and every goal by the enemy your people pay in blood for. You do not want to win by a margin of 77 to 72. You want to win 100 to 0, if possible. In war, there is no use in thinking in terms of "proportionality of means and tools". I deliberately refuse to thinkl and argue in terms of "proportionality" when it comes to war. You do not win by being fair or giving the enemy a chance, but by killing, crushing and destroying him, as fast as possible, as complete as possible, as brutal as necessary, you maximise your fighting power and and let go without holding back and allowing no distraction from the cause: destroying the enemy - the only chance that you will bring own losses to the minimum that you cannot avoid and reduce any further. You do not plan ahead to you and him shaking hands afterwards, but you want to saw fear in his heart so that after it ended he does not dare to turn against you again.

Morals and reasons are to be considered during the deicison making of whether to go to war or not. Consider them, and think twice. Ask yourself over your motives time and again. But if you are attacked, or if you have decided to go to war, understand that war means the end and the absence of peace, and the absence of morals and values deriving from peace. War has it'S own logic and it'S own values, and they are different than that of peace.

Espoecially true for asymmetrical wars. ;)

[joegrundman]

The more "asymmetrical" a war is:

- the less Clausewitzian ideas can be applied



this is true, but it doesn't seem to stop you trying

[Edit for reduced glibness]

Clearly Afghanistan and Iraq are complicated situations. But your idea that the solution is more firepower more ruthlessly deployed calls ultimately for indiscriminate massacre.

We do not live in that world.

Your argument that there is no such thing as jus in bello is also not borne out by centuries of warfare in Europe and elsewhere. Although WW2 saw the world at large close to losing that perspective.

There is in fact a civilisation, and war is in fact a social act.

And indeed people do plan ahead for today's enemies may be tomorrow's allies.

You want to throw away everything in order to score a win in Afghanistan?

As I said, the only realistic option for a hegemon, is to appreciate that areas of the periphery will be restive, and will require patience and skill to keep things manageable.

This was true for Rome, true for Great Britain, and is true for the US.

Destroying whole nations to solve this sort of moderate threat is massive overkill and defeats the point in fact.

[Happy Times]

You pacifists make me vomit, you offer no other solutions but live in f*cking pink bubble..
All you say that its all the fault of the Europeans and we should pump money to these countries and not offend them over nothing, especially their religion.

F*ck their religion! The whole world is going crazy over a midieval tribal desert culture and religion!:doh:

Read world history, reflect how the future will turn out based to that and get a grib on the reality.
Maybe it was the WW2 or the communist peace propaganda financed by KGB but Westerners have lost the will to fight and it will be the end of us.

[MH]

Japan and Germany had been totaly defited in ww2 ,
Japan actully scored two A bombs to save lots of american and japanise lives.(some of you may disagree on that since well,,,,it was kind unfair battle )
Today those coutries are leading ones in the west and allies of US.
Which was determinated by relations and treatment after the war and lessons from wwi

War in Afganistan is kind like hostage situation you should never complay with demands/enemy exploits while always taking agresive action tring to minimaze civilian casualities but still acting agresivly and decisivly taking into consideration that someone may get hurt.

[Happy Times]

this is true, but it doesn't seem to stop you trying

[Edit for reduced glibness]

Clearly Afghanistan and Iraq are complicated situations. But your idea that the solution is more firepower more ruthlessly deployed calls ultimately for indiscriminate massacre.

We do not live in that world.

Your argument that there is no such thing as jus in bello is also not borne out by centuries of warfare in Europe and elsewhere. Although WW2 saw the world at large close to losing that perspective.

There is in fact a civilisation, and war is in fact a social act.

And indeed people do plan ahead for today's enemies may be tomorrow's allies.

You want to throw away everything in order to score a win in Afghanistan?

As I said, the only realistic option for a hegemon, is to appreciate that areas of the periphery will be restive, and will require patience and skill to keep things manageable.

This was true for Rome, true for Great Britain, and is true for the US.

Destroying whole nations to solve this sort of moderate threat is massive overkill and defeats the point in fact.

Now your position i can understand but i think that what is a moderate threat no will only grow and we will get weaker in relation.
They can take casualties ten or twenty times more at the present than we, they are allready strong and we are weak.
And there are no real allies to be gained in the future from that camp, zero.

[MH]

Moderate threat?
50 nukes in fanats hand is not moderate threat,
I hope it been taken care for because when us leaves Afganistan god knows what will happen in Pakistan.
Not to speak about lunatc ideas like mini nuke terror.

[Skybird]

this is true, but it doesn't seem to stop you trying

Then you either do not understand what I say or I am not competent to express it adequately.


Clearly Afghanistan and Iraq are complicated situations. But your idea that the solution is more firepower more ruthlessly deployed calls ultimately for indiscriminate massacre.

I am not arguing for more firepower in just afghanistan. I am arguing for either to pull out completely and not wasting our troops' lives for nothing but illusions, or to shift the fire from Afghanistan to Pakistan. The road to destroy the enemy in Afghanistan leads over Paklistan. And it was like that from 2002 on - just nobody cared to pay attention to that. The Taliban are a Pakistani creation. They are their brainchild, by American demand during the days of the Soviet invasion.
We do not live in that world.


There is in fact a civilisation, and war is in fact a social act.


War is not a form of peace. War is the absence of peace.


And indeed people do plan ahead for today's enemies may be tomorrow's allies.
That may work with enemies that culturally nevertheless are close to you, like Germany and America. It does not work with an enemy as different and distant in cultural values ansd social structure, like it is the case here. Even during the Soviet war, alliances chnaged quickly in Afghanistan, and many warlords chnaged sides several times - until today. They have a saying in Afghanistan that you may want to remember: "You can rent an Afghan for short time. But you never can buy him."

You want to throw away everything in order to score a win in Afghanistan?

Win in Afghanistan? Not the way it is bein done in the past 8 years. No chance - from beginning on. Pakistan must be taken out of the equation first. They do not want peace and stability in Afghanistan, and they will never voluntarily accept that - it would weaken their influence to use it as a strategic option against India.

As I said, the only realistic option for a hegemon, is to appreciate that areas of the periphery will be restive, and will require patience and skill to keep things manageable.

When was there the last "hegemon" woth the name in Afghanistan? Kabul never was strong in Afghanistan - not during the last generation's lifetimes. One has tried to missionise the place towards democracy, and it went wrong, bred corruption and wasted endless ammounts of Western money. We cannot do anything on it. What we can do is starting to beat the hell out of the Pakistani if they do not stop messing up the country. We can mount so much destruction on Pakistan that the price they need to pay for Afghanistan no longer justifies their intentions. We can be superior in firepower and military might - if we want. But it seems we do not want to.

This was true for Rome, true for Great Britain, and is true for the US.

???? What was true for them?

Destroying whole nations to solve this sort of moderate threat is massive kill and defeats the point in fact.

To me it is no moderate threat, but Pakistan is the mopst danegrous nation on Earth, and the most prominent troublemaker there is - before NKorea, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Somalia. They exprt terror anbd murder. Thex finance terror in foreign nations. They provide assiatnc e wioth the full might of their intelliegnce service. The proliferate nuclear knowledge. They are unstable. The religious nutheads grab for power. The population is under the spell of this terrible ideology of theirs. They have nukes.

It cannot become any worse. At any time I would prefer to personally carry a glass of nictroglycerin over 100 m of rugged terrain at night.

[Tribesman]

You pacifists make me vomit, you offer no other solutions but live in f*cking pink bubble
What pacifists?

Your "solution" was a worldwide dictatorship in the form of a a police state.
That isn't a solution to a problem but rather a building of an even bigger problem.


Then you either do not understand what I say or I am not competent to express it adequately.

Sky expressed himself quite adequately, either make a "credible" threat which can never be credible and act on something that cannot be enacted...... or do nothing.
Which quite frankly is ridiculous.

[Skybird]

Quite good German comment on the price of withdrawing, and the to be expected human desaster and progroms afterwards. What this article says, and the parallels it draws to Vietnam, I already predicted and described in 2005. Right now, the Taliban alraedy know that they have won, and they have no motivation to accept any deal or compromise with the West or Kabul that Western stupids seem to hope for when recommending direct negotiations.

http://www.welt.de/debatte/kommentare/article10162109/Der-Preis-des-Rueckzugs-wird-sehr-hoch-sein.html?print=true#reqdrucken

[Moeceefus]

If we had only used the full force of our military to begin with, this all would have been over with years ago. When a nation is serious enough to go to war, they should go all in or go home. This drawn out process has served only to portray the US as weak and indecisive to our enemies. Obama's new rules of engagement for our troops is atrocious. Shame on Bush and Obama for thier military mismanagement. :nope:

[joegrundman]

Maybe I misunderstood you Skybird, but it seems to me you believe the conflict needs to be expanded until it reaches the decisive point. Which is really a Clausewitzian proposition. My argument is that long-term insurgencies require a long term and persistent approach to dealing with them.

This opinion puts me firmly on the side of those who believe the western forces should not be leaving Iraq or Afghanistan, and I agree that to leave will put us in a much worse position.

But I also do not believe that escalation is the right approach either. I see the situation as like a game of diplomacy with the allies being the biggest force in each country, but by no means the total dominating force. This means that skill and patience will be able to exploit the fact that everyone else has divided into factions in order to maintain a balance that is to tolerable to us.

But it also means accepting that the western powers in the region are unlikely to win some mighty event and then end up with a 1950's Germany/Japan style Afghanistan.

When talking about allies in the region and the impossibility of having them..i don't know. We already have allies in the region. But allies have their own foreign policy agendas. It is natural.

Pakistan is an ally, but it has its own agenda. From Pakistan's position, the west (despite my opinion on the matter) is sooner or later going to pack up its bags and go home. For Pakistan, Afghanistan is always going to be its northern neighbour, with strong tribal links to major Pakistani communities too. How can Pakistan NOT look at Afghanistan with its own eyes?

This is not to say that I think Pakistan isn't troubling - it is! But for MH whose mostly incomprehensible writings included mentioning 50 nukes in the hands of fanats(sic), i believe this is a reference to the Pakistani atomic arsenal. Those bombs are not in the hands of fanatics - they are the property of the Pakistani government, who are not themselves fanatics. If you wish to say that, at some point in the future, those bombs could end up in the hands of fanatics, it is my opinion that truly one should stick to dealing with the problems we really have and not start trying to troubleshoot with main force every imaginable problem that occurs to us.

In the event that Pakistan is overthrown and the outgoing state is unable to deal with the bombs, then things will have to happen, but i think the west has a lot of military capability in reserve for dealing with this sort of major threat.

But Skybird believes the conflict should deal with the fact that Pakistan is playing both sides in Afghanistan, and letting Afghanistan fester has caused it to grow. Well, that's of course related to the military adventurism in Iraq. Whatever. We can't wind the clock back.

Moving into Pakistan - what does this mean? You want to invade Pakistan too? The Pakistani military will collapse in less than a month. Lots of blood of course, since those nukes will have to be eliminated in the process.

Then what? Then we'll have to try and pacify Afghanistan AND Pakistan.

Just describing full scale war in Pakistan as an option here, it would cost too much, in every sense. It won't be done. But increasing diplomatic pressure and focus of operations into cross border issues can be done. And is done at the present time. Pakistan of course is a complex society and they have to balance this out with the reactions of their own populace.

Really i believe the issue is patience, but i think we don't have that sort of patience in the west. Finally, expanding the war in order to end it, is not a tried and trusted principle.

[XabbaRus]

Wow, skybird, you really have issues...

[Skybird]

Xabba,

If I just would have issues, than we all would be much better off. However, if I have "issues", as you call it, I wonder what it is that NATO and Western politicians have.

Maybe I misunderstood you Skybird, but it seems to me you believe the conflict needs to be expanded until it reaches the decisive point. Which is really a Clausewitzian proposition. My argument is that long-term insurgencies require a long term and persistent approach to dealing with them.

I believe it makes no sense to fight a war if you refuse to point your weapons at the enemy. Clausewitz has no room there - what I want is no complicated strategic stuff, but plain and simple reason. That makes my idea not an expansion to a decisive point, but a "taking aim at the enemy". The strongest enemy we fight against in Afghanistan, is neither the Taliban alone, nor tribal armies, but the Pakistani interference. It is a proxy-war.

This opinion puts me firmly on the side of those who believe the western forces should not be leaving Iraq or Afghanistan, and I agree that to leave will put us in a much worse position.

Not so much us, but the Afghan civilians, their women, and those who "collaborated" weith the Western powers - because they were so naive to believe their irresponsible promises. When America finally fled from Vietnam and the Vietcong took over, they took massive revenge upon those in the South that were suspicious to have helped or even just have arranged themselves with the Americans. In Afghanistan, it will become much worse.

However. Obama had three choices, and of these three he picked the worst one:

He could have decided to maximise the military effort and start engaging Pakistan not only in Afghanistan, but on it's own soil. Targetted assassinations from the air, a massive, unforgiving campaign of drone attacks, missiles attacks, assassinations from the ground, maybe some commando raids, maybe even sniper infiltrations, who knows. This approach would be about systemtically eliminating the pro-Taliban elite in the leadership of the intelligence services, where Taliban-supporters are the majority, and in the military, where meanwhile they also no longer are just a strong faction anymore, but represent a majprity indeed. Plus their relevant academic intelligentia, the leadershipß of the religious anyway. - This option is highly desriable, but most unrealistic - we lack the courage and determination to implement this.
Second, he could have declared immediate withdrawel. If the war is denied to be fought the way that annihilation of the enemy is possible, then it is impossible to overcome this enemy. Then the war has no point anymore. And then it is irrespoonsible and morally unscrupellous to let our troops risk their lifes for nothing any longer. This is why I prefer this option, knowing that the first option above never will be accepted in the West. Their security forces are not ready, but they never will be ready, becasue you deal with personnel that is lacking discipli8ne, does not obey orders, forms up from socially lowest classes and indioviduals that often got chases away even from their own villages and tribes, and that feel no loyalty and sense od duty. Western trainers repeatedly have reprted on that they beinjg dxrivenm crazy by these socalled "security forces", and that training them is like trying to make a cat speaking in words. Dropping out of Afghanistan will leave the civil population in a dram that will unfold, no doubt. But what is the difference of that happeniong now - or in one year, or in ten years? The difference is the life of our own troops who are denied the chance to fight for winning. Afghanistan very much compares to Vietnam. Every firefight gets won. Superior firepower. No battle lost. But saving the enemy's logistic (Chinese support, aka Pakistani support). Fighting the war by views of politicians, not militaries. Leaving the former allies behing when leaving the country, with tens of thousands of collaborators at the mercy of the Vietcong/the Taliban.

Obama has chosen the worst option: he declared a fixed future date when withdrwing will begin. By that he has send the message that he already has surrendered. This has a consequence of the Taliban and Pakistan that they have won and now just need to sit it out. There is no need for them to make any concessions. There is no need to accept diplomatic compromise. There is no incentive by which they can be made to accept some concessions. Why should they? They know that it is only a question of time before it all will be theirs. Obama wan ted to save his face. But he does that at a terrible price for the Afghans. Which seems to be okay, since it will not be him or America paying it.

However, in both the second and third option, the strategic price America needs to accept is a thousand times more severe than after the defeat in Vietnam, which was only a loss of face, not much more.

But I also do not believe that escalation is the right approach either. I see the situation as like a game of diplomacy with the allies being the biggest force in each country, but by no means the total dominating force. This means that skill and patience will be able to exploit the fact that everyone else has divided into factions in order to maintain a balance that is to tolerable to us.

The allies are not the moist influential force in the diplomatic game. Pakistan is, followed by Iran, possibly. Western diplomacy is impotent in Afghanistan. It also has no real influence anymore on Pakistan, like it had to at least some degree while Musharaf was in command. Also - why the heck do you put any trust in diplomatic arrangements made with Pakistan, when they have betrayed, lied and cheated all the time in the past years? And are you really that naive to think that any deal you make with the Tlaiban will be honoured by them once your troops are gone, when they do not like it anymore?

But it also means accepting that the western powers in the region are unlikely to win some mighty event and then end up with a 1950's Germany/Japan style Afghanistan.

When talking about allies in the region and the impossibility of having them..i don't know. We already have allies in the region. But allies have their own foreign policy agendas. It is natural.

Pakistan is an ally, but it has its own agenda. From Pakistan's position, the west (despite my opinion on the matter) is sooner or later going to pack up its bags and go home. For Pakistan, Afghanistan is always going to be its northern neighbour, with strong tribal links to major Pakistani communities too. How can Pakistan NOT look at Afghanistan with its own eyes?

Allies are factions that share a sufficient ammount of goals and interests. That is what makes you contradicting yourself, because what America wants is something totally different than what Pakistan wants. For Pakistan, Afghanistan is a strategic second playfield and strategic option in their match against India - and that is an obsessions that will always prevent them from giving up their ways on Afghanistan voluntarily. So how comes you label Pakistan an ally? It never was. It lied and betrayed from beginning on. It has totally different interests. It tried to damage the US. It never did more than just the absolute minum necessary to prevent harsher political sanctions. It took our money and smiled while using it to kill our nsoldiers and Afghan civilians. Pakistan and the Tlaiban - are one team, stageacting only to make us believe they were two. But that is nonsense.

This is not to say that I think Pakistan isn't troubling - it is! But for MH whose mostly incomprehensible writings included mentioning 50 nukes in the hands of fanats(sic), i believe this is a reference to the Pakistani atomic arsenal. Those bombs are not in the hands of fanatics - they are the property of the Pakistani government, who are not themselves fanatics. If you wish to say that, at some point in the future, those bombs could end up in the hands of fanatics, it is my opinion that truly one should stick to dealing with the problems we really have and not start trying to troubleshoot with main force every imaginable problem that occurs to us.

In the event that Pakistan is overthrown and the outgoing state is unable to deal with the bombs, then things will have to happen, but i think the west has a lot of military capability in reserve for dealing with this sort of major threat.

Once nuclear weapons are constructed and in place, you have run out of military options below the use of nukes. This is what fearsome Western politicians just do not want to understand. They think they can adress the issue once it has materialised. But that is not true. It must be adressed in order to prevent it from materialising - that is the only way to handle it. Pakistan is said to have stored its nukes in a non-constructed way, warheads and carrier systems are kept in different sites. They must understand in full consequence, their establishement and their religious hate guys as well, that if they start to bring the two together, this will mean the immediate end not only of all of Pakistan, but all places that are holy to their damn freaking ideology. And this must be made clear to other Muslim states as well, thnat if any Muslim nation starts to raise nuclear weapons in a threat to the West, ALL the Islamic world will be held responsible for it and will pay by seeing all what is holy to it going up in flames and turning into dust. I fear that intimidation is the only langauge that will be understood here. I also say that with regard to Iran. If Iran is allowed nukes, then Arab states also will start to get nukes, and Turkey.

Under no circumstance we ever should let this happen, nom matetr the cost to prevent that. One Pakistan already is more than enough - and this one country already holds the potential to bring cataclysm over much of ther world. We shall not allow to let this repeat. Pakistan, under the umbrella of its nukes having become a supporter and exporter of terrorism and nuclear proliferation, should have been destroyed BEFORE it got nuclear weapons. Now that it is, we should find ways to find out where their warheads are, and strip them off them by the means needed to get this objective acchieved. Pakistan to me is the most danmgerous issue on Earth, and a total nightmare scenario. If we ever extinct ourselves in a nuclear war, then I am sure that Pakistan will play the most dominant role in that - at least as long as Iran still has no ready bomb.

But Skybird believes the conflict should deal with the fact that Pakistan is playing both sides in Afghanistan, and letting Afghanistan fester has caused it to grow. Well, that's of course related to the military adventurism in Iraq. Whatever. We can't wind the clock back.

Moving into Pakistan - what does this mean? You want to invade Pakistan too? The Pakistani military will collapse in less than a month. Lots of blood of course, since those nukes will have to be eliminated in the process.

I want to invade Pakistan as much as I want to invade Iran - I want that not at all. I outlined above what I think about, as long as conventional means are concerned. What happens in Pakistani streets, must not be our interest, they can yell and turn hysteric as much as they want. But when the start to ready their nuclear weapons, or when Iran gets reaslly close to owning ready nuclear weapons, then I am willing to authorise even the use of nukes on c onnected target facilities. That does not mean to bomb cities in orer to kill as many civilians a spossible, but that means to annihilate those parts of their weapons programs that are vital for developing, constructing and maintaining nuclear weapons.

That'S the result of having let things slide for too long - for putting unjustified trust into diplomatic "pressure" (hahahaha...), and thinking in terms of mutual trust, respect and friendship. Skip that part of the show - I do not find it any entertaining.

Then what? Then we'll have to try and pacify Afghanistan AND Pakistan.

Oh my, don't make me laughing. Pacify - Afghanistan, Pakistan? Well, everybody has his dreams...

Just describing full scale war in Pakistan as an option here, it would cost too much, in every sense. It won't be done. But increasing diplomatic pressure and focus of operations into cross border issues can be done. [/qauote]

No. A loud, clear, total sounding No. It can not be done. It was tried for 8 years. See where it got us - nowhere. Their and our interests differ too much. We are too dumb, too unrealistic, to cowardish. Total, complete, all-embracing FAILURE. How many more decade do you want to waste until finally realsing that your approach has not woreked, does not work, will never work, and never had a chance to work? Becaseu you wer4e lacking the incentives to lure them into your wanted direction? Because you had nothing you could trade for their willingess to comply?

[quote]
And is done at the present time. Pakistan of course is a complex society and they have to balance this out with the reactions of their own populace.
Really i believe the issue is patience, but i think we don't have that sort of patience in the west. Finally, expanding the war in order to end it, is not a tried and trusted principle.

Oh, it is. Save the enemy from oain and hurting his vital interests, and he will carry on and defeat you. Break his neck, cut his throat, rip his heart out of his chest and deplete him of air, water, food and sleep, and you sooner or later get rewarded a dead body. Victory cannot become more victory than that.

Whether or not that is nice business, is something different. But we mujst not be liked for doing so. That are being feared for doing it again - that already would be sufficient.

I fear my understanding of war is a little bit more archaic than the civilised, kind, sensitively fighting, socially concerned modern citizen's one.

In the end, all this word-wrestling comes down to just this: either you fight, or you don't. Simply this. Everything else makes war longer, and more miserable, and invites defeat.

Just in: Super Perforator (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4G0RIbxGxQc)

[MH]

West is becoming one big France lol

[Tribesman]

what I want is no complicated strategic stuff, but plain and simple reason.
Yet plain and simple reason cannot be applied to such a complex situation in any workable manner which is why those "simple" proposals are pure lunacy.

West is becoming one big France lol
You make even less sense than skybird:doh:

[MH]

Yet plain and simple reason cannot be applied to such a complex situation in any workable manner which is why those "simple" proposals are pure lunacy.


You make even less sense than skybird:doh:



Realy........Hm....wonder why lol

You can dsagree with skybird but to say he makes no sense -well,,,,,whateve,,,,he makes perfect sense even you are lol,

[Lurchi]

But when the start to ready their nuclear weapons, or when Iran gets reaslly close to owning ready nuclear weapons, then I am willing to authorise even the use of nukes on c onnected target facilities.
At least i am happy that you don't have any power to authorize anything ... personally i hope it remains that way. Strong words are always easy to speak for those who can expect not to be on the receiving end.

Pakistan is in a very difficult position between public opinion and foreign commitments. One should also not make the mistake to mix up its government with its secret service ISI. The latter is said to be a state in itself and it is not really known to which extent it is controlled and by whom.

He could have decided to maximise the military effort and start engaging Pakistan not only in Afghanistan, but on it's own soil. Targetted assassinations from the air, a massive, unforgiving campaign of drone attacks, missiles attacks, assassinations from the ground, maybe some commando raids, maybe even sniper infiltrations, who knows.
What makes you think that this isn't going on already? Probably it isn't too smart to talk or publish too much about this. The recent closure of the supply lines by Pakistan indicates an expansion of the operation area.

[Skybird]

At least i am happy that you don't have any power to authorize anything ... personally i hope it remains that way. Strong words are always easy to speak for those who can expect not to be on the receiving end.

Can we...? On the authorization thing, with me you would and could expect to have no stupid wears like Vietnam, Afghnaistan, Iraq. But those fewer wars I would authorize, would be shorter, more devastating and being fought with much more determination and willingness to win them and focussing of power, no matter what, at all cost. The way the US and the West has approached wars in the past 30 years, probably has caused much more victims and suffering, than my approach would. Many unneeded, but opportunistically wanted wars with one hand bound on the back and many victims over a longer period of time, or fewer wars of higher brutality and shorter length, by that being terrible while lastinglk but being over sooner and probably causing fewer victims that way - what you prefer? No wars at all is best, of course - and totally unrealistic. We are humans, no angels. there is always some foul, smelling potatoes hidden in the heap.

Pakistan is in a very difficult position between public opinion and foreign commitments. One should also not make the mistake to mix up its government with its secret service ISI. The latter is said to be a state in itself and it is not really known to which extent it is controlled and by whom.

Their egg-dancing course of the past years says all.

What makes you think that this isn't going on already? Probably it isn't too smart to talk or publish too much about this. The recent closure of the supply lines by Pakistan indicates an expansion of the operation area.

Occasionally persuing a small band of Tliban on Pakistani soil, is one thing. Strating to target Pakistrani assets and especially key personnel would be something very different. The latter would stir a public and governmental outcry that wer owuld have taken note of. The closure of the supply line was a reaction to attacking Taliban on Pakistani soil. Purpose was not so much to dry out Allied troops in Afghansitan,m bvut to amass a high fleet of tankers to make a nice, tasty target for Taliban retlaiation. And that is what happened. Which again tells you something on whose side Pakistan is on.

It is insane to run the war in a way that one is depending on good will of the enemy, Pakistan. Totally isnane and against all military and other logic.



Four pages. And still nobody saw the need of directing argument pro or against the original essay. It's easier to shoot the messanger than to deal with the content of the message, I assume.

[Tribesman]

The closure of the supply line was a reaction to attacking Taliban on Pakistani soil.
It really is a different universe Sky inhabits.
For anyone else the fact that there have been hundreds of raids on the Taliban in Pakistan with no real noticable reaction might be a clue, yet one raid which went wrong and killed the border police by hitting a border post resulted in the crossing being shut which is on the border and run by the border police from a border post.
Though I am sure if you look closely between the lines and read the secret invisible writing its all spelt out clearly in the protocols of the elders of mecca and has nothing to do with the mistake that was made

And still nobody saw the need of directing argument pro or against the original essay. It's easier to shoot the messanger than to deal with the content of the message, I assume.
What arguement? there are three writers collaborating on an article which cites several contradictory views from other parties to what it thinks may or may not be part of the problem???????

[Foxtrot]

No point to piss off Pakistan. They are quite capable of blocking NATO supply as they showed a couple of days before.

Of course, they other way is to supply via Central Europe but I am not sure if Russians or governments under Russian influence can be trusted (and their service might be a bit expensive)