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

[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]

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?

[AngusJS]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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.



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



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

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by AngusJS

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[AngusJS]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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 about

Sorry, 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]

Originally Posted by Freiwillige

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/bl...images/Pun.jpg

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by 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.

Right that.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by AngusJS

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.