# Pakistan elite talk up imminent US invasion



## RackMaster (Sep 28, 2011)

We wouldn't want to leave them disappointed... lol  It sounds like they want the US to invade.



> *Pakistan elite talk up imminent US invasion*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## JBS (Oct 7, 2011)

If they want us to invade, they are certainly doing all the right things to provoke us:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-15206639



> Dr Shakil Afridi is accused of running a CIA-sponsored fake vaccine programme in Abbottabad, where Bin Laden was killed, to try to get DNA samples.
> He was arrested shortly after the 2 May US raid that killed the al-Qaeda chief.
> 
> The commission has been interviewing intelligence officials and on Wednesday spoke to Bin Laden family members.
> ...


----------



## RackMaster (Oct 7, 2011)

I think someone might just have an itchy nuke button finger and doesn't know what to do with himself.


----------



## Poccington (Oct 7, 2011)

For Pakistan to start cribbing about cross-border raids from Coalition forces is absolutely laughable.

When they stop aiding the HQN maybe, just maybe, they may have a bit of credibility when it comes to discussing the pro's and cons of cross-border raids.

Clowns.


----------



## AWP (Oct 7, 2011)

Pakistan saying we're going to invade them is like a rapist complaining that the victim fought back.


----------



## Scotth (Oct 7, 2011)

Chavez and Achmedajenaisnut play the same game.  A little fear-mongering of an imagined external threat makes it much easier to grab power internally.


----------



## Marauder06 (Oct 7, 2011)

Scotth said:


> Chavez and Achmedajenaisnut play the same game. A little fear-mongering of an imagined external threat makes it much easier to grab power internally.



That's right.  Fear of a distant enemy is a great internal unifier and political pacifier domestically.


----------



## policemedic (Oct 8, 2011)

Uncharacteristically, I'm going to take the highbrow approach to this.:nerd:

Fuck Pakistan.


----------



## QC (Oct 8, 2011)

What would you do with it once you owned it? Foreign aid donations for their second flood ( enema) in 12 months is at about 3%. No-one cares. I don't.


----------



## AWP (Oct 8, 2011)

QC said:


> What would you do with it once you owned it?



Cut the baby in half like I was King Solomon.

The reality is we'd get chewed up in PK. Vietnam, Somalia, Iraq and Afghanistan have taught the world how to beat America.


----------



## DA SWO (Oct 8, 2011)

Best way to destroy them would be to leave Afghanistan, send all their Visa/Green Card Holders back, and stop all trade/aid.
Then the elite wouldn't have a ready source of cash.


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 8, 2011)

Freefalling said:


> Cut the baby in half like I was King Solomon.
> 
> The reality is we'd get chewed up in PK. Vietnam, Somalia, Iraq and Afghanistan have taught the world how to beat America.



If we could just once use unrestricted warfare we would dominate!


----------



## policemedic (Oct 8, 2011)

SOWT said:


> Best way to destroy them would be to leave Afghanistan, send all their Visa/Green Card Holders back, and stop all trade/aid.
> Then the elite wouldn't have a ready source of cash.



Why we continue to fund those whom we should rightly declare enemies is beyond me.  I'd love to see what would happen if we scratched out "Pakistan" on the aid checks and wrote in "India" instead. Direct everything we send to PK to India instead, deny Pakistanis visas, and see how things shake out.


----------



## AWP (Oct 8, 2011)

policemedic said:


> Why we continue to fund those whom we should rightly declare enemies is beyond me. I'd love to see what would happen if we scratched out "Pakistan" on the aid checks and wrote in "India" instead. Direct everything we send to PK to India instead, deny Pakistanis visas, and see how things shake out.



If I thought listening to the entire Nickelback discography would trigger this event, I'd fire up iTunes.....


----------



## SpitfireV (Oct 8, 2011)

Because they've got your balls in a vice, that's why. Without Pakistan you guys don't have an Afghanistan to wander around in. No one else with a border against Afghanistan is suitable. Sucks but at the moment it's the way the cookie has crumbled.


----------



## QC (Oct 8, 2011)

Hamid Karzai has switched his allegiance to India recently, the US have taken taken funding away from the Haquanni network ( please clarify this if you can anyone, within reason) so it's ta ta Pakistan, you're now fucked.


----------



## SpitfireV (Oct 9, 2011)

No it's not. There's no way to get supplies into Afghanistan without Pakistan. They're still relevant for as long as Afghanistan is.


----------



## QC (Oct 9, 2011)

Yes, that's a valid point that I hadn't thought of.


----------



## DA SWO (Oct 9, 2011)

SpitfireV said:


> No it's not. There's no way to get supplies into Afghanistan without Pakistan. They're still relevant for as long as Afghanistan is.


They were (are?) working alternative routes so we can reduce the tranload through waki-stan.
Biggest problem is the volume, so reducing the troop levels may help down the road.
I really wish they'd just go back to a SOF centric war and tell most everyone else to go home.


----------



## SpitfireV (Oct 9, 2011)

Which ones of those alternative routes has a sea link?


----------



## DA SWO (Oct 9, 2011)

SpitfireV said:


> Which ones of those alternative routes has a sea link?


None, and that's the problem.
You can however reduce what goes through the ports and reduce (Waki-stan sponsered) theft.  Eventually getting to the point where you only make token shipments through their ports.


----------



## JBS (Oct 9, 2011)

Marauder06 said:


> That's right. Fear of a distant enemy is a great internal unifier and political pacifier domestically.


Sir, maybe this means Pakistanis are going to have to take their shoes off at the airport.  And no more water bottles.


----------



## JBS (Oct 9, 2011)

Poccington said:


> For Pakistan to start cribbing about cross-border raids from Coalition forces is absolutely laughable.



I think the people of Mumbai would agree.


----------



## AWP (Oct 9, 2011)

If I seriously thought we were going into PK, I would come out of the IRR, "Turn Blue" at Benning, and take a rifle platoon across the border. They are a greater threat to us, and the world, than Iran or NK.


----------



## SpitfireV (Oct 10, 2011)

SOWT said:


> None, and that's the problem.
> You can however reduce what goes through the ports and reduce (Waki-stan sponsered) theft. Eventually getting to the point where you only make token shipments through their ports.



You can't reduce what goes through the ports. That's why the problem is what it is.


----------



## DA SWO (Oct 10, 2011)

SpitfireV said:


> You can't reduce what goes through the ports. That's why the problem is what it is.


Why not?
Air land stuff into a different stan and truck in.


----------



## AWP (Oct 10, 2011)

SOWT said:


> Why not?
> Air land stuff into a different stan and truck in.



The only hope you have of supporting that is to reduce your overall footprint, mil and civ, to an absurd number which will never happen. We're still on the hook for the Afghan mil's logistics.


----------



## Chopstick (Oct 10, 2011)

I think we should send them Michael Yon for 24 hours.  That should shut them up.


----------



## DA SWO (Oct 10, 2011)

Chopstick said:


> I think we should send them Michael Yon for 24 hours. That should shut them up.


Nah, send him for 6 months.


----------



## Marauder06 (Oct 10, 2011)

One of my classmates forwarded me the link to this article, a good read.

http://www.tnr.com/article/world/95928/united-states-pakistan-terrorism-afghanistan-haqqani?page=0,1



> *Why Pakistan and the United States Are on a Collision Course*
> , the Pakistani reluctance to go after the Haqqani network is a capacity problem. The Pakistan Army has already deployed 140,000 troops in the northwestern tribal belt, and 15,000 of these are based outside Miranshah, the capital of North Waziristan. But this is not enough: By some estimates, the Haqqani network comprises 12,000 trained fighters. Moreover, since the siege in 2007 of the Red Mosque in Islamabad, which had been taken over by radical clerics, the Pakistan Army has been wary of retaliatory attacks provoked by major operations against militant groups (56 suicide attacks followed the siege in 2007 alone). An operation against the Haqqani network would almost certainly lead to a wave of suicide bombings against civilian and security targets across Pakistan. The Pakistan Army cannot risk being held culpable by the public for taking an action that worsens the near-term national security situation, especially one taken at Washington’s behest.​


----------



## The Hate Ape (Oct 10, 2011)

The first person to reach for a gun at the poker table is usually the one holding the least amount of chips. If we weren't so nice about shit I'd say Pakistan is a called bluff away from getting bitch slapped.

Oh hi China..


----------



## QC (Oct 10, 2011)

Good article Mara, if, as the article suggests they wanted a stable govt. in Kabul, and one they can influence, they've failed due to Karzai not wanting to deal with Pakistan any more.


----------



## JBS (Oct 10, 2011)

The Hate Ape said:


> [snip] Pakistan[snip]getting bitch slapped.[snip]
> 
> Oh hi China..


There's the rub.


----------



## SpitfireV (Oct 10, 2011)

QC said:


> Good article Mara, if, as the article suggests they wanted a stable govt. in Kabul, and one they can influence, they've failed due to Karzai not wanting to deal with Pakistan any more.



Which will probably in turn mean they'll put more towards HQN and/or the Taliban to compensate and to set them up for the civil war.


----------



## QC (Oct 11, 2011)

Could be, I can't second guess this one.


----------



## DasBoot (Oct 11, 2011)

If we did go to war with Pakistan, what do you think it would look like? Would it be a SOF war backed up by air? Or a sort of Gulf War style air campaign? And would the aim of it be like Iraq and Afghanistan where we engage in nation building when the fighting is over?


----------



## AWP (Oct 12, 2011)

DasBoot said:


> If we did go to war with Pakistan, what do you think it would look like? Would it be a SOF war backed up by air? Or a sort of Gulf War style air campaign? And would the aim of it be like Iraq and Afghanistan where we engage in nation building when the fighting is over?



I'd think it would be more Iraq 2003 than Afghanistan 2001. I don't see our SOF guys being able to pull off what they did in Afghanistan due to the lack of friendly forces available, especially if INdia were involved or even the specter of Indian involvement. With that off the table you're looking at invading the country. Marines coming over the beach and maybe from the west, Army from the west, SOF hitting the nukes and their infrastructure, maybe taking out some leadership or key scientists, and air power killing everything. The mountainous terrain and locals would prevent a speedy conquest of PK. I'd envision the PK mil putting up a fight before going the Fedayeen route like Iraq did in 2003. At that point you have guerillas to contend with, irregulars, hit-and-run stuff.

How do you deal with that? Were I in charge I'd introduce India into the equation once the nukes were dealt with (eliminated or marginalized) and allow India to bear the burden in the east. I would NOT allow PK to remain as a soverign nation, proxy, district, city-state, or performing arts center. I would invade to destroy the country, eliminate it, Islamabad Delenda Est. If you're the Pakistani's do you fight America or India? The response may be one of geography, but emotionally they'd go with the devil they know (America) rather than a sworn enemy, especially if we announce that Afghanistan will own everything west of the Indus.
Nation building....We're already into the "No chance in hell of this happening, Free, no matter how right you may be." so let's continue. Treat it like Germany and Japan under the Marshall Plan and make our aid contingent upon security. Right now, I'd tell the Afghans to GFY: live in shit, starve, watch your children die, and see ya', wouldn't want to be ya'. Send the message to the entire planet that America will be your ally, but if you start killing Americans we go home. That is the policy I'd extend to the Newly Conquered Area Formely Known as Pakistan. When I was done I'd go before the UN and remind everyone what we shell out to the UN, to NATO, and to any other junior League of Nations wannabes out there and then I'd ask them, "Does anyone want Next? Does anyone want to put their quarters on my pool table?"

There would be howls of protest and righteous indignation, but I guarantee you that no one would take the bait. Wait a decade or two, beef up their military (China and Russia), but an immediate response? No.

We would take horrendous casualties if we invaded PK. SOF, Army and Marine infantry, and the AF would be reminded of the value of CASR....but we could do it.

We just never will. I think once we wrap up Afghanistan we're going to be gun shy about war, especially commiting troops. Drones and remote bombing are the way of the future because we are soft and risk adverse, not because they are better, but because they are more polticially acceptable.


----------



## DA SWO (Oct 12, 2011)

I just hit their infrastructure, and take over the ports.  Let them surrender or figure out how to feed them selves without any surviving roads/bridges/railroads, etc)  Siege warfare (modified a bit).


----------



## DasBoot (Oct 12, 2011)

Freefalling said:


> I'd think it would be more Iraq 2003 than Afghanistan 2001. I don't see our SOF guys being able to pull off what they did in Afghanistan due to the lack of friendly forces available, especially if INdia were involved or even the specter of Indian involvement. With that off the table you're looking at invading the country. Marines coming over the beach and maybe from the west, Army from the west, SOF hitting the nukes and their infrastructure, maybe taking out some leadership or key scientists, and air power killing everything. The mountainous terrain and locals would prevent a speedy conquest of PK. I'd envision the PK mil putting up a fight before going the Fedayeen route like Iraq did in 2003. At that point you have guerillas to contend with, irregulars, hit-and-run stuff.
> 
> How do you deal with that? Were I in charge I'd introduce India into the equation once the nukes were dealt with (eliminated or marginalized) and allow India to bear the burden in the east. I would NOT allow PK to remain as a soverign nation, proxy, district, city-state, or performing arts center. I would invade to destroy the country, eliminate it, Islamabad Delenda Est. If you're the Pakistani's do you fight America or India? The response may be one of geography, but emotionally they'd go with the devil they know (America) rather than a sworn enemy, especially if we announce that Afghanistan will own everything west of the Indus.
> Nation building....We're already into the "No chance in hell of this happening, Free, no matter how right you may be." so let's continue. Treat it like Germany and Japan under the Marshall Plan and make our aid contingent upon security. Right now, I'd tell the Afghans to GFY: live in shit, starve, watch your children die, and see ya', wouldn't want to be ya'. Send the message to the entire planet that America will be your ally, but if you start killing Americans we go home. That is the policy I'd extend to the Newly Conquered Area Formely Known as Pakistan. When I was done I'd go before the UN and remind everyone what we shell out to the UN, to NATO, and to any other junior League of Nations wannabes out there and then I'd ask them, "Does anyone want Next? Does anyone want to put their quarters on my pool table?"
> ...



Great answer! Thanks for the input. The idea of "horrendous casualties" is shocking to me; I think the since the Gulf War we've become pretty spoiled as far as the sort of enemies we face and the losses we incurred.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jan 22, 2018)

Huh.  Wonder how many times per day the good doctor regrets helping US.

Doctor who aided hunt for bin Laden languishes, forgotten

PESHAWAR, Pakistan — Shakil Afridi has languished in jail for years — since 2011, when the Pakistani doctor used a vaccination scam in an attempt to identify Osama bin Laden's home, aiding U.S. Navy Seals who tracked and killed the al-Qaida leader.

Americans might wonder how Pakistan could imprison a man who helped track down the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. Pakistanis are apt to ask a different question: how could the United States betray its trust and cheapen its sovereignty with a secret nighttime raid that shamed the military and its intelligence agencies?


----------



## AWP (Jan 22, 2018)

Pakistanis should ask themselves: If our country is so great, why do our citizens flee to work as virtual slaves in other countries like Qatar and the UAE?


----------



## Devildoc (Jan 22, 2018)

AWP said:


> Pakistanis should ask themselves: If our country is so great, why do our citizens flee to work as virtual slaves in other countries like Qatar and the UAE?



...because it is a shithole*

*cross-thread points

Like every other ME/near east country that slid from moderate government to hard-line theocratic rule, Pakistan has turned into a country that is hostile to most of its own population and to nearly every outsider.


----------



## Gunz (Jan 22, 2018)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Huh.  Wonder how many times per day the good doctor regrets helping US.
> 
> Doctor who aided hunt for bin Laden languishes, forgotten
> 
> ...




The article is misleading. The vaccination scam was the brainchild of the CIA and Afridi was recruited by representatives claiming to be with "Save the Children." They were not.  He did not know of the CIA connection, nor did he know that the vaccination campaign was connected with the hunt for Bin Laden. After the Abbotabad raid, his "Save the Children" campaign co-workers and contacts simply unassed the AO and he was left holding the bag. It was only then and in subsequent days that he realized he'd been a pawn in the game and had unknowingly helped the U.S. His arrest and incarceration was the feeble reaction of a compromised, corrupt and highly-embarrassed Pak government. It is unfortunate.

In many ways it reminds me of the Saddiqi character in the movie "Body of Lies."


----------



## CQB (Jan 22, 2018)

Devildoc said:


> ...because it is a shithole*
> 
> *cross-thread points
> 
> Like every other ME/near east country that slid from moderate government to hard-line theocratic rule, Pakistan has turned into a country that is hostile to most of its own population and to nearly every outsider.



You can thank Zia-ul Haq for that. 
BTW there’s an interesting BBC podcast regarding Benazir Bhutto online for a bit of interest. 
The Assassination - Downloads - BBC World Service


----------

