If Gen Kayani resists, would the US assassinate him?

[laiqs@mi]

‪Cross Fire with Meher Bukhari 12th July 2011 - 3‬‏ - YouTube

 

[Awesome]

He doesn't mention any actual plan, he just says that is the US's MO to take out anyone who is resisting. Which I agree, the USG just covers all its basis then it can stoop really low on morals. Its actions endangers lives of babies in Pakistan, but its covered its basis since it will say it never meant to kill babies only to kill Osama.

 

[laiqs@mi]

Agree asim bhai.
i just watched and when i posted the video the light was gone. i could not write any thing.
but i too am confused is this just for the people of nation. create a bit havoc or just throw a blind arrow. it may hit the target or waht.

 

[lem34]

Americans will stoop to any depths to maintain there position. They will get more desparate in time. Wish our leaders were like irans leaders and had a bit of backbone. However they are proven to be cowards and in the past when people have stood up to them on the whole they have backed off. Its only people who try to hold back that they attack. For example had Saddam attacked americans whilst they were building there task forse and a significant amount of bodybags sent back to america then I would have liked to see how brave americans were,

 

[Leader]

nonsense, this is sometimes a strategy to covey the threat !!


donot forget mehar bukhari and her pictures with usa embassy sweeper !

 

[Tshering22]

If the Americans really wanted him out of the way, he would have been done for long back when he was getting uppity about blocking supply routes (indirectly). The reason why he's there is because US needs him.

Americans will stoop to any depths to maintain there position. They will get more desparate in time. Wish our leaders were like irans leaders and had a bit of backbone.

Buddy, you're again and again getting the wrong idea about Iranian regime. As Iran Zamin said, he himself is of the opinion of a regime change. The regime is doing nothing but creating "the enemy" so that their own regime makes it into the coming decades. Iranians love their country of course. They cannot hate their country due to the leaders that have taken the top spot. I too despise my country's ruling party's regime to core, but I can never hate my country for this. It is what my identity is and it is where I come from. Same applicable for Iranians.

So naturally when it is a USA/Israel Against Iran thread, they get aggressive. The Iranian regime is just living by keeping their people isolated from the rest of the world, barring a few countries. While no one wants to be dominated and overrun which I strongly agree, they're going a bit in the opposite direction. By isolating the Iranian people from rest of the world, the regime is doing nothing brave. US is not losing anything, Israel is losing nothing and only Iranian civilians have direct effect, even though they're not guilty of anything wrong.

A balanced foreign policy is the need of the hour for them as well as for you. In Pakistan's case, there's more emotional involvement than truly political when dealing with a bigger power. Initially there's such a strong wave of emotional display created that the opinion of people has no room to maneuver in the neutral side and hence you get totally aligned to one side rather than keeping options open.

The advantage of such staunch alignments is that you get stuff favored from that particular power for sometime, but once that power goes down, it takes you along with it. Being neutrally wise and balanced is very difficult, but its advantages outweigh its demerits by far.

However they are proven to be cowards and in the past when people have stood up to them on the whole they have backed off. Its only people who try to hold back that they attack. For example had Saddam attacked americans whilst they were building there task forse and a significant amount of bodybags sent back to america then I would have liked to see how brave americans were,

Iraq war was a complete waste of time, money and precious lives. Saddam was so off the target list that it almost changed the USA's opinion in this part of the world. All knew that Saddam had no WMDs and there was no need for that war. However, for some stupid reason Bush was obsessed with it. He thought of a double whammy that ended in a disaster.

However, direct military confrontation with US as you suggest would be a disaster even worse. Bodybags are fine but then having drones + fighters + bombers + missiles flying all towards your direction to destroy your infrastructure and basic amenities is terrible too. No on would want that. US is ready to bear the cost of its soldiers' lives say at 2,000-10,000 casualties (and add the 60,000+ casualties in Vietnam and other wars). So as you can see, they're not really concerned about losing soldiers. They're just concerned about lest their grip on a region gets weaker. Strategic depth is more valuable to them than lives that can be considered as "martyred patriots".

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

killing the head makes no difference a new one would replace him and there'd be no guarantee the next one would be cooperative or a yes-man

so therefore, i dont think the Americans would be STUPID enough to try such a stunt...one that could easily backfire

 

[Tshering22]

killing the head makes no difference a new one would replace him and there'd be no guarantee the next one would be cooperative or a yes-man

so therefore, i dont think the Americans would be STUPID enough to try such a stunt...one that could easily backfire

It won't really matter. It couldn't get worse than this militarily for US. Over the period of its years post WW2, US has been successful in cultivating leaders that are their puppets worldwide (something that Iran has viciously resisted post revolution which is in a way admirable but not at the cost of global isolation).

The next one could also be an easier target considering that you don't post sufficient safety threat to mainland US from American POV. So if they really wanted another man, they'd have had it by now. They think Kayani is fine and hence he continues.

 

[Donatello]

If a plan to assassinate Gen Kayani fails, then he will wreck havoc on Americans in Pakistan. Like they say, don't injure what you can't kill.

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

It won't really matter. It couldn't get worse than this militarily for US. Over the period of its years post WW2, US has been successful in cultivating leaders that are their puppets worldwide (something that Iran has viciously resisted post revolution which is in a way admirable but not at the cost of global isolation).

The next one could also be an easier target considering that you don't post sufficient safety threat to mainland US from American POV. So if they really wanted another man, they'd have had it by now. They think Kayani is fine and hence he continues.

they dont need a cooperative Army Chief when they have Zardari; then they can try to create a bridge between both military and the civilian govt.

in fact, they have tried and thus far it hasnt been succesful


Pakistan isnt Afghanistan; Pakistan isnt Iraq. The civilian govt. may be unable or unwilling to resist policies or practices that counter our national security.


others are willing

 

[Ajaxpaul]

If a plan to assassinate Gen Kayani fails, then he will wreck havoc on Americans in Pakistan. Like they say, don't injure what you can't kill.

Americans can do the same to pakistanis in US also. Though the idea of assassinating Kayani is absurd to the power of ten.

 

[lem34]

It won't really matter. It couldn't get worse than this militarily for US. Over the period of its years post WW2, US has been successful in cultivating leaders that are their puppets worldwide (something that Iran has viciously resisted post revolution which is in a way admirable but not at the cost of global isolation).

If more countries stood up to america then iran would not be as isolated. So you admire the iranian leadership but state its not worth it at ccost of global isolation.

 

[B@KH]

they dont need a cooperative Army Chief when they have Zardari; then they can try to create a bridge between both military and the civilian govt.

in fact, they have tried and thus far it hasnt been succesful

Pakistan isnt Afghanistan; Pakistan isnt Iraq. The civilian govt. may be unable or unwilling to resist policies or practices that counter our national security.

others are willing

here the things work opposite ways and it is not a secret. it solely depends on miltiary decision and instructions to civillian government to resist us pressures. so the key is military. it is too lowly to always blame the civilian government and blame a single individual zardari for all problems. not a got idea to always blame zardari even if he do something right.

The problem is the usa and their so-called jihadi puppets and are so cheap that they cross every limit to pursue their objectives.

 

[Tshering22]

If more countries stood up to america then iran would not be as isolated.

So you admire the iranian leadership but state its not worth it at ccost of global isolation.

I don't admire them for that, I just said it in the sense that they can do the same without literally turning their country into an island in the middle of nowhere. The currently regime is kind of opposite of what was earlier: extreme alignment. Extremes are bad. There are more than one political ways to say "we will not toe your line when it comes to our matters" than aggressive rattling and calling everyone related to USA as their slave.

This is what is costing Iran more in international arena compared to its direct dislike for Americans. Chavez dislikes USA too; but his country is continuing to trade in oil and other material leaps and bounds directly with USA. The same goes for all that the Chinese shout here about USA. USA is China's main customer and the most important in commercial trade and politico-economic exchange. Are these 2 countries US slaves? No.

I think Iran could learn from this.

 

[Tshering22]

they dont need a cooperative Army Chief when they have Zardari; then they can try to create a bridge between both military and the civilian govt.

in fact, they have tried and thus far it hasnt been succesful


Pakistan isnt Afghanistan; Pakistan isnt Iraq. The civilian govt. may be unable or unwilling to resist policies or practices that counter our national security.


others are willing

Your civilian government is too weak in front of your army. You know it, I know it and US knows it very well. The only reason he's kept is to keep their own image up around the world. What Zardari says or does is of little consequence in Pakistan compared to what Kayani does.