Pages: 1

 

2010-10-02 00:20:54
Harmor
Error_Name_Not_Found
+605|6926|San Diego, CA, USA
Yesterday NATO planes flew into Pakistan airspace again.  This got the Pakistanis upset and had the NATO supply lines to Afghanistan attacked by miliants again.

https://img339.imageshack.us/img339/5648/r1194940130jpgx400y269q.jpg

The supply lines must be transported by Pakistani drivers, but the oil tankers were torched.  This caused NATO to close the Afghanistan supply route.  Without it it will be very difficult to sustain the attack on the Taliban and alQueda that are in Pakistan.

So with all that, if we are unwilling to fight the war why are we still there?
2010-10-02 00:30:49
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6531|what

Harmor wrote:

Yesterday NATO planes flew into Pakistan airspace again.  This got the Pakistanis upset
Gee I wonder why?
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
2010-10-02 01:03:23
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,068|7150|PNW

They're afraid the west will bomb another Chinese embassy.
2010-10-02 04:31:29
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6789|'Murka

The Pakistanis have been a bit distracted with this "flood" thing. The Taliban have used that to their advantage.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2010-10-02 05:50:07
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,611|6999|London, England
I read the NATO attack made Pakistan close the NATO supply routes, and then one of the convoys was attacked by militants afterwards. Probably not a coincidence. Everyone knows the ISI control it all, or alot of it.


I don't think NATO/USA would have ever done a war with Pakistan anyway, we don't do 'difficult' wars. The general population can't handle it these days. Imagine how things would be if the death toll was like Vietnam or even half of that, as it is the western nations make a huge deal over about 5,000 fatalities throughout this WoT. Politicians know that any all-out war with something like Iran or Pakistan would lead to a much larger figure of which the West simply can't cope with any more. Even though NATO would still easily win any such war. That's how I see it.

When I see how much news and mourning a single British fatality makes I think there's no way we could do something proper or even something like the Falklands ever again. Not that I'm saying we shouldn't mourn and make news about it, but that if that's how it is, then Britain needs to rethink alot of things.

Last edited by Mekstizzle (2010-10-02 05:50:37)

2010-10-02 06:31:54
RDMC
Enemy Wheelbarrow Spotted..!!
+736|6943|Area 51

Mekstizzle wrote:

I read the NATO attack made Pakistan close the NATO supply routes, and then one of the convoys was attacked by militants afterwards. Probably not a coincidence. Everyone knows the ISI control it all, or alot of it.


I don't think NATO/USA would have ever done a war with Pakistan anyway, we don't do 'difficult' wars. The general population can't handle it these days. Imagine how things would be if the death toll was like Vietnam or even half of that, as it is the western nations make a huge deal over about 5,000 fatalities throughout this WoT. Politicians know that any all-out war with something like Iran or Pakistan would lead to a much larger figure of which the West simply can't cope with any more. Even though NATO would still easily win any such war. That's how I see it.

When I see how much news and mourning a single British fatality makes I think there's no way we could do something proper or even something like the Falklands ever again. Not that I'm saying we shouldn't mourn and make news about it, but that if that's how it is, then Britain needs to rethink alot of things.
Well I reckon that if we actually had to fight a war that most of the populus would be behind, say indeed Falklands for you Brits than I reckon we'd cope alot better with the casualty rates. But that is the problem, nobody gives a rats ass about Iraq or Afghanistan except for a few, yet soldiers are dying for it.
2010-10-02 08:04:29
eleven bravo
Member
+1,399|5637|foggy bottom
commie pinko anti war hippie
Tu Stultus Es
2010-10-02 08:13:12
presidentsheep
Back to the Fuhrer
+208|6339|Places 'n such
Still dont get how you can declare war on a concept/feeling.
Next up, the war on embarrassment
I'd type my pc specs out all fancy again but teh mods would remove it. Again.
2010-10-02 11:30:30
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6783|North Carolina
We need to get out.  We won't though.

Like with Iraq, we'll just eventually lower troop levels down to something like 50,000, call them "non-combat" forces, and then continue to use them as combat forces.

If things heat up enough in Afghanistan, we'll probably end up invading Pakistan and then implement some population control in their rural regions via a shitload of bombing.

Last edited by Turquoise (2010-10-02 11:30:51)

2010-10-02 18:59:17
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6531|what

Turquoise wrote:

If things heat up enough in Afghanistan, we'll probably end up invading Pakistan and then implement some population control in their rural regions via a shitload of bombing.
Invading Pakistan will just radicalize more of the population, maybe even to the extent they elect a dangerous government totally opposed to the US. This would be an unstable Government, invaded by the US with a score to settle and most importantly, a Government\Regime with a Nuclear Arsenal.
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
2010-10-02 19:33:47
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6783|North Carolina

AussieReaper wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

If things heat up enough in Afghanistan, we'll probably end up invading Pakistan and then implement some population control in their rural regions via a shitload of bombing.
Invading Pakistan will just radicalize more of the population, maybe even to the extent they elect a dangerous government totally opposed to the US. This would be an unstable Government, invaded by the US with a score to settle and most importantly, a Government\Regime with a Nuclear Arsenal.
Yep, if we go the route of invading Pakistan, we'll likely have to get India to help us out.

I'm not saying that I want this to happen, but we basically will have to obliterate a lot of Pakistan should it come to a war with them.

The thing is...  Pakistan is like an even more dysfunctional version of Mexico with more poverty and more governmental instability.  Since it also has nukes, this instability is something that cannot be ignored by the outside world.  The same goes for Iran.
2010-10-02 19:53:34
Hunter/Jumper
Member
+117|6732

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

They're afraid the west will bomb another Chinese embassy.
I had the feeling at the time that this was no real accident.
2010-10-03 15:06:10
Stingray24
Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy
+1,060|6823|The Land of Scott Walker

Turquoise wrote:

Like with Iraq, we'll just eventually lower troop levels down to something like 50,000, call them "non-combat" forces, and then continue to use them as combat forces.
I'm curious how that impacts pay to troops as they are no longer under combat status ...
2010-10-03 15:06:35
eleven bravo
Member
+1,399|5637|foggy bottom
lower pay

I thought you meant less deployments.  pay remains the same

Last edited by eleven bravo (2010-10-03 15:07:15)

Tu Stultus Es

 

Pages: 1

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard