Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

The Taliban is moving closer to Pakistan's capital... within 100 km...

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld ... 3343.story

US experts and now the Secretary of State say that Pakistan could collapse in the next 6 months.

Can we please invade Pakistan and stabilize it?

Pakistan has done very little to round up Taliban and Al Qaeda forces from coming back and forth across the Afghanistan border since 9/11. Pakistani intelligence figured prominently in the rise of the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Pakistan has nukes.

We need to get everyone out of Iraq and send as many troops as possible to Afghanistan and Pakistan ASAP.

Anyone disagree? What other options do we have?

Not sure if we have enough troops to invade/control Pakistan.

dbackjon wrote:Not sure if we have enough troops to invade/control Pakistan.

What do we do? Hope Pakistan can fend off the Taliban?

What if they get control of Pakistan's nukes with 60k coalition troops right next door?

I'm really not sure what we should do... the American people can not stomach another war... but, the consequences of doing nothing are HUGE.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

dbackjon wrote:Not sure if we have enough troops to invade/control Pakistan.

What do we do? Hope Pakistan can fend off the Taliban?

What if they get control of Pakistan's nukes with 60k coalition troops right next door?

I'm really not sure what we should do... the American people can not stomach another war... but, the consequences of doing nothing are HUGE.

Ah, fuck it. Let's abandon THEM just like we're about to abandon the Iraqis.

Skjellyfetti wrote:The Taliban is moving closer to Pakistan's capital... within 100 km...

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld ... 3343.story

US experts and now the Secretary of State say that Pakistan could collapse in the next 6 months.

Can we please invade Pakistan and stabilize it?

Pakistan has done very little to round up Taliban and Al Qaeda forces from coming back and forth across the Afghanistan border since 9/11. Pakistani intelligence figured prominently in the rise of the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Pakistan has nukes.

We need to get everyone out of Iraq and send as many troops as possible to Afghanistan and Pakistan ASAP.

Anyone disagree? What other options do we have?

You deserve credit for bringing up the subject, Sjellyfetti, and I share your concerns.

However, as one who has served, risked my life and lost friends in service to our country, I am outraged that one who has not served or risked his own life is so naively and enthusiastically ready to sacrifice the lives of others.

Pakistan has probably been on the verge of collapse for six years or longer. You would stabilize it by invasion?

With 176 million people, Pakistan has six times the population of Iraq. The Pakistani literacy rate is 50% compared to 74% for Iraq, annual per capita GDP $2,400 versus $4,000. Pakistan has nine major languages, six major ethnic groups and four majors religions compared to five, four and three for Iraq.

It took an invasion force of roughly 300,000 coalition troops and a steady state force of 140,000 (with perhaps 20,000+ more for the successful surge), and maybe American 5,500 military and contractor lives sacrificed over six years or so to "stabilize" Iraq. Now that our enemies know we are leaving, record-setting violence is taking place.

How many troops do you think it will take to invade and stabilize Pakistan? How many nations will assist us?

Skjellyfetti wrote:

dbackjon wrote:Not sure if we have enough troops to invade/control Pakistan.

What do we do? Hope Pakistan can fend off the Taliban?

What if they get control of Pakistan's nukes with 60k coalition troops right next door?

I'm really not sure what we should do... the American people can not stomach another war... but, the consequences of doing nothing are HUGE.

We should locate as many of their nukes as possible and be prepared to take control of them or destroy them before the Taliban gets to them.

We should step up our war on the Taliban in the Afghan mountains - I think we are already doing this.

Let the Pakistani government deal with the Taliban as they see fit. If they ask for our help, we should help them.

If the Pakistani gov. falls then we have to go in and eliminate the Taliban. If the Pakistani gov. falls to the Taliban the country will be a mess, we won't be making it much worse if we go in and take out the Taliban. We'll just be replacing one chaotic situation with another.

I wonder how India is viewing this situation?

India.

AZGrizFan wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:
What do we do? Hope Pakistan can fend off the Taliban?

What if they get control of Pakistan's nukes with 60k coalition troops right next door?

I'm really not sure what we should do... the American people can not stomach another war... but, the consequences of doing nothing are HUGE.

Ah, fuck it. Let's abandon THEM just like we're about to abandon the Iraqis.

Bush, Cheney, Rummy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Wedgebuster wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote: Ah, love it. Let's abandon THEM just like we're about to abandon the Iraqis.

Bush, Cheney, Rummy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

If we had finished of the Taliban instead of invading Iraq this might not be an issue right now.

Mission Accomplished

The nukes need to be dismantled. The UN could make themselves useful for once and help them do it safely.

Pwns wrote:The nukes need to be dismantled. The UN could make themselves useful for once and help them do it safely.

That sounds great, but that only works if the Pakistani government agrees. I don't see the U.N. invading a nuclear power.

AZGrizFan wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:
What do we do? Hope Pakistan can fend off the Taliban?

What if they get control of Pakistan's nukes with 60k coalition troops right next door?

I'm really not sure what we should do... the American people can not stomach another war... but, the consequences of doing nothing are HUGE.

Ah, fuck it. Let's abandon THEM just like we're about to abandon the Iraqis.

Ah fuck it as well. LET's stay in Iraq for another 100 years, in the meantime, let's let religious extremists run amok, execute gays by gluing their butts shut (and then they die a slow painful death) - this is happening NOW. Execute Christians, install Sharia Law.


Face it, Griz - your boys Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Rice FUCKED UP BIG TIME. Iraq is in FAR WORSE shape now IN ALL RESPECTS than it was pre-invasion. Fewer civil liberties, economy in shambles, trillions of US dollars spent, hundreds of thousands of US lives DESTROYED.

dbackjon wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote: Ah, fuck it. Let's abandon THEM just like we're about to abandon the Iraqis.

Ah fuck it as well. LET's stay in Iraq for another 100 years, in the meantime, let's let religious extremists run amok, execute gays by gluing their butts shut (and then they die a slow painful death) - this is happening NOW. Execute Christians, install Sharia Law.


Face it, Griz - your boys Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Rice FUCKED UP BIG TIME. Iraq is in FAR WORSE shape now IN ALL RESPECTS than it was pre-invasion. Fewer civil liberties, economy in shambles, trillions of US dollars spent, hundreds of thousands of US lives DESTROYED.

Jesus. You guys are like taking candy from a baby.

dbackjon wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote: Ah, fuck it. Let's abandon THEM just like we're about to abandon the Iraqis.

Ah fuck it as well. LET's stay in Iraq for another 100 years, in the meantime, let's let religious extremists run amok, execute gays by gluing their butts shut (and then they die a slow painful death) - this is happening NOW. Execute Christians, install Sharia Law.


Face it, Griz - your boys Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Rice FUCKED UP BIG TIME. Iraq is in FAR WORSE shape now IN ALL RESPECTS than it was pre-invasion. Fewer civil liberties, economy in shambles, trillions of US dollars spent, hundreds of thousands of US lives DESTROYED.

But they hated us for our freedom! We were about to witness a nuc-lar cloud on our soil, he tried to kill Bush's daddy, the cheering Iraqi's wanted us to invade their country, the world is so much better off, and he jailed, tortured, and poisoned his own people while the whole time we were perfectly willing to do it for him.

considering increased civil conflicts in India and still some small border conflicts I am sure India is hopnig this doesn't happen. With the rest of Southeast Asia to their east in major conflicts the last thing they need is to be almost completely surrounded with conflict.

Of course they are on the verge with China becoming the two next superpowers... Both seeing growth of about 5% this year and 7% next year while the rest of hte world has a -1.9% growth this year and about .4% growth next year.

economic clout is one thing, but to truly assert "superpower" status... you pretty much have to flex some military muscle.

the thought of India and Pakistan duking it out again... scary.

the thought of Taliban nutters getting their hands on very real WMD... terrifying. This is the price we pay for the wink and a nod agreement with Musharraf for all these years... now that he's gone, all that equivocating isn't going to do us a damn bit of good.

AZGrizFan wrote:

dbackjon wrote:
Ah love it as well. LET's stay in Iraq for another 100 years, in the meantime, let's let religious extremists run amok, execute gays by gluing their butts shut (and then they die a slow painful death) - this is happening NOW. Execute Christians, install Sharia Law.


Face it, Griz - your boys Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Rice lover UP BIG TIME. Iraq is in FAR WORSE shape now IN ALL RESPECTS than it was pre-invasion. Fewer civil liberties, economy in shambles, trillions of US dollars spent, hundreds of thousands of US lives DESTROYED.

Jesus. You guys are like taking candy from a baby.

Maybe the baby has a lot of extra candy from being right a lot of the time.

Oh yeah - that is also what bin Laden said about the Bush regime.

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:economic clout is one thing, but to truly assert "superpower" status... you pretty much have to flex some military muscle.

the thought of India and Pakistan duking it out again... scary.

the thought of Taliban nutters getting their hands on very real WMD... terrifying. This is the price we pay for the wink and a nod agreement with Musharraf for all these years... now that he's gone, all that equivocating isn't going to do us a damn bit of good.

I think we are going to back to real productivety growth and we will see both India and China grow at unseen lengths. Now India as a military power, most likely not, China I can see them making a move towards that. India is an X-factor and interesting to watch.

China on the other hand just passed a 600 billion dollar "Bailout" for all infrastructure and education. They are not throwing it at bad debt, but we will see them grow and become the new world innovator.

dbackjon wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote: Ah, love it. Let's abandon THEM just like we're about to abandon the Iraqis.

Ah love it as well. LET's stay in Iraq for another 100 years, in the meantime, let's let religious extremists run amok, execute gays by gluing their butts shut (and then they die a slow painful death) - this is happening NOW. Execute Christians, install Sharia Law.


Face it, Griz - your boys Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Rice lover UP BIG TIME. Iraq is in FAR WORSE shape now IN ALL RESPECTS than it was pre-invasion. Fewer civil liberties, economy in shambles, trillions of US dollars spent, hundreds of thousands of US lives DESTROYED.

Fewer civil liberties?!??

NOT for the 400,00 CIVILIANS executed by Saddam. Not for the Kurds, the "marsh Arabs" or most of the Shia. Not for my Iraqi ex-pat neighbor's eight brothers who were hanged by Saddam. Not for the hundreds of girls raped by Saddam's sons.

This is the fundamental problem in our free society, Jon: Lefties cannot count bodies and don't know who their friends are. It is not southern cracker Baptists gluing shut gay rectums. It is the southern cracker Baptists who risked their lives to protect ours and prevent such atrocities.

Skjellyfetti wrote:...can we please invade Pakistan and stabilize it?...

If you think the recent pirate escapade will embolden our allies and intimidate our enemies, portending success, think again. It will embolden our enemies. Oh, it will probably intimidate some of the illiterate and impoverished pirates, but it did not fool the world's intelligence agencies.

You probably believe what you were told by the mainstream media about the pirate episode, that Obama saved the day by ordering the timely use of deadly force to save the hostage Captain's life. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The hostage was saved despite the President's decision to suppress a readily available military option and use the FBI to negotiate a "peaceful" solution. It took the SEALS four hours to depart from Virgina Beach for the coast of Somalia. At twelve hours the FBI were still packing their bags. Meanwhile the hostage's life was in constant danger as the drama dragged on. The military solution was available on the first day when the hostage jumped overboard and tried to escape, but the rescue was explicitly vetoed by the Whitehouse. After the drama dragged on for four days, the hostage was finally saved ONLY because the Captain of the USS Bainbridge, contrary to the expressed desires of the Whitehouse for a "peaceful" solution, had the balls to risk his career and declare that the hostage's life was in danger, then giving the go-ahead as the on-scene-commander for the SEALS to take out the pirates and set the hostage free.

The President did do one intelligent thing for which I give him credit. He accepted the decision to use force AFTER THE FACT as his own.

Unlike Jack Kennedy, who was tested early in his Presidency with an unprecedentedly grave world crisis and found largely worthy, Obama has been tested early in his Presidency with a trivial incident and found wanting.

How many troops do you think it will take to invade and stabilize Pakistan? What do you imagine to be the tactical differences between Iraq and Pakistan?

NATO is already squeemish about Afghanistan. Who the he77 do you think is going to join us in an invasion of Pakistan?

Who would be foolish enough to fight an enemy six times larger than Iraq, who follows NO Geneva conventions or civilized rules of engagement, now that our Dear leader has abolished even modest little water board exercises as "torture?"

Who the he77 do you think wants to follow this commander-in-chief into harm's way? Do you think Barry Soetoro will allow the military chain of command to use rules of engagement designed to protect their own troops? Do you think our command-in-chief will stand up for troops who make borderline decisions under pressure in life and death situations? Do you think the Taliban and al Qaeda fear our commander-in-chief?

native wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:...can we please invade Pakistan and stabilize it?...

If you think the recent pirate escapade will embolden our allies and intimidate our enemies, portending success, think again. It will embolden our enemies. Oh, it will probably intimidate some of the illiterate and impoverished pirates, but it did not fool the world's intelligence agencies.

You probably believe what you were told by the mainstream media about the pirate episode, that Obama saved the day by ordering the timely use of deadly force to save the hostage Captain's life. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The hostage was saved despite the President's decision to suppress a readily available military option and use the FBI to negotiate a "peaceful" solution. It took the SEALS four hours to depart from Virgina Beach for the coast of Somalia. At twelve hours the FBI were still packing their bags. Meanwhile the hostage's life was in constant danger as the drama dragged on. The military solution was available on the first day when the hostage jumped overboard and tried to escape, but the rescue was explicitly vetoed by the Whitehouse. After the drama dragged on for four days, the hostage was finally saved ONLY because the Captain of the USS Bainbridge, contrary to the expressed desires of the Whitehouse for a "peaceful" solution, had the balls to risk his career and declare that the hostage's life was in danger, then giving the go-ahead as the on-scene-commander for the SEALS to take out the pirates and set the hostage free.

The President did do one intelligent thing for which I give him credit. He accepted the decision to use force AFTER THE FACT as his own.

Unlike Jack Kennedy, who was tested early in his Presidency with an unprecedentedly grave world crisis and found largely worthy, Obama has been tested early in his Presidency with a trivial incident and found wanting.

How many troops do you think it will take to invade and stabilize Pakistan? What do you imagine to be the tactical differences between Iraq and Pakistan?

NATO is already squeemish about Afghanistan. Who the he77 do you think is going to join us in an invasion of Pakistan?

Who would be foolish enough to fight an enemy six times larger than Iraq, who follows NO Geneva conventions or civilized rules of engagement, now that our Dear leader has abolished even modest little water board exercises as "torture?"

Who the he77 do you think wants to follow this commander-in-chief into harm's way? Do you think Barry Soetoro will allow the military chain of command to use rules of engagement designed to protect their own troops? Do you think our command-in-chief will stand up for troops who make borderline decisions under pressure in life and death situations? Do you think the Taliban and al Qaeda fear our commander-in-chief?

Could you give us a link to this intel?

BlueHen86 wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Jesus. You guys are like taking candy from a baby.

Maybe the baby has a lot of extra candy from being right a lot of the time.

Oh yeah - that is also what bin Laden said about the Bush regime.

It's just fun to poke the beast.

AZGrizFan wrote:

BlueHen86 wrote:
Maybe the baby has a lot of extra candy from being right a lot of the time.

Oh yeah - that is also what bin Laden said about the Bush regime.

It's just fun to poke the beast.

Yeah, that is what I figured. It worked well too - generated some lively discussion.

BlueHen86 wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
It's just fun to poke the beast.

Yeah, that is what I figured. It worked well too - generated some lively discussion.

D1B and Jon have been particularly easy to irritate recently.

Fookin' amateurs.

AZGrizFan wrote:

BlueHen86 wrote:
Yeah, that is what I figured. It worked well too - generated some lively discussion.

D1B and Jon have been particularly easy to irritate recently.

Fookin' amateurs.

Bastard.