LeGenD
MODERATOR
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2006
- Messages
- 15,813
- Reaction score
- 162
- Country
- Location
Your parents haven't taught you any manners, it seems. With this kind of attitude, you won't have much future in professional fields or somebody will teach you a lesson at some point that you will never forget. You should improve your attitude and learn some manners.
Your assumptions are baseless.
If US was really afraid of Pakistan, it wouldn't have;
1. Threatened to bomb Pakistan 'back to stone age' after 9/11 event
2. Conducted Operation Neptune Spear deep inside Pakistani territory to assassinate Osama Bin Laden
3. Attacked military positions of Pakistan in the Salala region, a battle that resulted in deaths of many Pakistani troops
Yes, Americans are human beings and fearful of certain things but they do not back down from extreme challenges. Have you read about Cuban Missile Crises? I suggest that you do so.
I am not interested in jokes. Spamming doesn't helps your argument and it is against the rules of a forum.You forget to Add US other weapons , i will help you
I am so scared ...........
You actually have comprehension issues, you do not have sufficient IQ level to understand technical information that is shared with you. I revealed a fact that US continues to develop/improve methods to figure out locations of nukes in the hostile environments worldwide. How is this irrelevant to the discussion at hand?
Copy-paste? Did anybody ever taught you the importance of sharing information in college? Or are you a college dropout?
Of-course, we are discussing a hypothetical scenario. However, we can predict the outcome of this hypothetical confrontation on the basis of available information and common-sense.
No, your types are! Your types are good for becoming grunts at best.
US doesn't have to attack every nation to prove its superiority. Americans can see through bluff and real threats.
US have ample resources to sustain a conflict for a long time. Look no further then the example of its conflict with Iraq. This conflict began in 1991 and ended in 2011, leading to destruction of Iraq and downfall of Saddam Hussein and his powerbase. This conflict lasted 20 years.
Can Pakistan afford a conflict for 20 years? It cannot.
Right... the best army in the world doesn't knows how to fight.
Here is a glimpse:
Americans are experts of combat in urban environments. American military operations in urban environments, in modern times, such as Thunder Run (Baghdad) and Operation Phantom Fury (Fallujah) have become [exemplary] case-studies for the entire world.
Consider the example of Operation Phantom Fury. Opposing forces transformed Fallujah into a fortress by barricading it, booby-trapping many buildings and planting IEDs in different areas. Guess what? Americans retook this city and crushed the defenders.
FYI: OPERATION PHANTOM FURY: The Assault and Capture of Fallujah, Iraq. | Marine Corps Association
You underestimate Americans way too much.
Wrong! Americans attempt to minimize collateral damage in modern conflicts. Americans haven't wiped out urban environments of Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq, and neither have they attempted to exterminate population of these countries. Americans can be aggressive at times but they don't emulate Hitler in the matters of their foreign policy.
Don't believe me? Have a look at bombing of Baghdad in 2003:
Mostly governmental and Iraqi military positions were struck.
---
During World War 2, Americans adopted extremely brutal methods to demoralize enemies in 1945. They nearly wiped out several cities in Germany and Japan such as Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki through overwhelming firepower.
Dresden:
Tokyo
Hiroshima
Severity of American response depends upon who they are up against.
Germany and Japan were among the greatest powers and highly motivated/resilient nations back then. Therefore, US adopted brutal tactics to subjugate both during the later years of World War 2.
Pakistan is a nuclear power and a heavily militarized nation, therefore, US [will not] take it lightly.
Americans invaded Afghanistan to:
1. Remove Taliban from power
2. Dismantle Al-Qaeda network and eliminate Osama Bin Laden
3. Bring friendly elements to power
Americans invaded Iraq to:
1. Remove Baath Party from power
2. Eliminate Saddam Hussein and his allies
3. Bring friendly elements to power
Now, tell me...which objective have not been met?
Yes, both countries (Iraq and Afghanistan) continue to burn, but due to internal strife at present:-
In Iraq; Shia, Sunni and Kurd factions do not get along well.
In Afghanistan; Northern Alliance (Tribes) and Taliban (Tribes) do not get along well.
Now, what can Americans do about internal strife in the aforementioned nations? They can;
1. Protect friendly elements and fund rebuilding efforts.
Or
2. They can exterminate population of both nations and be done with it.
If Americans choose option 2, then how would this help their international image? Americans are not impervious to reactions of international community. This is an era of intertwined economies and no country can afford to isolate itself long-term.
It was propaganda.
Americans failed in Vietnam due to a number of reasons:
1. American public did not support this conflict
2. Racial tensions in US disrupted cohesion of the American Army
3. Vietnam benefited tremendously from its geographical orientation; mountains, jungles and swamps prevented US from conducting mechanized thrusts in different parts of Vietnam. American troops were vulnerable to enemy fire and ambushes in such environments.
4. USSR and China intervened and armed (North) Vietnamese rebels with sophisticated weapons to confront American troops on equal terms
5. American allies in Vietnam, (South) Vietnamese, were mostly inept and not motivated enough.
However, contrary to the popular belief, American Army did not loose any battle in Vietnam. But Americans should have avoided this conflict because American public did not support it.
Anyways, Vietnam episode is irrelevant in this discussion. Americans have learned valuable lessons from this conflict and revolutionized their military capability, doctrines, policies and addressed racial tensions. In the end, Americans emerged stronger then ever before; this is apparent from the performance of US during the Persian Gulf War (1991).
I did not claim that Pakistan would be a piece of cake. However, you should expect your nonsense to be addressed at times.
Americans cannot do jack shit about countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan?
Had you not been living in the basement of your home for years, you would not have posted so much nonsense.
Riiiiight.......
Brilliant.
Do you even bother to check your sources?
Your citation reveals perception of Americans about Taliban prior to 9/11 event. Americans were concerned about the fact that Taliban permitted Al-Qaeda network to establish its foothold in Afghanistan and protested this development. Americans felt that Taliban are responsible for supporting Al-Qaeda network in its nefarious designs against US and therefore a threat to US national security.
However, Americans decided to act after 9/11 event: they launched Operation Enduring Freedom to defeat Al-Qaeda network in the Af-Pak region and punished Taliban for supporting it. Taliban have considerably suffered as a consequence, they lost power in Afghanistan and thousands of them are dead.
However, Americans are willing to give those Taliban individuals another chance who will not support terrorists and destabilize Afghanistan. Some examples:
9/11 ten years on: ex-Taliban fighter's journey from AK-47s to US contracts | US news | The Guardian
Confessions of a Taliban Fighter | VICE | United States
KUNDUZ: Ex-Taliban fighters, prison inmates play volleyball for peace | UNAMA
Former Taliban fighters join the peace process | Resolute Support Mission
My Life with the Taliban by Abdul Salam Zaeef: review - Telegraph
But of-course, there are some Taliban individuals and leaders who are not willing to compromise on their agenda and continue to incite violence in the country.
However, agenda of even hostile Taliban elements is regional in scope; such elements are primarily interested in forcing NATO out of Afghanistan and restore their rule in Afghanistan, but they don't have global ambitions like Al-Qaeda network. However, primary concern of US is that whether hostile Taliban elements will once again support terrorists or not.
If hostile Taliban elements are willing to renounce their support for terrorists, US may exercise some flexibility in its foreign policy and acknowledge them as a legitimate political force of Afghanistan. This is the purpose of negotiations between American and Taliban leadership.
Interestingly, American President Barack Obama recently hinted that Taliban movement is no longer a threat to US national security and he is willing to acknowledge Taliban as a legitimate political force in Afghanistan if this movement sheds the ways of violence. So how come an American President is demonstrating such flexibility? Hint: Based on negotiations with Taliban leadership.
FYI:
Team Obama: Afghan Taliban Not a Threat to U.S. | Robert Naiman
Taliban says not a threat to America, decry coalition role in Helmand fight - Khaama Press (KP) | Afghan News Agency
When hostile Taliban elements will reach an understanding with the US that they will not support terrorists, this war will be over.
---
Taliban movement actually thrives on religious grounds (it is an ideological movement); there isn't a shortage of illiterate youngsters in Afghanistan and Pakistan who can be exploited through religious indoctrination and motivated to join the so-called "jihad" against American interests and allies in the Af-Pak region. This is how Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) came into existence.
At present, Taliban movement have two major factions; one for Afghanistan (Original) and one for Pakistan (TTP). These factions are not good for either nation.
---
It is easier to defeat an army then an ideology. An army is identifiable but an ideology is invisible. It is not written on somebody's face that he is a member of Taliban, Al-Qaeda, ISIS or some other militant faction. This is why ideology-driven forces are not easily routed.
Americans can choose to exterminate the population of Afghanistan but is this a reasonable solution for the problem at hand? No. Humanitarian approach is to make sure that people are not exploited through religious indoctrination, get education and jobs.
Now, assume that Americans wipe Afghanistan clean and then invite others to repopulate it. Is there a guarantee that the new settlers won't be violent or won't become hostile to US interests at some point in the future? Their is no such guarantee.
A sound strategy is to reform the Afghan nation. This is certainly a lengthy project but it is attainable. US should not abandon Afghanistan to its fate this time. War in Afghanistan is absolutely winnable.
Genius, CIA and ISI collaborated with each other to hunt and nab terrorists who had fled to Pakistan due to military operations against them in Afghanistan. CIA have conducted numerous unilateral operations within Pakistan as well.
Fantastic.
CORRECTION: Americans are not stuck in Afghanistan. They choose to maintain a limited presence in Afghanistan to overlook their rebuilding efforts and protect their interests in the region.
Afghanistan was becoming a breeding ground of terrorists under the leadership of Taliban and something had to be done about it. Americans took the right step by commencing military operations against terrorists and their collaborators in the Af-Pak region. Unfortunately, Americans shifted their focus towards conflicts in the Middle East and Africa along the way and diverted crucial resources towards handling them. Americans should have focused on Afghanistan (only).
It is still not too late. Pakistan and US should work together to address problems of Afghanistan. However, this is a lengthy struggle. But both countries can take Iran, China and Russia on-board for this matter.
Peaceful and stable Afghanistan is good for Asia at large and Pakistan in particular.
Being disrespectful is never productive for anybody.I reply to people in the language they understand
Americans can protect their military bases and naval positions with ABM systems, mind you.
Nuking other countries is not advisable even under worst circumstances.
Other countries will attempt to diffuse hostility between US and Pakistan but no country is willing to wage a nuclear-war with US [for] Pakistan. Mark my words.
Of-course, Pakistan will do anything in its power to hurt the Americans under such circumstances but you are overestimating Pakistan's capabilities in this regard.
Americans have the military capability to intercept Pakistani missiles mid-flight and destroy Pakistan. Why should we be ashamed to acknowledge facts? Pakistan isn't a superpower, period.
Last edited:
