What's new

Under pressure but not down , PM Nawaz Sharif rightly asks USA stand with Pakistan against India !

Hi,

Regardless the cost was involved we can't simply strike it off. Again to back up your claim please provide hard evidence !
So what are the reasons for a war becoming so costly? It is mostly logistics.

Here is some data: The Iraq war by numbers - Business Insider

As I pointed out earlier, logistics includes:

1. Deployment of equipment and personnel
2. Maintenance of equipment
3. Development of military bases
4. Replacement of damaged equipment
4. Supply lines
5. Maintenance of personnel
6. Fuel
7. Additional projects
8. Ammunition

Now try to figure out the cost of each of the above. To give you a hint, the cost of air-conditioning (alone) was 20 billion USD per year in Iraq. Now keeping all kinds of costs in mind, it makes sense the cost of the entire war crossed a trillion dollar mark in a span of a decade.

Secondly, US didn't just spend the entire amount for nothing. Its quite obvious that US had its own interests in the share of natural resources.

You don't smoke that staggering amount just to remove a TYRANT !
In modern times, no country attempts "regime change" in another country for its natural resources (only). Multiple factors are always involved.

For example, US didn't attack Libya with the intention of taking over its natural resources: Hillary Clinton should be prosecuted for war crimes over her role in destroying Libya: US journalist

US is a resourceful country and it have access to natural resources in the Middle East by virtue of its relationship with GCC states, Turkey and Israel. Why go to war with a hostile nation and risk lives of many for the sake of taking over its natural resources (only)? Makes no sense.

I have already explained why Saddam Hussein was removed from power. He alienated everybody in the Middle East and US decided to take action to preserve its interests. Removing him from power (was) in the interests of US or so the US leadership felt.
 
Last edited:
. .
In modern times, no country attempts "regime change" in another country for its natural resources (only). Multiple factors are always involved.
Hi,
And no country spends that staggering amount for no reason with so many lives unless it can get twice or more than what it has spent on destroying it.

With Libya the factor was not resources, But fulfellged


In modern times, no country attempts "regime change" in another country for its natural resources (only). Multiple factors are always involved.
Hi,
And no country spends that staggering amount for no reason with so many lives unless it can get twice or more than what it has spent on destroying it.

With Libya the factor was not resources, But a region wide policy of destabilizing it.
Mind it No country spends that much amount of time resources and lives unless it is worth it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
. .
You pice of stupid terrorist mullha skull
@Oscar @Horus @waz reported for continuous insulting

Thats how i know you're a kid, who cnat speak or understand the mature and civilised language, that is just not your type

My dear could please point out where I have supported terrorism for that matter ?
And for god sake learn to spell the words.
I feel ashamed to quote back to you
 
.
@Oscar @Horus @waz reported for continuous insulting

Thats how i know you're a kid, who cnat speak or understand the mature and civilised language, that is just not your type

My dear could please point out where I have supported terrorism for that matter ?
And for god sake learn to spell the words.
I feel ashamed to quote back to you
Read the dam thread subject & tell me are you with Pakistani POV or against it ?
Its simple or I go go further more ?
 
.
Wow.. What a Move.. First Time Pakistan is playing real bargain with USA.

USA reaction is still unpredictable, since they are not used to Bi direction talks when it comes to Pakistan. Pakistan has to keep pressure to gain peace out of it. Since that is our ultimate goal anyways.
 
. .
Wow.. What a Move.. First Time Pakistan is playing real bargain with USA.

USA reaction is still unpredictable, since they are not used to Bi direction talks when it comes to Pakistan. Pakistan has to keep pressure to gain peace out of it. Since that is our ultimate goal anyways.
Sure I don't care what Nawaz has don his entire life , his crouption or whatever ?
But the fact is , he is in right time on right place & with right statement !
That's enough for me !
 
. . .
Hi,

What remains to be seen is how far US is willing to go further for Pakistani, without triggering an alarm from Indians.

With so many deal in the pipeline( US and India) , along with Chinese factor it is quite hard to assume that US will budge
 
.
Hi,
And no country spends that staggering amount for no reason with so many lives unless it can get twice or more than what it has spent on destroying it.

With Libya the factor was not resources, But a region wide policy of destabilizing it.
Mind it No country spends that much amount of time resources and lives unless it is worth it.
I see your point, but I am pointing out the fact that multiple reasons led to invasion of Iraq.

Yes, US is boosting its business activities from wars and regional conflicts:

US Looking for Contractors to Help in Iraq
How The US Floods The World With Weapons And Brings Billions Back Home

However, US does not needs to occupy Iraq to gain access to resources of the Middle East proper. Iraq is not the only resourceful nation in the Middle East. GCC member states (collectively) have more resources then a single country in the Middle East and US have positive relationship with all GCC member states.

When Saddam Hussein attacked a GCC member state (Kuwait) in 1990, he became a threat to US interests in the Middle East. Why? Because it was not in the interests of US that a hostile country becomes a dominating force in the Middle East, takes over GCC states one by one and therefore harm US business activities in the region. GCC member states also felt that it was necessary to stop Saddam Hussein and played a role in motivating US to take action against him.
 
.
I see your point, but I am pointing out the fact that multiple reasons led to invasion of Iraq.

Yes, US is boosting its business activities from wars and regional conflicts:

US Looking for Contractors to Help in Iraq
How The US Floods The World With Weapons And Brings Billions Back Home

However, US does not needs to occupy Iraq to gain access to resources of the Middle East proper. Iraq is not the only resourceful nation in the Middle East. GCC member states (collectively) have more resources then a single country in the Middle East and US have positive relationship with all GCC member states.

When Saddam Hussein attacked a GCC member state (Kuwait) in 1990, he became a threat to US interests in the Middle East. Why? Because it was not in the interests of US that a hostile country becomes a dominating force in the Middle East, takes over GCC states one by one and therefore harm US business activities in the region. GCC member states also felt that it was necessary to stop Saddam Hussein and played a role in motivating US to take action against him.
Hi,
Lets take it to another thread sometime? What do you say
 
. .

Latest posts

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom