Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Armed Forces of the World Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: America Should Attack Pakistan
DGreat1    12/9/2008 12:14:47 PM
America needs to seriously consider attacking Pakistan. This will allow America to install a government that is willing to disable the nuclear weapons making apparutus in Pakistan in return for economic aid packages that will ensure the long term stability and viability of Pakistan. Such an initiative would work in the best interests of Pakistan's civilian population. This type of initiative would also neutralize the likelihood of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of the Taliban friendly contingent of the current Pakistani government. It is important to note that their is only a short window of opportunity concerning the implementation of this initiative, as this option will be neutralized by any scenario that has Iran emerging as the second state sponsor of terrorism to acquire a nuclear weapons capability. America is currently faced with a use it or lose it proposition in regards to preemptive attack options concerning Pakistan, as America will undoubtedly lose the support of Pakistan once Iran acquires its own nuclear arsenal. While it is a frightening scenario, the reality is that due to America's current obligations to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Iran may very well acquire a nuclear weapons making capability. In this scenario, Pakistan will be pressured by the Islamic fundamentalist influenced Arab street to distance themselves from America as a way of retaining the significant influence they enjoy as the first state sponsor of terrorism. America's strategic position in Afghanistan would be dramatically strengthened by the continuity and controlled space convergence benefits that would be facilitated by a military offensive against Pakistan. I make this assertion with the understanding that President Elect OBama will increase the numerical troop strength of U.S. forces in Afghanistan as promised. I will propose a strategy for facilitating the disablement of Irans nuclear capabilities in a future post.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4   NEXT
DGreat1       12/15/2008 8:52:34 AM
stbretnco
 
You been getting some bad information homey. There is no record of me washing out of anything in the military. I have successfully graduated from every course I have ever taken. And there have been many. In regards to education, I graduated from college with a 3.84 GPA so I didn't wash out there either. My education training and  experience covers psychology of terrorism, counter terrorism, nuclear strategy (proliferation, deterrence, engagement) and threat analysis for example. So I am not a self proclaimed anything. I don't know what your problem is, but I don't wish to make enemies. Have a good day.   
 
Quote    Reply

DGreat1       12/15/2008 8:56:12 AM
 

?Why would a nuclear Iran lead to Pakistan being forced to sever their strategic alliance with America in order to maintain its sphere of influence regarding Muslim nations in the Middle East.?  Given the fact that Iran is Shia and Pakistan is Sunni it's more likely to drive them closer to the US.?

A Quote from Warnerd

Iran currently supports the terrorist agenda of both Hezbollah (a Shiite terrorist organization) and Hamas (a Sunni terrorist organization). Iran is also harboring and supporting over 100 members of the Wahabi based Al Qaeda organization. Therefore, Iran is attempting to implement an expansionist agenda that will give them a controlling influence over the terrorist activities of terrorist organizations representing the three major sects of Islam (Orthodox Sunni, Wahabi Sunni, Shiite). This gives Iran an incredible amount of force projection capabilities that will allow them to threaten America?s regional (Middle East) and global interests through terrorist attacks and threats of the same. However, what I really want you to focus on is the fact that Iran has put themselves in a position to control the strategic direction of terrorism in the Middle East. This is unacceptable to Pakistan in a strategic sense, as Pakistan, who is still a state sponsor of terrorism (regardless of their current classification), has been using the military viability that they obtained from the acquisition of nuclear weapons to try and facilitate the same type of controlling influence over terrorist activities in the Middle East with little success. Pakistan?s unwillingness to refrain from sponsoring terrorism is the reason why they will sever ties with America should Iran acquire nuclear weapons, as Pakistani leaders realize that the strategic advantages that they would initially hold over Iran regarding the amount of nuclear weapons Pakistan has (Pakistan has 48 vs an initial Iranian output of probably 5-6 nuclear weapons), would be neutralized by Iran?s strategic alliance with Russia, a nation with the world?s second largest stockpile of nuclear weapons and Iran?s multi sect, proxy war subordinates from Syria, Hezbollah, Al Qaeda and Hamas for example. The lethality of these threats is increased by the fact that there are Al Qaeda and Taliban friendly contingents in the Pakistani government as well as the civilian population of Pakistan. This is what Pakistan stands to face should they attempt to continue a strategic alliance with America upon Iran?s success in acquiring a nuclear arsenal. Now do you really believe that a state sponsor of terrorism (Pakistan) who has terrorist inclinations and the moral deficiencies that come with them is willing to face those types of threats to maintain an alliance with America? The answer is no. In this scenario, Pakistan will act as a competitor nation towards Iran by forging an alliance with Russia and making overtures to a diverse cross section of insurgent and terrorist organizations. This is the only way that Pakistan can compete with a nuclear weapons armed Iran in the Middle East.

Note:

You asked about what the numerical troop strength would be in regards to America?s military forces in addition to asking about logistics and the exit strategy. My answer to the first question almost exceeded one page so I will be brief. These factors are not problematic when you consider the costs of doing nothing. Also, when you take into consideration the fact that this is a credible threat (that could involve the use of nuclear weaponry), it probably isn?t wise to give specifics about what the plan would be concerning logistics, numerical troop strength and the exit strategy. However, I will say that America will need a stronger coalition than the one she currently has in place.

Dropbear
I hope that I have answered your questions as well.
 
Quote    Reply

DGreat1       12/15/2008 9:00:52 AM
 
Why would a nuclear Iran lead to Pakistan being forced to sever their strategic alliance with America in order to maintain its sphere of influence regarding Muslim nations in the Middle East.?  Given the fact that Iran is Shia and Pakistan is Sunni it's more likely to drive them closer to the US.
 
A Quote from Warnerd
 
 
My Response

Iran currently supports the terrorist agenda of both Hezbollah (a Shiite terrorist organization) and Hamas (a Sunni terrorist organization). Iran is also harboring and supporting over 100 members of the Wahabi based Al Qaeda organization. Therefore, Iran is attempting to implement an expansionist agenda that will give them a controlling influence over the terrorist activities of terrorist organizations representing the three major sects of Islam (Orthodox Sunni, Wahabi Sunni, Shiite). This gives Iran an incredible amount of force projection capabilities that will allow them to threaten America?s regional (Middle East) and global interests through terrorist attacks and threats of the same. However, what I really want you to focus on is the fact that Iran has put themselves in a position to control the strategic direction of terrorism in the Middle East. This is unacceptable to Pakistan in a strategic sense, as Pakistan, who is still a state sponsor of terrorism (regardless of their current classification), has been using the military viability that they obtained from the acquisition of nuclear weapons to try and facilitate the same type of controlling influence over terrorist activities in the Middle East with little success. Pakistan?s unwillingness to refrain from sponsoring terrorism is the reason why they will sever ties with America should Iran acquire nuclear weapons, as Pakistani leaders realize that the strategic advantages that they would initially hold over Iran regarding the amount of nuclear weapons Pakistan has (Pakistan has 48 vs an initial Iranian output of probably 5-6 nuclear weapons), would be neutralized by Iran?s strategic alliance with Russia, a nation with the world?s second largest stockpile of nuclear weapons and Iran?s multi sect, proxy war subordinates from Syria, Hezbollah, Al Qaeda and Hamas for example. The lethality of these threats is increased by the fact that there are Al Qaeda and Taliban friendly contingents in the Pakistani government as well as the civilian population of Pakistan. This is what Pakistan stands to face should they attempt to continue a strategic alliance with America upon Iran?s success in acquiring a nuclear arsenal. Now do you really believe that a state sponsor of terrorism (Pakistan) who has terrorist inclinations and the moral deficiencies that come with them is willing to face those types of threats to maintain an alliance with America? The answer is no. In this scenario, Pakistan will act as a competitor nation towards Iran by forging an alliance with Russia and making overtures to a diverse cross section of insurgent and terrorist organizations. This is the only way that Pakistan can compete with a nuclear weapons armed Iran in the Middle East.

Note:

You asked about what the numerical troop strength would be in regards to America?s military forces in addition to asking about logistics and the exit strategy. My answer to the first question almost exceeded one page so I will be brief. These factors are not problematic when you consider the costs of doing nothing. Also, when you take into consideration the fact that this is a credible threat (that could involve the use of nuclear weaponry), it probably isn?t wise to give specifics about what the plan would be concerning logistics, numerical troop strength and the exit strategy. However, I will say that America will need a stronger coalition than the one she currently has in place.

 
Quote    Reply

stbretnco    SYSOPS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!   12/15/2008 5:12:51 PM
How many times are you going to let this poster keep returning?
 
Last time you threatened to wipe out all posts if he returned again.
 
Time for an IP ban?
 
Quote    Reply

DGreat1       12/15/2008 5:31:57 PM
WoW
 
 
Quote    Reply

stbretnco       12/15/2008 7:28:58 PM
Wow? No, not wow.
 
THe only wow here is that you're still posting.
 
I despise your ilk. You are one of the few people I have ever seen banned and erased from the US Army message boards.
 
You're nothing more than a posing idiot who wanted to play soldier and failed. 
 
Quote    Reply

DGreat1       12/15/2008 10:25:12 PM
Stbretnco
My military records don't reflect failure in any sense of the word. Over 600 people disagree with you regarding whether or not this thread should be viewed. And even if only 10 people viewed it, then it would be for those 10 people, not for you. If the content bothers you, simply go to another thread. It's really not a hard concept to grasp.
 
Quote    Reply

DGreat1       12/15/2008 10:37:57 PM
Back to the issue at hand:

Why would a nuclear Iran lead to Pakistan being forced to sever their strategic alliance with America in order to maintain its sphere of influence regarding Muslim nations in the Middle East.?  Given the fact that Iran is Shia and Pakistan is Sunni it's more likely to drive them closer to the US.
 
A Quote from Warnerd
 
 
My Response

Iran currently supports the terrorist agenda of both Hezbollah (a Shiite terrorist organization) and Hamas (a Sunni terrorist organization). Iran is also harboring and supporting over 100 members of the Wahabi based Al Qaeda organization. Therefore, Iran is attempting to implement an expansionist agenda that will give them a controlling influence over the terrorist activities of terrorist organizations representing the three major sects of Islam (Orthodox Sunni, Wahabi Sunni, Shiite). This gives Iran an incredible amount of force projection capabilities that will allow them to threaten America?s regional (Middle East) and global interests through terrorist attacks and threats of the same. However, what I really want you to focus on is the fact that Iran has put themselves in a position to control the strategic direction of terrorism in the Middle East. This is unacceptable to Pakistan in a strategic sense, as Pakistan, who is still a state sponsor of terrorism (regardless of their current classification), has been using the military viability that they obtained from the acquisition of nuclear weapons to try and facilitate the same type of controlling influence over terrorist activities in the Middle East with little success. Pakistan?s unwillingness to refrain from sponsoring terrorism is the reason why they will sever ties with America should Iran acquire nuclear weapons, as Pakistani leaders realize that the strategic advantages that they would initially hold over Iran regarding the amount of nuclear weapons Pakistan has (Pakistan has 48 vs an initial Iranian output of probably 5-6 nuclear weapons), would be neutralized by Iran?s strategic alliance with Russia, a nation with the world?s second largest stockpile of nuclear weapons and Iran?s multi sect, proxy war subordinates from Syria, Hezbollah, Al Qaeda and Hamas for example. The lethality of these threats is increased by the fact that there are Al Qaeda and Taliban friendly contingents in the Pakistani government as well as the civilian population of Pakistan. This is what Pakistan stands to face should they attempt to continue a strategic alliance with America upon Iran?s success in acquiring a nuclear arsenal. Now do you really believe that a state sponsor of terrorism (Pakistan) who has terrorist inclinations and the moral deficiencies that come with them is willing to face those types of threats to maintain an alliance with America? The answer is no. In this scenario, Pakistan will act as a competitor nation towards Iran by forging an alliance with Russia and making overtures to a diverse cross section of insurgent and terrorist organizations. This is the only way that Pakistan can compete with a nuclear weapons armed Iran in the Middle East.

Note:

You asked about what the numerical troop strength would be in regards to America?s military forces in addition to asking about logistics and the exit strategy. My answer to the first question almost exceeded one page so I will be brief. These factors are not problematic when you consider the costs of doing nothing. Also, when you take into consideration the fact that this is a credible threat (that could involve the use of nuclear weaponry), it probably isn?t wise to give specifics about what the plan would be concerning logistics, numerical troop strength and the exit strategy. However, I will say that America will need a stronger coalition than the one she currently has in place.

 
 
Quote    Reply

DropBear       12/15/2008 11:04:41 PM
Dropbear
I hope that I have answered your questions as well.
 
Kinda, sorta, maybe...not really.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

stbretnco       12/16/2008 12:49:26 AM
It's not the content, which as usual is laughable.
 
It's the poster, whose past history as a poser should relegate him to the dustbin of these boards.
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics