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

[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

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by JU_88

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

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

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

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

[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]

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.

[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!

[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?