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/SB1000...S=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. 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...

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

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

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]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

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

Yeap!

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]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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.

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

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

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]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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 West

Wow.

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]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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.

[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.

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

Seriously, Skybird - get a grip.

You ask too much I think.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Schroeder

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.

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.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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.

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?