NationStates Jolt Archive

There is an article in the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/world/asia/23buner.html?hp) today about the deteriorating security conditions in Pakistan with the Taliban taking more and more ground in the country. Some interesting quotes from the article include:
Pushing deeper into Pakistan, Taliban militants have established effective control of a strategically important district just 70 miles from the capital, Islamabad, officials and residents said Wednesday.

“They take over Buner, then they roll into Mardan and that’s the end of the game,”a senior law enforcement official in North-West Frontier Province said. He asked that his name be withheld because was not authorized to speak to the news media.

It also comes 10 days after the government of President Asif Ali Zardari agreed to the imposition of Islamic law, or Shariah, in Swat, as part of the deal with the Taliban.

A local politician, Jamsher Khan, said that people were initially determined to resist the Taliban in Buner, but that they were discouraged by the deal the government struck with the Taliban in Swat.

“We felt stronger as long we thought the government was with us,” he said by telephone, “but when the government showed weakness, we too stopped offering resistance to the Taliban.”

The Taliban began their assault on Buner in early April, when a battalion of the Taliban militia with heavy weaponry crossed over the hills from Swat to Buner, according to an account in the newspaper Dawn that appeared on Saturday.

The Taliban then captured three policemen and two civilians, and killed them, the newspaper said.

Infuriated by the killings, people in lower Buner and Sultanwas assembled a volunteer force and killed 17 Taliban fighters, the account said.

But soon after that, Mr. Mohammad tried to persuade the local elders to allow the Taliban to enter Buner, the newspaper said.

Soon afterward, Mr. Mohammad ordered the local armies to dissolve, the senior law enforcement official said. The order led many of those who had been willing to stand up to the Taliban to either flee or give up, the official said. Among those who are reported to have fled is Fateh Khan, a wealthy Buner businessman. Mr. Khan had been one of the main organizers and financiers of the private armies in Buner.

The Taliban continue to advance deeper and deeper towards Islamabad and the Pakistani government appears powerless to stop it. What can the Pakistani government do to prevent the Taliban from taking over more territory? What can the U.S. or NATO do to fix the situation?

I suspect we could napalm all the opium fields, plenty of warning, we're going to take out half of Afghanistan by the way, please move to the western corner for the next week.

No opium, no money, no guns, no Taliban.

This is bad. The US and NATO need to do something. The UN needs to do something. The world needs to save Pakistan.

Do you know what will happen when the Taliban take over Pakistan? Remember all those nightmare scenarios of nuclear terrorism?
Guess what Pakistan has? Nuclear weapons. Guess whose hands those nukes will fall into the Taliban successfully conquer Pakistan?

Regardless of how the Pakistanis feel about it, the world can't afford to allow a nuclear state to fall into the hands of religious extremists out to kill infidels in the most massive means available to them.

I suspect we could napalm all the opium fields, plenty of warning, we're going to take out half of Afghanistan by the way, please move to the western corner for the next week.

No opium, no money, no guns, no Taliban.

lulz. Then we'll have about 5000 wannabe journalists swarming in trying to replicate the one Nam pic of that kid that got burned by South Vietnamese forces dropping Napalm and the US got blamed for it.

I don't think Pakistan as we know it is going to stand. Thanks Cheney!
:mad:

My god I've got to get my mind out of the gutter, the way I read the thread title....

My god I've got to get my mind out of the gutter, the way I read the thread title....

http://crookedtimber.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/exploding-head.gif

I guess eventually India is just going to have to invade and conquer them. Then it will no longer be anyone else's problem.

I don't think Pakistan as we know it is going to stand. Thanks Cheney!
:mad:

What does Cheney have to do with it?

I guess eventually India is just going to have to invade and conquer them. Then it will no longer be anyone else's problem.
If they don't -- or if someone doesn't do something to secure Pakistan's nukes, we're all pretty much fucked. Those murderous, incompetent scumbags (Bush & Co) have all but ensured WW3.

What does Cheney have to do with it?

Allowing our enemies to gain strength in order to get more defense contracts signed. Same thing in Iraq.

Bush was the oil boy.

Cheney was the Military-Industrial Complex puppet master.

The taxpayer was the loser.

Sadly I think the only real solution is the one we used in Afghanistan, but we can doing it concert with the current Pakistani government... and this would be much easier to achieve or maybe wouldn't have ever happened had we not gone off to attack Iraq.

If they don't -- or if someone doesn't do something to secure Pakistan's nukes, we're all pretty much fucked. Those murderous, incompetent scumbags (Bush & Co) have all but ensured WW3.

Actually I'm not sure if anyone can do anything. It's not like the US can invade.

And the reality is, absent some massive provocation, India isn't going to either, because of China.

Maybe in the future people will take non proliferation more seriously.

Actually I'm not sure if anyone can do anything. It's not like the US can invade.

Thanks to the previous presidency and the Republican Majority starting too many wars.

Yet another reason we should immediately and completely withdraw from South Asia (along with everywhere else). Everything we do there only further inflames anti-Western sentiment, radicalizes more people, and leads to more and more bloodshed, with worse future blowback.

Thanks to the previous presidency and the Republican Majority starting too many wars.

Do you think the US should invade?

Do you think the US should invade?

Invade, no. But the only way I can see to keep it from happening is NATO sending an expeditionary force to help Pakistan fight off the Taliban.

Invade, no. But the only way I can see to keep it from happening is NATO sending an expeditionary force to help Pakistan fight off the Taliban.

Nato can do that. They won't. But they could easily enough if they wanted.

Actually I'm not sure if anyone can do anything. It's not like the US can invade.

And the reality is, absent some massive provocation, India isn't going to either, because of China.

Maybe in the future people will take non proliferation more seriously.
Then we are fucked. Forget the nukes. A taliban-dominated Pakistan will be the most efficient possible engine for war in that region as well as international terrorism.

Then we are fucked. Forget the nukes. A taliban-dominated Pakistan will be the most efficient possible engine for war in that region as well as international terrorism.

Our meddling in Pakistan is exactly what drives so many Pakistanis into the arms of the Taliban and their ilk.

Our meddling in Pakistan is exactly what drives so many Pakistanis into the arms of the Taliban and their ilk.
You'll notice that I did not call for the US or any other western country to do it, but frankly, I think we've screwed up that region enough already to keep fueling their hatred for a long time without us having to do anything more.

Nato can do that. They won't. But they could easily enough if they wanted.

Then maybe we'll get to find out how well our nuclear deterrents work.

You'll notice that I did not call for the US or any other western country to do it, but frankly, I think we've screwed up that region enough already to keep fueling their hatred for a long time without us having to do anything more.

I know you didn't. But what do you think we should do?

Then maybe we'll get to find out how well our nuclear deterrents work.

Yes but will the UFOs swoop down and take us to another planet when Mid East nukes contaminate the world's food supply? (only deterrent I can think of)
:p

If the current Pakistan government falls you may see a invasion by India. China has everything to lose too with the Taliban having nukes. So does everyone else for that matter. I don't see China doing a damn thing about India going in. Either way this may get real ugly quick. I predict massive casualties.

Then we are fucked. Forget the nukes. A taliban-dominated Pakistan will be the most efficient possible engine for war in that region as well as international terrorism.

Any war Pakistan starts with its neighbors it will lose.

I really think the problem is the taliban getting it's hands on nukes and shipping them somewhere, or some other deranged bullshit.

It could turn out okay though. Maybe China took the nukes back already. There's only 3-5 of them, and they aren't assembled.

We need to help Pakistan stabilize the country one way or another, because if the Taliban takes over their is a real chance of a regional nuclear war. If Pakistan becomes a nuclear Taliban state, I'd almost expect a first strike from Israel and/or India.

If the government actually falls, I would probably recommend sending troops invading to reinstate them or a new government, with the first priority being to seize all nuclear weapons and power plants, and either remove them or destroy them. Also, blockade the country in an effort to keep any nuclear materials from leaving in the wrong hands.

Note that I recommend this as a last resort. The US probably cannot afford another major war without a full depression and a draft, which would probably lead to great civil unrest. Also, an invasion of Pakistan, if bungled, could turn into a massive regional war and incite more terrorism.

I would also condemn even the thought of preemptively nuking Pakistan, as I'm inclined to believe that the first nation to preemptively use nukes will be deemed an unacceptable threat by all opposing nuclear nations (with the predictable results). Also, I don't believe in mass murder using "ends justify the means" arguments.

Any war Pakistan starts with its neighbors it will lose.

I really think the problem is the taliban getting it's hands on nukes and shipping them somewhere, or some other deranged bullshit.

It could turn out okay though. Maybe China took the nukes back already. There's only 3-5 of them, and they aren't assembled.

Pakistan easily has over 30 nuclear nuclear warheads along with enough weapons-grade plutonium for 3-5 more bombs. Source 1 (http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/pakistan/nuke/). Source 2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#Arsenal).

If the Pakistani government does fall, does the U.S. or NATO have the ability to swoop in and confiscate the country's nuclear arsenal?

I think the best possible solution to this mess would be to hold the Taliban at bay until the U.S., EU or China (or some combination thereof) can broker a real peace between India and Pakistan. If the border issue can be solved, then the Pakistani Army can shift its forces off of the border and the ISI will lose its rational for cultivating and protecting militant groups associated with the Taliban.

The best option would most likely be an international coalition of Americans, EU, Russians, and Chinese to locate and confiscate nuclear weapons and nuclear knowledge documents to prevent the Taliban from getting their hands on it. Then pulling out quickly once that is done.
I don't see how Israel or India would get involved.

The best option would most likely be an international coalition of Americans, EU, Russians, and Chinese to locate and confiscate nuclear weapons and nuclear knowledge documents to prevent the Taliban from getting their hands on it. Then pulling out quickly once that is done.
I don't see how Israel or India would get involved.

I don't know who mentioned Israel but I don't even know HOW they could get involved. Of long range attack capabilities they have almost none.

The Romulan Republic brought up Israel.

The Romulan Republic brought up Israel.

Romulans, I tell ya......

I don't know who mentioned Israel but I don't even know HOW they could get involved. Of long range attack capabilities they have almost none.
Israeli bombers can fly to any spot on earth.

What if Pakistan becomes Talibanistan and forms an alliance with Iran. Then it all becomes Nukistan.

Israeli bombers can fly to any spot on earth.

What if Pakistan becomes Talibanistan and forms an alliance with Iran. Then it all becomes Nukistan.

Bombers yes, but I am talking the capability to move troops to another country for a full scale invasion, the capability to gain control of the air in an enemy nation using fighters, etc. Israel doesn't really have those capabilities.

Bombers yes, but I am talking the capability to move troops to another country for a full scale invasion, the capability to gain control of the air in an enemy nation using fighters, etc. Israel doesn't really have those capabilities.

My concern is one Pakistan nuke on an Iranian missile, aimed at Israel. If Iran pushes the button, Israel will destroy the Middle East with every nuke they have. Dead! Dead! Dead!

Israeli bombers can fly to any spot on earth.

What if Pakistan becomes Talibanistan and forms an alliance with Iran. Then it all becomes Nukistan.

Israel doesn't have any bombers per se. They do have heavily modified F-16s and midair refueling capabilities though.

My concern is one Pakistan nuke on an Iranian missile, aimed at Israel. If Iran pushes the button, Israel will destroy the Middle East with every nuke they have. Dead! Dead! Dead!

That's a concern we all have.

My concern is one Pakistan nuke on an Iranian missile, aimed at Israel. If Iran pushes the button, Israel will destroy the Middle East with every nuke they have. Dead! Dead! Dead!

That's a concern we all have.

Actually, if that were the end of it, I wouldn't be so concerned. But if there's anything the movie 'Wargames' has taught me it's that once nuclear weapons start to fly, everyone wants to get in on the act. :(

Israel doesn't have any bombers per se. They do have heavily modified F-16s and midair refueling capabilities though.

Yea Israel is pretty good at modifying military equipment. Probably the best in the world. The Bradly fighting vehicle is a good example.

Bombers yes, but I am talking the capability to move troops to another country for a full scale invasion, the capability to gain control of the air in an enemy nation using fighters, etc. Israel doesn't really have those capabilities.
Who said anything about full scale invasions? If anything is done, it would most likely be an international coalition of special ops from various countries engaging in covert surgical strike to steal the nukes. If it happens that way, the Pakistanis and the Taliban likely won't see it coming until it's too late.
The mission of the Spec Ops teams would to recover their assigned nukes and take them back to their respective countries to be disposed of.
This would be cheaper and has a greater chance of success.

Why cant the USA just bomb the heck out of them?
Can they? Dont they have non pilot planes and other automatic weapons?

That's a concern we all have.

If the nation of Talibanistan is born (in Pakistan), I'd be looking for them to be shaking hands with Iran on day one!
:(

Why cant the USA just bomb the heck out of them?
Can they? Dont they have non pilot planes and other automatic weapons?

Yes, and they also have a thing called "humanity" which stops them from killing thousands of innocent people unnecessarily.

It's annoying, I know.

Why cant the USA just bomb the heck out of them?
Can they? Dont they have non pilot planes and other automatic weapons?

I think Obama is wanting to beef up production of unmanned drones. Seems like drones that dont blow up but just fly over and take pictures could find any terrorist camp on the planet.

If the nation of Talibanistan is born (in Pakistan), I'd be looking for them to be shaking hands with Iran on day one!
:(

While we're looking for the highly improbable, I'll be looking for a six hundred pound taco. :)

While we're looking for the highly improbable, I'll be looking for a six hundred pound taco. :)

I'm looking for a goddess that wants to marry me.

While we're looking for the highly improbable, I'll be looking for a six hundred pound taco. :)

Yes I think your right. I don't think there will be a Talibanistan but I'm pretty sure they're going to try anyway. Go drones go!!!

Why cant the USA just bomb the heck out of them?
Can they? Dont they have non pilot planes and other automatic weapons?

We've been launching extremely expensive ICBM's at them for awhile now.

Yes I think your right. I don't think there will be a Talibanistan but I'm pretty sure they're going to try anyway. Go drones go!!!

I'm talking about Iran allying with the Taliban. That's about as likely as Fred Phelps becoming Pope.

Why cant the USA just bomb the heck out of them?

It is, using drones. It's barbaric.

I'm talking about Iran allying with the Taliban. That's about as likely as Fred Phelps becoming Pope.

A common enemy has created alliances in the past. Better the devil you know. The torture of persains in Cuba. Those pictures of soldiers harrasing POWs in Iraq. The Danish cartoons. You don't think all that and all the other reasons many muslims hate us can come into play here?

A common enemy has created alliances in the past. Better the devil you know. The torture of persains in Cuba. Those pictures of soldiers harrasing POWs in Iraq. The Danish cartoons. You don't think all that and all the other reasons many muslims hate us can come into play here?

Nope.

Nope.

Are there any short explinations or do I need to read the entire history of Persia? Why would Muslim not team up with Muslim?

Israeli bombers can fly to any spot on earth.

Incorrect.

The closest thing the Israelis have to a "bomber" is the F-15 Strike Eagle...which has a range of less than 3000 miles. Their refueling tankers have a mission range of only 1150 miles, so they do little to extend the operational range of the F-15.

The only way for your statement to be true is if the Israelis are allowed to utilize someone else's airbases.

Not bloody likely.

Israeli bombers can fly to any spot on earth.


As pointed out, Israel doesn't have bomber craft. They are also conspicuously lacking in long range flying tankers necessary for the job. So technically, they could fly to any spot on the earth, but not in one trip, or without the help of the United States.

We've been launching extremely expensive ICBM's at them for awhile now.

Oh come on now. A cruise missile is a pittance compared to a proper ICBM, and don't even come close to qualifying for the IC part of the BM.

Are there any short explinations or do I need to read the entire history of Persia? Why would Muslim not team up with Muslim?

Why did Iran and Iraq go to war in the 80s?

Why did Iran and Iraq go to war in the 80s?

Is it to do with Tacos?

Is it to do with Tacos?

Sort of. If Islam were tacos, then Iraq preferred soft-shelled tacos and Iran preferred hard-shelled tacos. Iraq accused Iran of sabotaging their supplies of soft shells and responded with deadly force.

Well, the Taliban not only prefer soft-shelled tacos, but the soft-shells have to be prepared using their own recipes and preparation techniques and anyone who uses any other method of preparing tacos(especially those hard-shelled infidels) are not true taco lovers.

Oh come on now. A cruise missile is a pittance compared to a proper ICBM, and don't even come close to qualifying for the IC part of the BM.

Good point, cruise missiles cost more :p

Incorrect.

The closest thing the Israelis have to a "bomber" is the F-15 Strike Eagle...which has a range of less than 3000 miles. Their refueling tankers have a mission range of only 1150 miles, so they do little to extend the operational range of the F-15.

The only way for your statement to be true is if the Israelis are allowed to utilize someone else's airbases.

Not bloody likely.

I imagine if every Israeli nuke were put into use, all at the same time, there would be no place for them to land back in Israel either. But point taken. NOT anywhere on Earth. But anywhere into that, ever expanding, theater of operation.

There's just seemingly no solution, as far as I'm concerned Pakistan should be de-nuked immediately, I really don't care as to how, if it means a coalition of special forces going in and laying waste to all nuclear facilities, civilian and military, then so be it.

Political sensitivities be damned to be honest, I'd quite like the same for North Korea and, in my opinion, China would shout and scream but, in reality, do nothing.

I'm truly fed up with defunct leaders, above all I'm increasingly fed up with the blatant dishonesty shown by political-corporate-military complexes that seem so very interlinked all over the world.

Why did Iran and Iraq go to war in the 80s?

Isn't that water under the bridge? Iranians are helping a lot of nations over there including Iraq.

Isn't that water under the bridge? Iranians are helping a lot of nations over there including Iraq.

That doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is that Iran can never be the ally of the Taliban because they like hard-shelled tacos.

That doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is that Iran can never be the ally of the Taliban because they like hard-shelled tacos.

I will sleep better now! :tongue:

Are there any short explinations or do I need to read the entire history of Persia?Not the entire history, but an understanding that Persia becoming Islamic happened after a military defeat about which many Persians are still bitter.

Islam in Iran often did take a different to the rest of the Muslim world.

Why would Muslim not team up with Muslim?Why would Christian not team up with Christian in Northern Ireland?

There's just seemingly no solution, as far as I'm concerned Pakistan should be de-nuked immediately, I really don't care as to how, if it means a coalition of special forces going in and laying waste to all nuclear facilities, civilian and military, then so be it.How likely is that to happen?

Although attacking civilian facilities is not something you should even think of doing unless they are also used for military purposes (which none of the power plants are).

What you'd want to do if you wanted to do that would be to get all the nuclear bombs out, along with all the weapons grade plutonium (or mix the stuff with spent fuel) along with decommissioning the plutonium production reactors.

If you're willing to spend a month there and can avoid getting attacked in that month than it might be possible.

Otherwise you're not going to be able to do it. If the Taliban taking over starts to look likely then what's left of the Pakistani government might disarm unilaterally if they realise what nukes in the hands of nutcases could mean (or we may find the Taliban understand the using them is a bad thing that they don't want to do and just treat them as a deterrent).

Why would Christian not team up with Christian in Northern Ireland?

Nukes were not a factor.


What you'd want to do if you wanted to do that would be to get all the nuclear bombs out, along with all the weapons grade plutonium (or mix the stuff with spent fuel) along with decommissioning the plutonium production reactors.

If you're willing to spend a month there and can avoid getting attacked in that month than it might be possible.

Otherwise you're not going to be able to do it. If the Taliban taking over starts to look likely then what's left of the Pakistani government might disarm unilaterally if they realise what nukes in the hands of nutcases could mean (or we may find the Taliban understand the using them is a bad thing that they don't want to do and just treat them as a deterrent).

And would still never happen because of India.

Our meddling in Pakistan is exactly what drives so many Pakistanis into the arms of the Taliban and their ilk.

Pakistan is special. The country was formed by terrorism.

Read about Direct Action Day and how that threat was used by Jinnah to make Congress agree to partition.

It is only a natural progression for a state formed by that ideology.

I do not see taliban as "taking over" Pakistan against the wishes of its people. Taliban is "natural" to Pakistan. Pakistan is consolidating under taliban. I see greater violence in coming days but taliban gaining ground slowly but surely.

Remember, in Islam, the one who claims to be more pious always wins the public space. And taliban has claimed that space and is pushing out the army and politicians.

Yes, and they also have a thing called "humanity" which stops them from killing thousands of innocent people unnecessarily.

It's annoying, I know.

Humanity's got nothing to do with it.

Pakistan was of great use during the cold war. There is much institutionalised support of Pakistan in State Dept, CIA etc. Bed-buddies and all that.

Pakistan still has its uses and it is still cheaper to buy them instead of attacking them. The day the equations change, the strategy will change too.

Israel doesn't have any bombers per se. They do have heavily modified F-16s and midair refueling capabilities though.

OT, but Israel can operate out of Indian bases. Israel did offer to take out Kahuta (Pak nuclear establishment), like the Iraqi Osirik(?) operation. Rajiv Gandhi, the then Prime Minister, chickened out.

Christ, if the Taliban get a hold on Pakistan, with all it's nukes, we could be looking at another war.

Sort of. If Islam were tacos, then Iraq preferred soft-shelled tacos and Iran preferred hard-shelled tacos. Iraq accused Iran of sabotaging their supplies of soft shells and responded with deadly force.

Well, the Taliban not only prefer soft-shelled tacos, but the soft-shells have to be prepared using their own recipes and preparation techniques and anyone who uses any other method of preparing tacos(especially those hard-shelled infidels) are not true taco lovers.

The Iran Iraq war wasn't over religion. It was over the secular cause that Saddam Hussien wanted more real estate so he decided to send in the Iraqi army to take over Iran's house and Iran disagreed with him.

For the US it was about waging war against Islam. For Saddam it was about expanding his territory and his control outside of his own country. The same reasons that caused him to invade Kuwait in 1990.

Remember, Saddam did not become a true Muslim until he got his a&& handed to him by Bush 41 during the Persian Gulf War. Before 91, Saddam thought he was god. He invaded Kuwait and found out he wasn't. That is when Saddam became a follower of extreme Muslim groups but even then he tightly controlled them through terror and didn't allow them any say in society or government.

The thing with assuming that Muslims will ally with Muslims just because they're muslims. This goes against history in the Muslim world. It didn't stop the Saudi and Gulf Muslims from allying with the infidel USA against fellow Muslim Iraq.
It didn't cause the Muslims of Indonesia or the Middle East to side with Libya against the infidel America.
And it still has not caused the majority of the Islamic World to side with the Taliban/al qaeda against America or Europe.

The Islamic World's primary complaint, as I see it, is that the US is treating everyone as a member of Taliban/Al Qaeda and you have to agree that is not fair.

It's kind of like a black guy rapes a white woman, and you respond by labeling all blacks as rapists and put a death bounty on all of them. Not very fair or just is that?

Sort of. If Islam were tacos, then Iraq preferred soft-shelled tacos and Iran preferred hard-shelled tacos. Iraq accused Iran of sabotaging their supplies of soft shells and responded with deadly force.

Well, the Taliban not only prefer soft-shelled tacos, but the soft-shells have to be prepared using their own recipes and preparation techniques and anyone who uses any other method of preparing tacos(especially those hard-shelled infidels) are not true taco lovers.

*blinks* Wow, that's probably the most coherant and succinct summary of the Sunni/Shitte differences in Islam using tacos I've ever seen (ok, the only one using tacos I've seen but still).


I do not see taliban as "taking over" Pakistan against the wishes of its people. Taliban is "natural" to Pakistan. Pakistan is consolidating under taliban. I see greater violence in coming days but taliban gaining ground slowly but surely.


Hardly, the religious extremists in Pakistan have historically always done quite badly in elections and most of the Pakistan is comparatively moderate. To say that terrorism and the Taliban are natural to Pakistan because they were instrumental in their formation is similar to saying it would be natural for the Real IRA to take over Ireland - after all the IRA was instrumental in the formation of the Irish Republic...

My concern is one Pakistan nuke on an Iranian missile, aimed at Israel. If Iran pushes the button, Israel will destroy the Middle East with every nuke they have. Dead! Dead! Dead!lolwut? Iran doesn't want to get nuked; any nukes it could get, it'd use in the same fashion any other country in the world has used nukes (Well, since more than one country has had them) - deterrent.If the nation of Talibanistan is born (in Pakistan), I'd be looking for them to be shaking hands with Iran on day one!You'd have to look for a very long time. You're aware that Iran absolutely detests the Taliban, yes (They were about five minutes from hitting Afghanistan back in the late nineties, since the Taliban killed a handful of Persians for some reason. I'd have to look it up)?

Iran certainly doesn't like the US (Though it's slowly moving towards either a proper, somewhat more liberal - politically, anyway - democracy, or a military dictatorship with populist roots, which should shake things up a little. Give it another ten, twenty years), but the US are, particularly right now (Overstretched, broke, sick of wars), a somewhat theoretical threat to it. The Taliban + nukes would be a much more imminent threat. There's no love lost between the two (I observe Iran being a part of the US-supported coalition meant to topple the Taliban in late '01 - the coalition broke and was replaced by NATO when the towers were toppled first). Iran allying with Talibanistan? Not in this universe.

Incidentally, that'd have been a very nice alternate course of history. Iran & co toppling the Taliban with US assistance, Pakistan isolated, Iran opening up to the west as opposed to Ahmeneditroll being elected upon Iran ending up on the Axis of Evil. But that's just an aside.

As people have mentioned earlier - the muslim world is not homogenous. It's the exact opposite thereof. While there are (Usually multiple) populist movements around in several countries at a time, an actual 'Front' ('Muslims vs. the rest' just plain doesn't exist, and hasn't for well over a thousand years.

Pakistan still has its uses and it is still cheaper to buy them instead of attacking them. The day the equations change, the strategy will change too.

The problem is, the guy whos cashing the checks may not own the store much longer. And the new Landlord isnt interested in your money.

There's just seemingly no solution, as far as I'm concerned Pakistan should be de-nuked immediately, I really don't care as to how, if it means a coalition of special forces going in and laying waste to all nuclear facilities, civilian and military, then so be it.


This is second time coalition of special forces has been suggested. Would you send the UN to accomplish anything if the threat of nuclear war depended on it? Would you send a UN ninja force either? If its going to be done right its going to be done by the US Delta Force or the Israelis.

This is second time coalition of special forces has been suggested. Would you send the UN to accomplish anything if the threat of nuclear war depended on it? Would you send a UN ninja force either? If its going to be done right its going to be done by the US Delta Force or the Israelis.

*cough*SAS*cough* - NATO has access to quite a few excellent special forces

*cough*SAS*cough* - NATO has access to quite a few excellent special forces

Indeed, and I suspect having to simultaneously take out multiple targets would stretch the resources of any single special forces unit, so I'd say it would need to be a coordinated effort.

I'd be surprised if a plan wasn't already in place, last resort plan possibly but a plan nonetheless.

I don't think Pakistan as we know it is going to stand. Thanks Cheney!
:mad:
Because Pakistan has been such a viable and stable state over the last 60 years.

My god I've got to get my mind out of the gutter, the way I read the thread title....

Rommel drives on deep into Egypt.

Actually, if that were the end of it, I wouldn't be so concerned. But if there's anything the movie 'Wargames' has taught me it's that once nuclear weapons start to fly, everyone wants to get in on the act. :(

The obvious solution is to then put the Taliban into a recursive loop of tic-tac-toe.

Indeed, and I suspect having to simultaneously take out multiple targets would stretch the resources of any single special forces unit, so I'd say it would need to be a coordinated effort.

I'd be surprised if a plan wasn't already in place, last resort plan possibly but a plan nonetheless.

I would do it before the nuclear facilities fall into Taliban hands. Much easier to take the nuke-tech from willing Pakistani forces than defending Taliban forces.

I know you didn't. But what do you think we should do?
I have no idea. None of the apparent choices seems to offer a good outcome.

Any war Pakistan starts with its neighbors it will lose.

I really think the problem is the taliban getting it's hands on nukes and shipping them somewhere, or some other deranged bullshit.

It could turn out okay though. Maybe China took the nukes back already. There's only 3-5 of them, and they aren't assembled.
Them selling off the nukes was more my worry. I did not imagine them having the capacity to use them. Also I was thinking of them more turning all of Pakistan into a "safe haven" for those starting agression elsewhere, not starting expeditionary wars of their own.

Like the economic collapse of 08, there is no good option. There's the option with the least shitty outcome. However, you need some really good predictive capabilities to get that one.

So far, it seems that significant chunks of the Pakistani government is more willing to deal with the Taliban than kick them out. Either they're afraid, in cahoots or just plain hopeful. Can't say for certain which is which.

Maybe one way of dealing with it would be to dicker out an understanding with the Pakistani government to move in the army with NATO forces coming in from the other direction as part of a pincer operation. I've no idea where Pakistan hides their nuclear weapons and facilities, but it might be a good idea to see if they can be bolstered with additional troops. It'll be bloody mess, rooting them out, but it's a lot more palatable than letting them take Pakistan or just topple it, putting operational nuclear weapons on the black market.

Why did Iran and Iraq go to war in the 80s?
I thought it was over territory, and the religion divide was additional fuel.


Sort of. If Islam were tacos, then Iraq preferred soft-shelled tacos and Iran preferred hard-shelled tacos. Iraq accused Iran of sabotaging their supplies of soft shells and responded with deadly force.

Well, the Taliban not only prefer soft-shelled tacos, but the soft-shells have to be prepared using their own recipes and preparation techniques and anyone who uses any other method of preparing tacos(especially those hard-shelled infidels) are not true taco lovers.

While that description is apt and cogent, I am not reassured by it.

Send in Tom Clancy and a highly trained team of imaginary black ops specialists.

Send in Tom Clancy and a highly trained team of imaginary black ops specialists.

He's too busy writing the material for all the game tie ins that have his name when he's not sleeping or saluting the flag six times a day. But since we're on that topic, I suppose Uncle Sam could be sent there, you know, to tell them to stop being such sops.

http://i290.photobucket.com/albums/ll269/Mashadarof402/UncleSam.jpg

Like so.

Send in the Rough Riders or Buffalo Bill. America´s not exactly short of trigger-happy people.

The Iran Iraq war wasn't over religion. It was over the secular cause that Saddam Hussien wanted more real estate so he decided to send in the Iraqi army to take over Iran's house and Iran disagreed with him.

For the US it was about waging war against Islam. For Saddam it was about expanding his territory and his control outside of his own country. The same reasons that caused him to invade Kuwait in 1990.

Remember, Saddam did not become a true Muslim until he got his a&& handed to him by Bush 41 during the Persian Gulf War. Before 91, Saddam thought he was god. He invaded Kuwait and found out he wasn't. That is when Saddam became a follower of extreme Muslim groups but even then he tightly controlled them through terror and didn't allow them any say in society or government.

The point is that just because two groups of people like tacos doesn't mean they will team up against the burrito lovers. Taco lovers can hate eachother too.

The point is that just because two groups of people like tacos doesn't mean they will team up against the burrito lovers. Taco lovers can hate eachother too.

Sometimes hate them more than the burrito lovers. Afterall the burrito lovers are poor ignorants who have yet to truly savour or understand the power of the taco. Whilst those other taco-lovers know the taco but then ruin, nay insult it's very nature, with their wrong way of eating it.

The point is that just because two groups of people like tacos doesn't mean they will team up against the burrito lovers. Taco lovers can hate eachother too.

Sometimes hate them more than the burrito lovers. Afterall the burrito lovers are poor ignorants who have yet to truly savour or understand the power of the taco. Whilst those other taco-lovers know the taco but then ruin, nay insult it's very nature, with their wrong way of eating it.

This thread confuses me.

This thread confuses me.

I take it you don't approve of the religion - mexican foods analogy?

I take it you don't approve of the religion - mexican foods analogy?

No it's fine. I got it. It's just odd.

Also, I'm not sure why it's always Mexican food. I need to bring pizza and hamburgers to your countries. Perhaps it would help bring civilization to your war-torn lands. I can play too.

No it's fine. I got it. It's just odd.

Also, I'm not sure why it's always Mexican food. I need to bring pizza and hamburgers to your countries. Perhaps it would help bring civilization to your war-torn lands.

I blame LG, he started the taco analogy, I just ran with it.

I don't even like mexican food! (hmm, does that make me an atheist in this analogy)

I blame LG, he started the taco analogy, I just ran with it.

I don't even like mexican food! (hmm, does that make me an atheist in this analogy)

Well I was trying to bring American food to your war-torn lands... so you should be calling me an infidel. :p

If we continue this analogy, which has grown quite extensive now, that is.

lolwut? Iran doesn't want to get nuked; any nukes it could get, it'd use in the same fashion any other country in the world has used nukes (Well, since more than one country has had them) - deterrent.You'd have to look for a very long time. You're aware that Iran absolutely detests the Taliban, yes (They were about five minutes from hitting Afghanistan back in the late nineties, since the Taliban killed a handful of Persians for some reason. I'd have to look it up)?

Iran certainly doesn't like the US (Though it's slowly moving towards either a proper, somewhat more liberal - politically, anyway - democracy, or a military dictatorship with populist roots, which should shake things up a little. Give it another ten, twenty years), but the US are, particularly right now (Overstretched, broke, sick of wars), a somewhat theoretical threat to it. The Taliban + nukes would be a much more imminent threat. There's no love lost between the two (I observe Iran being a part of the US-supported coalition meant to topple the Taliban in late '01 - the coalition broke and was replaced by NATO when the towers were toppled first). Iran allying with Talibanistan? Not in this universe.

Incidentally, that'd have been a very nice alternate course of history. Iran & co toppling the Taliban with US assistance, Pakistan isolated, Iran opening up to the west as opposed to Ahmeneditroll being elected upon Iran ending up on the Axis of Evil. But that's just an aside.

As people have mentioned earlier - the muslim world is not homogenous. It's the exact opposite thereof. While there are (Usually multiple) populist movements around in several countries at a time, an actual 'Front' ('Muslims vs. the rest' just plain doesn't exist, and hasn't for well over a thousand years.

The same is true of the Christians. Know how everyone thinks the Crusades were all about religion and it was always muslims fighting christians and christians invading muslim lands?
Turns out you have Christian crusaders allying with Muslims against other Christian crusaders and you had muslims allying with Christian crusaders against other muslims.

That presents a more complicated picture of the situation. It looks like the causes of some of those wars were more secular than religious based.

Heck, when the Mongols came along some christians sided with the Mongols and some with Muslims and some muslims sided with the Crusaders against the Mongols.
Now that is interesting. Why do you think they did that? don't you think the two religious groups would have tried to play the Mongols off each other?

Indeed, and I suspect having to simultaneously take out multiple targets would stretch the resources of any single special forces unit, so I'd say it would need to be a coordinated effort.

I'd be surprised if a plan wasn't already in place, last resort plan possibly but a plan nonetheless.

The most successful route to handle that would be coordinated multinational coalition of the Spec Ops from UN members such as the US, Britain, France, Russia, South Korea, Australia, China. Perhaps Israel and Iran and a few others. They would be divided into cells and each cell would have one target. They would go in simultaneously under cover of darkness and be out before the sun came up.

No one wants the Taliban to have nukes and if everyone worked together for one moment, a nuclear Taliban can be prevented.

Yet another reason we should immediately and completely withdraw from South Asia (along with everywhere else). Everything we do there only further inflames anti-Western sentiment, radicalizes more people, and leads to more and more bloodshed, with worse future blowback.
Winner post!! The US needs to stop foisting its' brand of "democracy" on the Middle East.

Anyone else strangely turned on by that title?

The question is who a nuclear-armed Taliban would nuke first; America or Israel. If it's America ... well, there used to be this saying; "If Rome falls, so falls the world". Our current world order cannot very well survive the loss of New York, or Washington, or a half-dozen other cities. Considering that when Rome did fall it led to hundreds of years of invasion, barbarism, oppression and a radical drop in the quality of life, that would be a Bad Thing.

If it's Israel ... well, I've had this bad feeling for a while now that if Jerusalem or Tel Aviv were nuked, Israel would respond not by nuking Iran (unless Iran was at fault; which is not likely considering that this scenario has a nuclear Taliban) but by nuking Mecca. And then it's global jihad forever.

The question is who a nuclear-armed Taliban would nuke first; America or Israel. If it's America ... well, there used to be this saying; "If Rome falls, so falls the world". Our current world order cannot very well survive the loss of New York, or Washington, or a half-dozen other cities. Considering that when Rome did fall it led to hundreds of years of invasion, barbarism, oppression and a radical drop in the quality of life, that would be a Bad Thing.

Neither. Chances are they'd nuke Iran or Russia,

Them selling off the nukes was more my worry. I did not imagine them having the capacity to use them. Also I was thinking of them more turning all of Pakistan into a "safe haven" for those starting agression elsewhere, not starting expeditionary wars of their own.Oh they would have the capability of using them, all you'd need are the launch codes and someone who can use the targeting computer (not hard to come by someone who knows that, or you could RTFM).

Whether they'd be able to keep the capability is another matter (those missiles do need occasional maintenance).

Anyone else strangely turned on by that title?

You must have missed my decisive opening argument on the first page there. Dirty minds thing alike. :p

I have no idea. None of the apparent choices seems to offer a good outcome.

Sort of between a rock and a hard place, eh? :(

lolwut? Iran doesn't want to get nuked; any nukes it could get, it'd use in the same fashion any other country in the world has used nukes (Well, since more than one country has had them) - deterrent.You'd have to look for a very long time. You're aware that Iran absolutely detests the Taliban, yes (They were about five minutes from hitting Afghanistan back in the late nineties, since the Taliban killed a handful of Persians for some reason. I'd have to look it up)?

Iran certainly doesn't like the US (Though it's slowly moving towards either a proper, somewhat more liberal - politically, anyway - democracy, or a military dictatorship with populist roots, which should shake things up a little. Give it another ten, twenty years), but the US are, particularly right now (Overstretched, broke, sick of wars), a somewhat theoretical threat to it. The Taliban + nukes would be a much more imminent threat. There's no love lost between the two (I observe Iran being a part of the US-supported coalition meant to topple the Taliban in late '01 - the coalition broke and was replaced by NATO when the towers were toppled first). Iran allying with Talibanistan? Not in this universe.

Incidentally, that'd have been a very nice alternate course of history. Iran & co toppling the Taliban with US assistance, Pakistan isolated, Iran opening up to the west as opposed to Ahmeneditroll being elected upon Iran ending up on the Axis of Evil. But that's just an aside.

As people have mentioned earlier - the muslim world is not homogenous. It's the exact opposite thereof. While there are (Usually multiple) populist movements around in several countries at a time, an actual 'Front' ('Muslims vs. the rest' just plain doesn't exist, and hasn't for well over a thousand years.
Thank you. I'm pretty much convinced now. Just 2 more questions. Al-Qaida is in Iran and the Taliban right? Can there be a common bond if the answer to question 1 is yes?

Hardly, the religious extremists in Pakistan have historically always done quite badly in elections and most of the Pakistan is comparatively moderate. To say that terrorism and the Taliban are natural to Pakistan because they were instrumental in their formation is similar to saying it would be natural for the Real IRA to take over Ireland - after all the IRA was instrumental in the formation of the Irish Republic...

Taliban is not going to compete in any elections.

It did not take Afg thru elections either.

On an aside, I have no issues with taliban taking over Pakistan. Would make no difference whatsoever to me.

/sorry for late reply.

Taliban is not going to compete in any elections.

It did not take Afg thru elections either.

On an aside, I have no issues with taliban taking over Pakistan. Would make no difference whatsoever to me.

/sorry for late reply.
Why would it make no difference? Is it that you don't think the hostility between Pakistan and India can get any worse than it is now? I don't much about the real situation within the countries. I would think that the Taliban would potentially be a more belligerent enemy, even more likely to launch and support terrorism within India. Is that wrong?

My guess is that if the Taliban take over Pakistan, India takes over Kashmir right off the bat while they're still distracted. Any aggression by either side is probably going to result in one or both countries being nuked (I don't know how centralized their weapons are).

edit: After reading about Kashmir, I'm guessing that China gets dragged into this too. India claims all of Kashmir, including the part that Pakistan ceded to China. If India claims the entire region while Pakistan is dealing with being taken over from the inside by the Taliban, I'm not sure that the part claimed by China will be left as part of China.

Speaking as an Indian, there's nothing that I fear about taliban. Taliban cannot be worse than what the Pak establishment has been dishing out to us till now. To me, it makes no difference.

Nukes under the control of people who yell jihad ???it's already that way.

The motto of the Pakistan army is "Jihad fi sabilullah" - Jihad in the way of Allah.

Is it possible to get the nuclear warheads moved now?

Speaking as an Indian, there's nothing that I fear about taliban. Taliban cannot be worse than what the Pak establishment has been dishing out to us till now. To me, it makes no difference.

Nukes under the control of people who yell jihad ???it's already that way.

The motto of the Pakistan army is "Jihad fi sabilullah" - Jihad in the way of Allah.
Yelling is one thing. Doing is another. So is selling the nukes or their components off to the highest bidder on the black market. I know there have been rumors about Pakistan that way. Do you think the Taliban would not be worse?

Shits hitting the fan.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/25/pakistan-stop-taliban/


United States is giving an ultimatum to Pakistan.

"America made clear last week that it would attack Taliban forces in their Swat valley stronghold unless the Pakistan government stopped the militants' advance towards Islamabad."


I think we all saw this coming. US is going to war in Pakistan.


EDIT: "American military and intelligence forces already run limited ground and air operations on Pakistani soil along the border with Afghanistan. But an overt military operation such as that threatened in Swat, away from the border, would mark a major escalation."

Is it possible to get the nuclear warheads moved now?

Apparently Obama has a better plan: send the marines in to save Pakistan.

Obama's getting BAMF points now.

Shits hitting the fan.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/25/pakistan-stop-taliban/


United States is giving an ultimatum to Pakistan.

"America made clear last week that it would attack Taliban forces in their Swat valley stronghold unless the Pakistan government stopped the militants' advance towards Islamabad."


I think we all saw this coming. US is going to war in Pakistan.


EDIT: "American military and intelligence forces already run limited ground and air operations on Pakistani soil along the border with Afghanistan. But an overt military operation such as that threatened in Swat, away from the border, would mark a major escalation."

How is hey, if you can't kill the bad guys we are going to save your government form falling an ultimatum.
I got to admit Obama has been pretty strong military wise.

Bamf?

I think the greatest thing that can come of this is that Fox News will have no choice but to praise Obama.

Snowy day in hell.

Bamf?

BadAss MotherFucker.

I think the greatest thing that can come of this is that Fox News will have no choice but to praise Obama.

Snowy day in hell.

Letting a country with nuclear weapons be over run by militants is not an option. No matter what party the president belongs to.

Letting a country with nuclear weapons be over run by militants is not an option. No matter what party the president belongs to.

And the best thing is, if Republicans make a PEEP about this, it's you-hate-America for them!

Americans will rally around Obama just as they rallied around Bush in 2001.

And the best thing is, if Republicans make a PEEP about this, it's you-hate-America for them!

Turn the tables eh.

It would certainly make em in to hypocrites and shove them into the ash heap of history.
The US will then be a one party country.

Letting a country with nuclear weapons be over run by militants is not an option. No matter what party the president belongs to.

Oh, absolutely. I'm just particularly looking forward to Hannity being forced to say "Hey this Obama character's not a bad guy".

Americans will rally around Obama just as they rallied around Bush in 2001.

Good. Let's see how THEY like taking the crap they dished out.

Who is "they"?

Americans will rally around Obama just as they rallied around Bush in 2001

Well, at least this time we've got a pretty valid reason, although this does have the potential to blow up into something much larger.

Oh, absolutely. I'm just particularly looking forward to Hannity being forced to say "Hey this Obama character's not a bad guy".

He's not with the exception of his tax hikes and his huge spending increases.

although this does have the potential to blow up into something much larger.


Do we have a choice?

Well, at least this time we've got a pretty valid reason, although this does have the potential to blow up into something much larger.

In the middle of the Pakistan invasion just before we get the nukes, we will invade Iran?

no,

no,

lol. If my scenario happens I am moving to China of Korea.

LOL. China is right next to pakistan.

LOL. China is right next to pakistan.

yeah But China isnt going the flinch on truing Pakistan into a crater if a nuclear weapon so much as points at them.

Idiots. Due to various alliances and the general paranoia over nuclear weapons, I'd say their's a fair chance that if anyone uses them, every nuclear nation will start cutting loose. I hope not, but I won't dismiss the possibility.

Yelling is one thing. Doing is another. So is selling the nukes or their components off to the highest bidder on the black market. I know there have been rumors about Pakistan that way. Do you think the Taliban would not be worse?

Whatever you fear the taliban might do, the PA has already done it (short of lobbing nukes over...and I think the taliban won't be lobbing it anymore than PA has been lobbing it)

I am also being a little cynical here when I say, taliban may actually be better. Pakistan was created for Islam. It is only quite natural that taliban takes over. Unlike secular democracies which tend to get liberal with every generation (new generation becomes liberal and older becomes conservative but on the whole things become more liberal and liberal)....Islamic countries (most of them) only become more radical as time progresses especially if there is a "we are the pure and true muslims" group in the mix. Others concede space to this group. It is the nature of the religion.

Pakistanis want Islam. Let them have it. Why are you stopping it? Are you anti-Islamic?:p

Whatever you fear the taliban might do, the PA has already done it (short of lobbing nukes over...and I think the taliban won't be lobbing it anymore than PA has been lobbing it)

I am also being a little cynical here when I say, taliban may actually be better. Pakistan was created for Islam. It is only quite natural that taliban takes over. Unlike secular democracies which tend to get liberal with every generation (new generation becomes liberal and older becomes conservative but on the whole things become more liberal and liberal)....Islamic countries (most of them) only become more radical as time progresses especially if there is a "we are the pure and true muslims" group in the mix. Others concede space to this group. It is the nature of the religion.

Pakistanis want Islam. Let them have it. Why are you stopping it? Are you anti-Islamic?:p

Except for the 25% of the Pakistani population that is Shiite and would not like a bunch of Sunni's ruling over them.
Or the 5% of the population that is not Islamic.
or the 5% of non Shiite non Sunni Muslims that would likely object.

That right there would represent a 1/3 of the population against the rule by the Taliban. Make that pretty close to 50% when the secular/moderate Sunni's are counted. Pakistan is not some hell hole, this is the country that elected a woman as prime minister twice, who likely would have won election in 2008 if she wasn't assassinated.

to abandon a country with such progress to a group of armed thugs from Afganistan is horrendous.

Whatever you fear the taliban might do, the PA has already done it (short of lobbing nukes over...and I think the taliban won't be lobbing it anymore than PA has been lobbing it)

I am also being a little cynical here when I say, taliban may actually be better. Pakistan was created for Islam. It is only quite natural that taliban takes over. Unlike secular democracies which tend to get liberal with every generation (new generation becomes liberal and older becomes conservative but on the whole things become more liberal and liberal)....Islamic countries (most of them) only become more radical as time progresses especially if there is a "we are the pure and true muslims" group in the mix. Others concede space to this group. It is the nature of the religion.

Pakistanis want Islam. Let them have it. Why are you stopping it? Are you anti-Islamic?:p

That is not what the Pakistanis want. Those living in areas under Taliban occupation are living in fear. People are being butchered. America has a duty to put an end to it and liberate Pakistan so they can have their country back.

That is not what the Pakistanis want. Those living in areas under Taliban occupation are living in fear. People are being butchered. America has a duty to put an end to it and liberate Pakistan so they can have their country back.

He's Indian. He couldn't give a rat's ass if every single Paki died.

He's Indian. He couldn't give a rat's ass if every single Paki died.

Indo-Aryan ancestral group is the majority ethnic group for both. The difference is religion.

Also Paki is a racial slur I suggest against using it.

Indo-Aryan ancestral group is the majority ethnic group for both. The difference is religion.

Also Paki is a racial slur I suggest against using it.

It was just used to emphasize the near-spiteful apathy towards the plight of the Pakistanis, sorry though.

That is not what the Pakistanis want. Those living in areas under Taliban occupation are living in fear. People are being butchered. America has a duty to put an end to it and liberate Pakistan so they can have their country back.

America has a duty to keep its economy in one piece.

The Pakistan government has responded to the American ultimatum by launching a full scale attack on the Taliban.

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/04/26/pakistan.taliban/

America has a duty to keep its economy in one piece.

Sending troops to help the Pakistanis kick out the Taliban won't make the economy any worse than the Congressional democrats have already made it.

America has a duty to keep its economy in one piece.

Because a nuclear war in the region can only help the global economy.;)

Except for the 25% of the Pakistani population that is Shiite and would not like a bunch of Sunni's ruling over them.
Or the 5% of the population that is not Islamic.
or the 5% of non Shiite non Sunni Muslims that would likely object.

That right there would represent a 1/3 of the population against the rule by the Taliban. Make that pretty close to 50% when the secular/moderate Sunni's are counted. Pakistan is not some hell hole, this is the country that elected a woman as prime minister twice, who likely would have won election in 2008 if she wasn't assassinated.

to abandon a country with such progress to a group of armed thugs from Afganistan is horrendous.I'm reasonably confident that these minorities wont make up a third of the population once the Taliban have been running the place for a year or so.

So, complaint invalid.

The Taliban has already been busy executing them.

Wait. Isn't there a name for what the Taliban is doing?

Does ethnic cleansing cover it?

Or is it "religious cleansing"?

The Taliban has already been busy executing them.

Wait. Isn't there a name for what the Taliban is doing?

Does ethnic cleansing cover it?

Or is it "religious cleansing"?Survival of the fittest? If there is a majority of Pakistanis unhappy with the Taliban advance, I expect them to take up arms and kick ass.

Otherwise, fuck 'em.

If not for the nukes, which the Taliban would use to force the rest of us to adopt their brand of Islamic rule, I would agree.

But there are conditions that warrant involvement in other countries internal affairs and this situation is one of those.

I think the greatest thing that can come of this is that Fox News will have no choice but to praise Obama.

Snowy day in hell.

And the best thing is, if Republicans make a PEEP about this, it's you-hate-America for them!
Alternatively: "Where's the change, Sauron!!!"

After all, when you get a thread like this gets posts like this:
Sending troops to help the Pakistanis kick out the Taliban won't make the economy any worse than the Congressional democrats have already made it.
It seems pretty clear that some people will never yank their heads out into the light.

Whatever you fear the taliban might do, the PA has already done it (short of lobbing nukes over...and I think the taliban won't be lobbing it anymore than PA has been lobbing it)

I am also being a little cynical here when I say, taliban may actually be better. Pakistan was created for Islam. It is only quite natural that taliban takes over. Unlike secular democracies which tend to get liberal with every generation (new generation becomes liberal and older becomes conservative but on the whole things become more liberal and liberal)....Islamic countries (most of them) only become more radical as time progresses especially if there is a "we are the pure and true muslims" group in the mix. Others concede space to this group. It is the nature of the religion.

Pakistanis want Islam. Let them have it. Why are you stopping it? Are you anti-Islamic?:p
For a while now I've been trying to figure out if you are good source of information and insight into what is happening in that region, but I see now that you are not. Your responses to anything that happens in Pakistan are so knee-jerk and shallow that they are meaningless. Even if they are accurate, there is no way for anyone outside the area to tell because they are so stained by your hatred of them. I guess I'll just have to rely on the news, and not on having a person "on the inside" to tell me what's really going on. Thanks anyway for your answers.

Does Pakistan have non-weapons based nuclear facilities?

Enough to create the sufficient waste material for a suitcase sized dirty bomb?

Does Pakistan have non-weapons based nuclear facilities?

Enough to create the sufficient waste material for a suitcase sized dirty bomb?

They have nuclear reactors for generating power in Karachi and Chashma.

He's Indian. He couldn't give a rat's ass if every single Paki died.

That's not really fair. I have an Indian friend who bears no ill ill toward Pakistan or Pakistanis.

Survival of the fittest? If there is a majority of Pakistanis unhappy with the Taliban advance, I expect them to take up arms and kick ass.

Otherwise, fuck 'em.

They're afraid - armed militants come into your village and start taking over. Yes, you could fight them with whatever weapon you have managed to acquire on your poor wage (and frankly whatever it is, it will be nothing like what the militants have). Maybe some of your village mates will stand with you, hell even if all of them do. What happens then? Chances are you will be outnumbered and outgunned and you will die, then the Taliban take retribution on your village, on your family, your wife, your children...

It only take a couple of villages like that and word gets around, people stop fighting back, not necessarily because they are afraid for themselves but because they are deathly, deathly afraid for their wives and children and all the others who can't fight but will pay if those who can do.

And that is how militants can take over a whole region which would otherwise not accept them.

Yes, you'll get resistance, you'll get partisans, but the majority of people will simply be very very afraid. And really, would you risk your childrens/wives lives like that? Because that's the question everyone is asking themselves. And for the vaste majority of parents/husbands I'm willing to be the answer is very simply no.

Well, I just finished reading through this thread. I'd like to personally thank everyone who added to it. One of the best, most informative and actually legit threads I've read on NSG. Tons of information, limited bitching and real constructiver discussion. Plus, I learned a ridiculous amount about the region, and actually went from this thread straight to wikipedia to read up more on Swat valley and the federally administered tribal regions.

I honestly mean it when I say that everyone on this thread should give themselves a real pat on the back. Awesome, guys :)

They have nuclear reactors for generating power in Karachi and Chashma.

That means thay they won't have time to just send in some special forces to swoop in and grab all the nuclear material.

I can see the US and allies (NATO or even a UN force) having to bolster the Pakistani government in order to keep these areas out of Taliban hands.

Sorry for the late replies. I can't be active as I used to be....newly married and all..:tongue:

Except for the 25% of the Pakistani population that is Shiite and would not like a bunch of Sunni's ruling over them.
Or the 5% of the population that is not Islamic.
or the 5% of non Shiite non Sunni Muslims that would likely object.

That right there would represent a 1/3 of the population against the rule by the Taliban. Make that pretty close to 50% when the secular/moderate Sunni's are counted. Pakistan is not some hell hole, this is the country that elected a woman as prime minister twice, who likely would have won election in 2008 if she wasn't assassinated.

to abandon a country with such progress to a group of armed thugs from Afganistan is horrendous.

Oh please. I was making that comment in jest. I know fully well the ethnic and linguistic and sectarian composition of Pakistanis (as much as possible from open sources).

He's Indian. He couldn't give a rat's ass if every single Paki died.

It was just used to emphasize the near-spiteful apathy towards the plight of the Pakistanis, sorry though.


Hey you left your !@b!! <>^99 things that you typically use. I haven't been around...have you finally got bored of it or did people just started ignoring you? But you get points for watching and promptly replying with nonsense?

The Pakistan government has responded to the American ultimatum by launching a full scale attack on the Taliban.

Oh poor American...when will you get it....:rolleyes:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/29/world/asia/29pstan.html
At a news conference, he played three tapes of what were described as telephone intercepts of the main Taliban leader, Mullah Fazlullah, talking to one of his commanders about making a show withdrawal for the news media while telling the fighters to put away their weapons and lie low.

I swear...I am NOT making this up.

I still maintain, the taliban are under the direct control of the Pakistan army.

following earlier post.

Read here for more about how this thing may be stage-managed.

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/potemkin-battles/452667/

For a while now I've been trying to figure out if you are good source of information and insight into what is happening in that region, but I see now that you are not. Your responses to anything that happens in Pakistan are so knee-jerk and shallow that they are meaningless. Even if they are accurate, there is no way for anyone outside the area to tell because they are so stained by your hatred of them. I guess I'll just have to rely on the news, and not on having a person "on the inside" to tell me what's really going on. Thanks anyway for your answers.

Oh get over it. I am just another anonymous person at the interwebs. take my posts strictly for what its worth. I am not an "expert" on the region nor am I completely "unbiased". I am what I am. A person with feelings, a bit of knowledge of the region. Don't look for anything deeper in my posts.

But, I'll give you this. I am anyday better than the media in reporting on the region.


That means thay they won't have time to just send in some special forces to swoop in and grab all the nuclear material.

It is alleged that all such facilities already have US troops guarding it.