Wrong. There is a difference between a politcal candidate and a President saying that. Did you notice how he dealt with the same question last week? Fact is not weakening any party in Pakistan is GWB agenda, not Barack Obama who may have a different approach in mind. The Pakis already overwhelmingly don't like our GWOT policy so there is no love lost in a few covert or even over strikes. Besides, telegraphing a punch is nothing new. GWB did the same thing to the Taliban and Saddam. He has done it to the Pakis. You just seem not to understand how this all works or at least have a different view. Either way your assertions are inaccurate. Pakistan needs to be dealt with and dealt with very quickly. Time is not on our side in case you haven't notices the events of the Fall. Gates and Patraeus are not coincidences nor is bringing OIF to a close. These are utterly critical stages of the game. Not enough people understand this. National free media does a piss poor job explaining it. The general public wouldn't know what they were listening to if they did exlain it. You can see that here by reading many of the post here. Many times I've posted controversial commentary here than goes against the consensus here on SP only to be proven correct in the following months. None of that is coincidence nor am I some sort of genious or sage. I do have access to decent information that I can cross level with my own experience though. Or if you prefer, I know where to look and for what.

 

 

 

-DA

I do not have the info needed to answer that question.

 

Pakistan has demonstrated nukes and that would have to be dealt 1st with, before anything else. Unfortunately any real secret service info on Pakistans nukes is very likely to be classified.

 

There are rumours though.

"http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htchem/articles/20071105.aspx"

 

 

 

 

Herald

Again, you are speculating about things I KNOW TO BE FACTS. What you think is useless and illegal is part of a strategy we have been using for years to deal with crap like this. Your suggestion of a soft power approach is representative of you not understanding todays threat environment or the very limited time frame we are operating on. The only person acting is you. I do this for real. For god sake you don't even understand the nature of the conflict!!!...lol

 

-DA

I am aware of your delusions, DA.As I said your act is over. I am unlike you aware of what can and cannot be done. 

1. Presidential candidates  do not make empty public thr

The Bush Admin appears to have taken the position that, in Waziristan at least, the US reserves the right to hunt JJ in Pakistan when the target is of sufficient value to US. It is an open question to me whether Pakistani leadership has agreed to look the other way when we do this as long as we don't abuse the privilege. From the position of an outsider it is difficult to tell the difference between a Predator strike performed with permission v. without. I would guess that if the US obtained information on a high value target and went to Pakistan for permission to launch the target would be long gone before the permission was granted. Such is the leadership there.

 

If my memory serves me, it is getting foggier with age, Clinton in the 90's simply washed their hands of Pakistan and declared a unilateral boycott of US support after both India and Pakistan had dueling nuke tests. The net result of that was Khan's fire sale on WMDs to the despots of the world we specifically didn't want to have them, take your pick of fission or fusion he ran specials on both flavors. Post 9-11, Bush has reopened the military aid spigot in order to gain favor with Pakistan for support in operations in Afghanistan and the GWOT (they became our ally again). The net result of that has been a very mixed bag. So mixed in fact that while Pakistan giveth with one hand they taketh with the other. Multiple post 9-11 attacks on India have murdered literally thousands of Indians and that stalemate continues. Will India loose patience and decide to be more proactive? One wonders how long this can continue. As we saw with the original bombing of the WTC failure to act only breeds bigger and more sophisticated attacks.

 

I'd like to see western leaders stand up to Pakistan and actually take a side in the GWOT implications of the Mumbai attacks. I would in fact like to see Pakistan isolated economically and socially while US and western intelligence services and satellite data are made available to India to help them hunt down these murderers. If the populace of Pakistan are not supportive of the Paki Military/Intelligence services than we might see some political pressure to change and reign in these activities.

 

What is absolutely certain is what we have done to this point is not working. Pakistan's military and intelligence apparatus has spread nuclear technology to some very bad people who now threaten directly US and our closest allies, they probably have supported multiple attacks in Europe including even possibly the London bomb attacks, and now their actions in India continue to escalate dangerously. So dangerous it is predictable that they will succeed in killing thousands some time soon instead of hundreds. That kind of attack would force India to go to war with all of its unpleasant possibilities.

 

Check Six

 

Rocky

 

 

 

PS: Darth & Herald, please find a way to discuss things without going personal. You are both smart and insightful people who are certainly capable of disagreeing with each other while remaining civil.

 

 

 

Sure you are. You must be hoarding the knowledge...lol

It wasn't an empty threat if you cared to look.

Really? And you know this because? Well because I can list for you MANY Soldiers who know of such things and not only talk publicly, they profit from it. Herald you sound to me like guys who have read about something but never actually done it.  You don't have the experience to understand this nor do you have the wisdom to listen to someone who does.


Whatever dude.BTDT.

I've tried to avoid becoming personal in this. The other man refuses to argue merits or stay on point. The best way to solve the problem for me is to simply list my objections to what I see as obvious fallacies and ignore his personal attacks or better yet ignore the poseur altogether. When a commentt he makes stands on its merit,. I won't even acknowledge it.

If he persists in his personal attacks I will leave it to the community to see which way the discussion goes.

 

On topic.

 

1. On point, assertions are not facts. Every timer a poster makes an assertion without a suipporting fact and calls it a fact, the poister commits a logic error.

 

2. The man makes a statement that he will go intio Palistan to get bin Laden. Ther previous president has tried for seven years, but has been conrtrained by the factors I mentionwed in previous posts above, The same constraints still exist. Empty threat proved by facts in evidence.

 

3.Reality, the Cambodian incurson was illegal during the Vietnam War, same for Laos. Incursions occured in Nicaragua, San Salvador etc weithout international sanctions. This makes the acts warcromes.Whether a president commi5ts such a warcrime is not relevant. Whether a p;residfent can be successful in his warcrime is the determinant if the action is wise. The current empty threat maker will inherit  a 35,000 man force that he can use to raid into Pakistan. His logistics comes across Pakistan or throiugh Russian dominated territopry. These are provable facts. Only a fool attacks his own supply lines. FACT.

. 

4. See 3, for why I stated 4.

 

5. 3 also explains 5. As for been there done that, so have I.in the strategic economic sense-recently.    

 

As I said, on point and merit, Rocky. Strictly on point and merit.

Technically you attacked him first, for 'posing'.

 

I think you both have valid points. There is the Russian line though... like you mentioned there are two lines even if the one controlled by Russia is more expensive.

 

Also, Turkey gets away with attacks in Iraq just fine. You have to step slowly into these waters. Attacking your own supply route is an absolutely essential concern, but it can be solved by moving it or playing economic hardball.

With what do we wedge Russia? Russia doesn't need us. They can do just fine to achieve their central Asian aims without us. You need leverage to convince them to cooperate now. Nation states are not altruistic. Russia is not, especially.