The US cannot afford an open conflict with Pakistan

[53fd]

"...Btw, what is the source that says that 34,000 civilians & 5,000 Pakistani troops have died since 2006?"

"...(Asim Aquil's figures from elsewhere)..."

Ask Asim. Here's what I found from a site called UMMID.com-

"...According to data released by Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR), from 9/11 till now, 30,452 people have been killed or injured. These include 21,672 civilians and 8,785 military personnel.

In 2009 alone, when the Pakistani military went into action against the Taliban in the country’s restive northwest, 10,000 people were killed, Online news agency reported.

While the breakup of civilian casualties was not given, the ISPR said 78 Pakistani military officers and 2,273 soldiers were killed, while 6,512 were injured..."

Global War On Terror Claims 30,000 Pakistani Casualties-UMMID.com Feb. 18, 2010

Note the date. It's over 15 months old.

What is Ummid.com? Sounds very credible I must say. I'm just awestruck reading from links like Ummid.com.

 

[PAK defender]

what about warfare which is under the guise of feigned friendship

Right............this is what it is" Read on below:
---------------------------
When Will U.S. Leaders Confess To The American People That America Carries Out False-Flag Attacks As Part of Its Foreign Policy?

Saman Mohammadi
Nov 8, 2010

In September of this year, a retired Turkish general named Sabri Yirmibeshoglu admitted on Turkish television that the Turkish government carried out false-flag attacks on the island of Cyprus in the 1960s in order to instill feelings of hatred and revenge in Turkish Cypriots against the Cyprus government. The false-flag operations successfully destabilized the island, and helped Turkey’s military objectives.

Yirmibeshoglu’s admission was significant, as he was the former Secretary-General of the National Security Council (MGK), and the chief of Turkey’s Special Warfare Department. For more details read Elias Hazou’s report, which was filed on September 24, 2010 for the Cyprus Mail:

Created in 1953 as part of the Turkish secret service, the Special Warfare Department is believed by commentators in Turkey to be the executive branch of the so-called ‘deep state.’“In order to increase the resistance of the people, you carry out sabotage against certain values, in order to create the impression that it is the enemy who did it. In Cyprus, we had torched a mosque,” Yirmibe?o?lu said in an interview while describing methods used in unconventional warfare. (Turkey carried out false-flag attacks in Cyprus in 1960s, says Turkish General, Elias Hazou, Cyrpus Mail; Sept. 24, 2010).

Yirmibeshoglu was named by Ahmet Özal as one of the suspects involved in the assassination attempt of his father, Turgut Özal, in 1988. Özal later died in in 1993 due to a heart attack, but his family asserts that he was killed as a result of a poison injection by the same individuals within the Turkish deep-state who failed to kill him in 1988. Özal served as Turkey’s Prime Minister from 1983 to 1989, and as President from 1989 to 1993.

An article published in Istanbul’s Today’s Zaman on September 30, 2010 called “Özal’s death should also be investigated, says Ahmet Özal,” has the details on this intriguing drama which shares many comparisons with the assassinations of American leaders in the 1960s, specifically John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr. An excerpt from the article:

Özal said his father was killed because he had resolved to find a peaceful and democratic solution to the Kurdish question. He said deep state elements, which were said to be Ergenekon by some and JİTEM by others, worked hard to destroy peace in Turkey in 1993, a year filled with politically motivated assassinations and suspicious deaths of important public, military and political figures.He claimed that the car that took his father to the hospital took an unnecessary detour and wasted half an hour. He also said he was not taken in an ambulance but in a car because the doctor and the ambulance of the Çankaya presidential palace were suspiciously unavailable that day. “These things have to be investigated,” he said.

Korkut Özal, the brother of the former President, echoes his nephew’s allegations in an upcoming book, writing; “If this incident [Özal’s death] is investigated, it will be a scandal similar to Watergate, which led to the resignation of US President [Richard] Nixon,” as reported on Today’s Zaman on October 21, 2010.

If you’ve read this far you’re probably wondering what my title has to do with a confession by a top former Turkish general that Turkey’s government executed false-flag operations to promote its military interests in Cyprus, and allegations that Turkey’s former President was assassinated by key members of the Turkish establishment in 1993. Well, there’s a connection. Turkey is not unique. Can the American establishment assassinate peace-minded leaders? Yes. It. Can. And, Yes. It. Has. Can the American establishment carry out false-flag attacks abroad, and at home? Yes. It. Can. And, Yes. It. Has.

In fact, America’s secret state orchestrated false-flag events and executed bombing campaigns inside Turkey, and other nations during the Cold War and blamed them on communists and leftist leaders in order to produce a sense of fear and helplessness in their populations. Daniele Ganser’s deep research into this scandalous activity, which was done by a network of stay-behind armies organized by NATO, led him to write a book called “NATO’s Secret Armies: Operation GLADIO and Terrorism in Western Europe.” To know more, read some of Ganser’s findings at this link.

NATO’s secret terrorists were of great help to the U.S. establishment. Prior to the military coup d’état in Turkey on September 12, 1980, the CIA and NATO in cooperation with the Turkish military funded and trained secret groups to carry out false-flag attacks and terrorism with the purpose to undermine civil society, and create the condition in which a military takeover would be feasible. It’s known as the strategy of tension, and it is considered standard operation procedure by military/deep-state insiders in America, Turkey, Israel, England, and other countries in the world that are dominated by anti-democratic interests. Since the end of World War Two, Western democratic governments have fallen prey to the powerful individuals who operate secretly against the public interests inside the deep-state apparatus of each nation.

According to professor Peter Dale Scott, the attack on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001 was part of a long series of “deep events” in America. Scott:

However to call 9/11 a coup d’état exaggerates the difference between the current weakened condition of the public state, and the prior state of affairs that has been building for years, indeed for decades, towards just such a dénouement. For half a century the constitution and laws of the open or public state have been first evaded, then eroded, then increasingly challenged and subverted, by the forces of the deep state. I wish to suggest that this erosion has been achieved in part through a series of important deep events in post-war American history – events aspects of which (it is clear from the outset) will be ignored or suppressed in the mainstream media.Recent history has seen a number of such events, such as the assassination of John F. Kennedy, that are so inexplicable by the public notions of American politics that most Americans tend not even to think of them. Instead most accept the official surface explanations for them, even if they suspect these are not true. Or if others say they believe that “Oswald acted alone,” they may do so in the same comforting but irrational state of mind that believes God will reward the righteous and punish the wicked.

The nature of the deep-state is such that not everybody in the government knows what is going on behind the scenes. Military officials and public representatives who are part of the deep-state are unlikely to confess to the press and the public about their involvement and knowledge, as they would be admitting to committing high treason, and great crimes. Their confession would be followed by their hanging, basically.

Some government officials, like Sen. Patrick Leahy, and Rep. Dennis Kucinich, have called for a truth and reconciliation commission to fully investigate the government’s secret torture programs, illegal surveillance, and the questions surrounding the Sept.11 events. Aside from a few crickets, nobody in the media has made any noise about the suggestion to set up some type of truth commission in the United States.

Instead of the truth about 9/11 and the deep-state getting filtered through mainstream sources, or the alternative media, it is grassroots organizations like the International Center for 9/11 Studies and anti-establishment media outlets like the Alex Jones show and Coast to Coast AM that are exposing the war criminals and informing the public about the dark corruption.

Obviously, the current order of things cannot last. A reckoning is awaiting the world. The criminal and fraudulent global war on terrorism can only end once the governments of America, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan, Israel, Palestine, and other governments in the Middle East and around the world get together and come up with a fair and just solution to fix the mayhem that was unleashed by the deep-state terrorists who dominate Washington through state secrecy laws, and control over the media.

Let’s pray that there are brave and wise military and government leaders in the United States who have a handle on the historical situation, and who see the grave consequences of attacking Iran, which would trigger a large-scale war in the Middle East, and result in the deaths of innumerable people. Let’s pray that they do the right thing, and help restore a strong, free, and truthful America.

 

[tvsram1992]

B2's and f-22's can easily down pakistan in a week.

 

[S-2]

"What is Ummid.com? Sounds very credible I must say. I'm just awestruck reading from links like Ummid.com."

I sense sarcasm. Ill-formed at that.

Bilal, allow me to ask a personal question-are you simply a very poor reader, willfully stupid or (perhaps) both?

I only ask because, 1.) you fail to note that I'd referenced Asim Aquil (a senior staffmember here of some note) as a source and then, 2.) engaged in an ad hominem attack on Ummid.com without noting that they'd directly QUOTED the ISPR.

Now...you do know about the ISPR, don't you?

If so, why don't you question them about the information and quit acting like such an obtuse POS?

I think we can state that Pakistan has suffered in excess of 30,000 casualties since late 2001, wouldn't you agree?

Thanks.

 

[53fd]

I think we can state that Pakistan has suffered in excess of 30,000 casualties since late 2001, wouldn't you agree?

Thanks.

Depends on the source it's coming from, right?? After all, it is Pakistani sources claiming 30,000 casualties, & I know you aren't a big fan of the claims from Pakistani authorities till it supports your POV. If you agree as per Pakistani sources that 30,000+ casualties have taken place, then you should also believe that the US funds the TTP, BLA, BLF, Jundullah & other terrorist groups against Pakistan from inside Afghanistan. Asim Aquil is a respected member here, but we can learn to agree to disagree.

And you're contradicting yourself with these two statements:

Worse though, how, again have 34,000 civilians and 5,000 Pakistani troops (Asim Aquil's figures from elsewhere) managed to die since 2006?

I think we can state that Pakistan has suffered in excess of 30,000 casualties since late 2001

I suggest you be calm, & go through what you're about to post before you post it. Cheers.

 

[MilSpec]

U can get the 18 billion in AID just after you give us back 40000 civilians,6000 soldiers and 70 billion $ worth infra and our booming economy back tht we lost after joing USA in the war on terror.

Not to forget the use of our ports and roads.


Also i hope u know tht a billion $ in aid doesnt run Pakistans economy............ But what would a indian flase flagger know abt it.

Wasn't it 32 Billion dollars + F16's from US + 11 Billion from IMF, , Stop asking for aid every where you go and indeed someday the economy will run without aid/loan and maybe someday you may be able to make your own foreign policy... what say????

May 14, 2009 ... Zardari urges UN to launch global appeal
Sep 8, 2010 ... Bilawal Bhutto Zardari appeals for aid
Aug 5, 2010 ... KUALA LUMPUR: The Pakistan High Commission in Malaysia has appealed for donations in cash or kind
Aug 15, 2010 ... U.N. Chief Appeals For Aid To Pakistan
March 09 2011 Zardari Assesses War on Taliban, Appeals for Aid
Sep 14, 2010 ... KARACHI: Pakistan's former military ruler Pervez Musharraf has collaborated with ... channel to appeal for aid

 

[LeGenD]

The Taliban are doing that.

Let me know if Taliban manages to destroy Bagram and capture Kabul. Till then, excuse me from your propaganda.

Most figures today are extremely underreported. You can tell by the day-to-day events that are taking place, with 37 terrorist attacks just taking place on May 25.

You living in planet Mars?

Media around the world has been given much more freedom in the 21st century then in the past century. The amount of coverage the recent conflicts have received is amazing. This has never happened before. And nothing stays hidden now.

As an example; consider icasualties.org. You can even read the names of KIA soldiers in this source.

Besides, it was the Soviets & the Afghan government vs the US-Pakistan-Saudi Arabia-UK-Israel-Egypt-China-Canada supporting the Mujahideen.

Key players were still USA and Pakistan.

The number of US troops in Afghanistan is about 100,000 right now, & the Soviets were over 120,000.

The peak 'estimation' of Soviet personnel deployed in Afghanistan ranges between 120,000 - 140,000. However, the actual strength of military personnel was much lower as per reliable sources.

ISAF military personnel currently deployed in Afghanistan are around 140,000 mark (reliable).

But the US are facing a lot more insurgents (beyond count) than what the Soviets were facing. The US has also faced tougher fighting than what the Soviets did, & made little to no progress in Afghanistan. In fact, they have made things worse in Afghanistan as the Taliban has only gotten stronger.

You are correct when you state that US has faced greater resistance in Afghanistan. One reason is that Taliban and allied groups are highy trained and battle hardened this time. These people (in the shape of mujahideen) have been considerably trained by CIA, MOSSAD, and ISI in the past. These people are expected to put up some considerable fight.

However, you are wrong when you assume that US has made little to no progress in Afghanistan. Do some research in this regard. I will give you a chance.

I think you really need to read about the US's economic activity right now, & how the industry base of this country is collapsing, because you clearly don't know what you're talking about. Living here in America for the last 10 years, I have seen this country collapse economically, & is just getting worse.

Again a shortsighted view of things happening around you.

During the current recession, some companies have indeed gone bankrupt in USA. Unemployment increased. However, a large quantity of companies are coping well and some are even flourishing.

I can give a personal example, as per experience inside Pakistan; Apple. (Forget USA for a moment).

With respect to USA, here is some news for you:

The Top 10 Growth Industries for 2011 - DailyFinance

Industry Statistics and Projected Growth - Organic Trade Association

Fortune 500 2011: Fortune 1000 Companies 1-100 - FORTUNE on CNNMoney.com

You just need to look at right places.

You talk about collapse of Industry? Do some research on Pakistani industry and let me know what has happened here since last 20 years. Major hint for you: over 700 companies lost.

Here is a 100% BLUNT assessment:

Pakistani people in general have no idea that how much damage they are doing to LOCAL INDUSTRY by overly relying on cheap exports from China and other countries. Think about this for a moment.

Americans have invested a great deal in China but not at the expense of jeopardizing their local industry.

Strong industry is vital for development and employment generation in any country. It also provides a country the capability to cope with periods of economic crises.

My Chinese friends here should not feel offended by my points. I am simply giving some reality check to some overseas Pakistani citizens here.

 

[S-2]

...After all, it is Pakistani sources claiming 30,000 casualties, & I know you aren't a big fan of the claims from Pakistani authorities till it supports your POV."

In the absence of better numbers or better rationales to reject the currently available information I'm happy to accept those claims of casualties in excess of 30,000.

"...If you agree as per Pakistani sources that 30,000+ casualties have taken place, then you should also believe that the US funds the TTP, BLA, BLF, Jundullah & other terrorist groups against Pakistan from inside Afghanistan."

One doesn't necessarily follow the other. Read above. There's been no physical evidence nor suggestion by U.S. policy of such. None. We've no incentive to de-stabilize your country nor have I read comments by your ISPR suggesting we're engaged in such.

Sadly, were that not the case we'd still be reticent to do so as Pakistanis have shown the ability to de-stabilize themselves far in excess of what we might accomplish.

OTOH, you've created a viable enemy in India. You're in the process of creating a viable enemy with Afghanistan. Like you, the afghan government doesn't possess PREDATOR. In the absence of such they might perceive their only recourse is attack in kind were they to engage in such a policy.

I won't say they're engaged in proxy warfare with Pakistan. Again, there's no physical evidence of such. Neither our ISAF allies, the various media wandering about nor the plethora of NGOs have reported such. OTOH, I've certainly seen an enmity within the comments of some Afghan officials to eventually make such plausible.

If so I'd certainly understand if not also approve.

 

[S-2]

"...But America does want to engage in a peace process with the Taliban, & has been actively doing that for quite time..."

America has realistically supported the aims of the U.N. mandate to stabilize Afghanistan. We've certainly used combat operations to leverage the rank and file from the afghan taliban leadership while also engaging in reintegration programs.

However, we've been firm that those programs require voluntary disarmament, renouncing violence and allegiance to the afghan constitution. This is not an unreasonable position.

At a higher level it appears the U.S. government would welcome viable discussions with the afghan taliban leadership towards constructive reconciliation. Nobody is opposed to the afghan taliban participating within the greater Afghan polity. Hezb-I-Gulbuddin holds seats right now within the Afghan parliament.

Talks, however, are exploratory and have never resembled appeasement. Before Swat and Buner in April, 2009 this might be argued otherwise by many WRT Pakistani policy among your own insurgency. Certainly your own government finally saw a compelling need to openly confront these men.

Discussions with the Afghan taliban remain tenuous for (it appears) two reasons- 1.) identifying viable interlocutors whom actually represent the afghan taliban leadership and can convey their views accurately and, 2.) the absence of any consensus within such a leadership to constructively engage in reconciliation discussions.

Nobody has talked about unconditional surrender. Everybody has talked about peeling away the taliban from Al Qaeda. Both persuasion and coercion are viable and at play.

Do you have a problem with that?

 

[LeGenD]

Funny you mention that, cuz I have not claimed it anywhere in my posts, rather on the contrary, Please do learn to read posts for the sake of understanding and replying, not for the sake of Arguments..

See your post number 34. Filled with wild speculations and premature assumptions.

Reality Check:And you think that Russia and China would want two destabilized countries in their neighbouring region with number of extremist groups wandering at will?

They would not want US enmity either. They may discourage US though official means.

Hence, no chance of them letting USA Indulge itself in full-frontal war against Pakistan without dire consequences.. If US was to invade Pakistan, why not use the chance to bring it down from its “high horse”.. “Economically” weaker USA will have less chance of “dominating” the world including China and Russia as it is able to do now.. Which is exactly my point..

US will not harm Pakistan as long as Pakistan remains committed to WOT or acts against its interests.

A primary reason for Pakistan to join WOT was to avoid isolation from international community and potential enmity of WEST.

You missed the whole point my friend.. or it selective reading?.. Let me remind you, this is what followed the line, which you “selectively” chose to respond:



The point is not Pakistan’s victory, the point I mentioned was related to US and US only..

You are assuming that US would respond to Pakistani threat in the same coin as it did in Afghanistan (OEF) and Iraq (OIF).

Even if you draw a parallel between OEF and OIF, you will notice lots of differences in resources committed and strategies adopted in both theatres.

Expect a very different kind of approach in our case. Ever since the Vietnam debacle, they (Americans) have done some serious homework before they engaged in newer theatres.

The very first hint US administration has given us (behind the scenes) is that ISAF would use alternate routes, if ties with Pakistan crumble:

Alternative supply routes for Afghan war available: US - Arab News

Notice the difference?

I did sir. However, you need to understand the US threat first. (Big hint in this simple statement for smart people)

I am well aware of that, I have lived through the times when USSR-Afghan war was going on.. And if you are not aware of it, internal destabilizing of USSR was also done by “external” players.. and it took around a decade, before the start of Soviet-Afghan war..

During cold war, the world was split in two camps. If a member of one camp was threatened, the leader of that camp showed willingness to defend/help the effected member.

In current times, situation is different. We will not find allies who will be willing to fight our wars for us. Yes, China and Russia would look after their interests but not at the cost of friendly ties with WEST.

It seems that you like to post links instead of using any logical reasoning on present facts. Okay, here I’ll use some “links” to clarify my point.. Hope you could understand them..

Really? Ever heard about the concept of "speculation" in economy?

As I said before, these are two different ball games, US’s economic situations are different in both scenarios, I take that you have no idea what war does to the economy of a country in long run or in a broader scenario, or what WoT did to Global economy.. here is a little peak for you:

Iraq, Afghanistan and the U.S Economy

Money trail links the WoT to Global Financial crises

Hence, a change in approach by different countries, organizations, bankers and so on:

Ten Major Threats Facing the US Dollar

Notice the uncertainty?

And now US goes after Libya isn’t it? Look at the results..

Gold gains on dollar drop, oil rise, geoPolitics

I do understand the adverse impact of war on involved stakeholders. The weaker side specially is most badly effected.

Seems like you have not properly read your sources.

Below excerpts are from the most informative link (among the ones you provided):

Expert opinion varies wildly on the relevance of U.S. war spending in Iraq and Afghanistan to the health of the U.S. economy. At the most basic level, economists disagree whether these wars will have a positive or negative long-term economic impact. Total military spending (including spending on support and operations inside Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as operations tied to the “Global War on Terrorism,” all of which are budgeted separately from the U.S. defense budget) remains relatively modest compared to historical levels. During World War II, defense spending rose to levels as high as 37.8 percent of U.S. gross domestic product (GDP). Even including war-spending supplements and terror-war expenditures on top of the normal defense budget, today that number comes to about 6.2 percent of GDP.

&

Even considering the military budget and war spending together, however, total U.S. expenditures remain modest compared to historical levels in wartime.

&

There is an ongoing debate about the extent to which war spending affects a country’s economy. Experts disagree on the most fundamental point—whether war helps or hurts national economic prospects. Massive U.S. national defense spending during World War II is sometimes credited with rejuvenating U.S. economic prospects following the Great Depression. The journalist Robert J. Samuelson, in a primer on the topic, says there can be little doubt that military spending and mobilization during World War II reduced U.S. unemployment rates and revitalized the economy. A recent paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research concludes that countries with high military expenditures during World War II showed strong economic growth following the war, but says this growth can be credited more to population growth than war spending. The paper finds that war spending had only minimal effects on per-capita economic activity.

Now coming towards actual factors behind current global recession:

The actual factors behind current global recession are being debated and explained. However, speculators want to focus on issues which gain wide-scale publicity only.

Here is an alternate view: What Caused the Recession of 2008? Hints from Labor Productivity

In addition, do some research on "Crude Oil prices" and key players involved behind them.

And regarding the devaluation of dollar; do some research on quantitative easing by FED.

The devaluation of dollar is a temporary measure to resolve some domestic issues caused by the recent recession.

Here is explanation with example: Weak dollar gives US factories strong lift in 2011 - Economic Times

And US dollar is still doing good in the international market regardless of all kinds of speculations about its value.

Resultantly, Have a look at the growth rate of US, its going down year by year:

USA GDP Growth rate

Allow me to clarify to you the difference speculation and reality.

Example of speculation:

"Have a look at the growth rate of US, its going down year by year." (from you)

This is based on a source which, as of now, presents GPU status of US up till 2009.

Viewer can only "speculate" (provide projections about what will happen next on the basis of data available to him/her.

Unfortunately for doomsday predictors, US GDP growth flow is at this position:

Oops!

Economy Picks Up Steam - WSJ.com

And Obviously,

US National Debt Chart

You can see that the rash climb is from early 70s.. exactly the time when "external" factors started playing in "internal" affairs or USSR and later cold-war started coming nearer to hot-war in Afghanistan.

You can say that US has been able to sustain it far longer than USSR, but in no way you can claim that US has survived from it, or recovered from it.

The situation of Debt is so dire that It is now mathematically impossible to pay off the US National debt.

On the other hand, there hasn’t been any prominent development in “the big four” in the same period of time.. Have a look for yourself..

Pension, Health, Education, Defence

Read this: U.S. National Debt Is Huge, but It's Not a Catastrophe - DailyFinance

US owes a big chunk of that debt to its own citizens.

Also, national debt of Japan is also huge in plain figures. No one thinks that Japan is going to collapse economically whose situation is far more dire in current times.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/mar/15/cost-insuring-japanese-debt-jumps

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...-we-should-be-worrying-about-not-America.html

You are in for a surprise, if you do not know that national debt of how many nations have exceeded their GDP. Japan is currently at over 200%.

All I can say is LOL, do you think that Afghan and Iraq fronts are going to close down so easily?

Iraqi front is closing down. Wake up please.

In 2012, cost of OIF (Iraqi theatre) will go down to just 17.7. This is because OIF is going to conclude soon.

And the endgame of Afghanistan is also being planned. 2014 is the date being set.

It would take another decade before it is taken as resolved, and yes, it IS due to lack of capability that US is not going to commit to full-frontal war with Pakistan, though not military but economic capability.

We have underestimated our enemies before and have paid a heavy price. We should not do it again. Sincere advice to my fellow brethren.

That time is passing quickly, streams of prominent political and military figures running from US to Pakistan shows who is going to dictate terms from now on if these “friendly” relations between US and Pakistan are going to carry on, anyways, you can still live in your la-la land, in short, your masters are losing Global Support big time.

As I said before, US in NOT in a condition to go in a full-frontal war against Pakistan. Too many probabilities, threat ratio is too high..

THAT is the ONLY reason there is NOT going to be any war..

Just my two cents..

US is expected continue to dictate terms for a long time contrary to what speculators want us to believe. For the second time, do not mistake USSR for USA. Do not even compare them.

My 4 cents.