First time in history, that I know of, where two nuclear powers will square off against each other directly.

Fine, we'll send in cruise missiles.

So.

Despite the "tribal areas" being a no-mans-land for either the Pakistani army or the NATO forces in Afghanistan, the Pakis are threatening action if we go after terrorists and other fucktards in the tribal areas?

Some ally.

Mew

I don't believe the general thought this all the way through.

Great... There goes the neighborhood.

The Pakistanis probably watch CNN and are convinced that Obama will not be crucified this November, and they don't want to be responsible for allowing Bush to mess with that good ol' Democrat party ally in the middle east, Al Qaida.

Thanks to the MSM we must look like a bunch of idiots in this world....

Sounds like it's time to directly "get to know" the new regime leaders over there.

I seem to recall a "You are either with us or with the terrorists" doctrine once upon a time.

I don't know enough about the internal situation in Pakistan with the new president, but could this just be a show for domestic consumption? Perhaps Pakistan and the US have an understanding that allows them to save face at home.

Right! I have an "alpha-numeric" answer - A-10. Spray, rinse and repeat as necessary.

-S-

re: #6 Edouard

Sounds like it's time to directly "get to know" the new regime leaders over there.

I seem to recall a "You are either with us or with the terrorists" doctrine once upon a time.

Ah, yes. The erstwhile Bush Doctrine.

Considering that individual Pakistani army units are either nowhere near the jihadists or collaborating with them, this has no impact on US military action.

Hey you--Yeah you--you democratic liberal SOBs who wanted Mussaref out. Yeah, you bleeding hearts, so how is that working out so far?

Honestly, they have to say this. Any country that won't defend it's geographical integrity is one that simply won't last.

The fact that they haven't lived up to their end of the deal as far as the war on terror goes is just an additional element to add to my anger.

General Abbas’ statement came as top brass of the Pakistan Army in their meeting on second day fully endorsed their chief’s warning that no country would be allowed to violate Pakistan’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Weaselwords, just so everyone understands he isn't talking about the Taliban and alQada.

What's truly sad is that we've been doing raids and missile attacks for years, it's only become a real issue there since Obama suggested invading. Since then the agitprop drums have steadily beat.

Seems to me that the terrorists in their country are doing more to violate their borders than we would ever be interested in doing.

Darn it; am I using that "logic" thing again?

One thing that is interesting to note is that Pakistan ceded Waziristan a couple years ago.

[Link: www.freedomszone.com...]

Now, however, they are, apparently, claiming it as their own territory.

Maybe they ought to make up their freaking minds.

re: #14 Thanos

What's truly sad is that we've been doing raids and missile attacks for years, it's only become a real issue there since Obama suggested invading. Since then the agitprop drums have steadily beat.

Yup, but experience is so overrated?

Our friends the Paki's.

This meaningless posturing the Pakis can't do abything about it.
They might as well parade throughthe streets bawling hellosnackbar.

re: #7 doppelganglander

I don't know enough about the internal situation in Pakistan with the new president, but could this just be a show for domestic consumption? Perhaps Pakistan and the US have an understanding that allows them to save face at home.

Spot on - the Pakis are fighting the same enemy

Threatening war with an ally who just happens to be the most powerful country on earth. Brilliant.

We provided them desperately needed earthquake assistance in recent memory. We should remind them of that.

Does the "no foreign troops" category include terrorists from Syria, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, etc.?

Could get sloppy, but I gather most of the ongoing trouble in Afghanistan is actually coming directly from Pakistan.

With a little luck Bush can push this off onto the next administration. If not, well, hoo boy.

re: #7 doppelganglander

I don't know enough about the internal situation in Pakistan with the new president, but could this just be a show for domestic consumption? Perhaps Pakistan and the US have an understanding that allows them to save face at home.

"d-g-r" -

Hope you are right. Meanwhile I can see the "INDIAN TIGER" licking its chops.

-S-

re: #20 Westward Ho

Spot on - the Pakis are fighting the same enemy

Well some might be. I am not so sure about the Intellegence Services and prehaps parts of the Army? And anyway things over there have a way of getting out of control.

Go after AQ? no

American forces? absolutely.

Nice "ally" we've got there.

re: #20 Westward Ho

Spot on - the Pakis are fighting the same enemy

"W-Ho" -

Basically true - Unfortunately, Very Intermittently. Pakistan is still potentially the MOST DANGEROUS NATION ON EARTH.

-S-

Is this our cue to take out their nukes?

Air Chief Marshal Tanvir Mahmood Ahmad, had claimed that the PAF has the capability to intercept air strikes inside Pakistan territory.

PAF vs. USAF? That would be quick.

How does this new regime compare to the Musharraf as far as sympathies with Islamic radicals?

If there are any Red Sox fans out there expecting help from the sinking Yankees, well that's like depending on the Pakistanies?

If that's the game, we'd better put into action any options we have for securing he nukes.

What I've noted is that even the moderate blogs in Pakistan are starting to turn against the US policy, which is a shift. (These are blogs that fearlessly condemn the Taliban and the Mullahs with regularity]

I've simply no 'take' on the new Pakistani regime.
It might indeed be the case that this is for internal consumption - the odd thing here being that the general picks on the USA - while there are a few other nations involved - Great Britain, for example ...

it looks a bit as if the Taleban and Al Qaeda have their hooks into both the Afghan and Pakistani leadership, seeing that Karzai is unhappy about British involvement (can't remember exactly where I saw this, sorry, no linkie), and now Pakistan being unhappy about the USA.

Both seem to have hardened their stance against India - remember that attack on the Indian Embassy in Kabul a short while ago, with the Indians hinting at Pakistani involvement and apparent lax security by Afghanistan.

And then there's Kashmir ...

Not looking good for the future.

re: #30 NC State of Mind

PAF vs. USAF? That would be quick.

How does this new regime compare to the Musharraf as far as sympathies with Islamic radicals?

Well that depends. Their new President used be called Mr. 10%. How much are we paying him off today?

Pakistan has done nothing, so in the immortal words of Drowning Pool, Let the bodies hit the floor.

While this may curtail some cross border ops out of deference to Pak sensibilities, I don't see it stopping any ops against massed or high value targets. The only thing our military better make sure is to have a CAP of sufficient force available to deal with any response. In an air/ground US versus a ground Pak engagement, I'm confident we can handle it. If Paks use air and we don't have any at the point, we could lose some people. A CAP might also deter a Pak attempt because I don't think they want to test their air force against ours. Not if they want anything left to deal with India, that is.

re: #23 pittboy

Does the "no foreign troops" category include terrorists from Syria, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, etc.?

You must be joking!
They're not foreign - they all belong to the Ummah ...

///

re: #33 Thanos

What I've noted is that even the moderate blogs in Pakistan are starting to turn against the US policy, which is a shift. (These are blogs that fearlessly condemn the Taliban and the Mullahs with regularity]

A war with Pakistan is something that seemed to be in the cards right after September 11, 2001. The Bush administration has played this well, so far, but I suspect a reconing will be comming. These "moderate" Pakistanis will have to shit or get off the pot.

re: #30 NC State of Mind

PAF vs. USAF? That would be quick.

How does this new regime compare to the Musharraf as far as sympathies with Islamic radicals?

"NC-SoM" -

Nobody knows - Pakistan is currently like playing Piano "by ear" rather than "by finger." The Chinese probably know more than we do on this one.

-S-

Like, what if some moron starts flying Paki air against US troops? Haven't we shipped them F-16s, and who knows what kinds of tactical missiles and such? Are are troops on the ground prepared for such? What would a proper response be? Whew.

re: #2 livefreeor die

No need for that. Predator + Hellfire. No Incursion required. Reassembly not possible under certain circumstances.

Time to test Barry Obama's metal. Didn't he say he'd invade pakistan? Can't wait to hear his position on this.

Just so you all are aware, "Paki" is generally a derogatory term.

re: #41 itellu3times

pimf: Are our troops

re: #34 yma o hyd

Both seem to have hardened their stance against India - remember that attack on the Indian Embassy in Kabul a short while ago,

Not looking good for the future.

Despite the apparrent one sidedness of the nuclear deal we finally signed with India, I welcome the strengthing ties with that country. Especially in light of these threats.

The new gov't there is in a fight for their lives. The Taliban are assassinating PPP and ANP leaders weekly. I suspect there is tacit agreement that they will make some shows so the populace does not turn against them in large numbers. I also suspect that President Bush has green lighted any attacks on upper echelon AQ and Taliban leaders in order to flush out the big cheese.

re: #44 astronmr20

Just so you all are aware, "Paki" is generally a derogatory term.

My apologies. Any more neutral abbreviation?

re: #7 doppelganglander

that's what i was thinking

re: #39 Dar ul Harbarian

"Dar" -

Any "rec(k)oning" could well be the end of Pakistan as an independent state.

-S-

re: #48 itellu3times

None that I know of. I know it was intended as a convenient abbreviation here, but in the UK, skinheads use the term "paki" liberally.

re: #41 itellu3times

Like, what if some moron starts flying Paki air against US troops? Haven't we shipped them F-16s, and who knows what kinds of tactical missiles and such? Are are troops on the ground prepared for such? What would a proper response be? Whew.

I presume that F-16s come with a sevice contract of sorts that would be null and void in such a case. That would ground their aircraft. More likely, they would try to strangle NATO forces in Afghanistan by cutting supply lines (or letting the Taliban cut them).

re: #40 Dr. Shalit

"NC-SoM" -

Nobody knows - Pakistan is currently like playing Piano "by ear" rather than "by finger." The Chinese probably know more than we do on this one.

-S-

The fact still remains Musharraf was our guy. For what ever reasons he had, or whatever we had on him, Musharraf and the USA seemed to have an understanding of sorts. In addition he was the titular head of the Armed Forces. Now we seem to be flying solo.

re: #46 NC State of Mind

Despite the apparrent one sidedness of the nuclear deal we finally signed with India, I welcome the strengthing ties with that country. Especially in light of these threats.

Indeed - and the Indians do seem to know whats what - they were the country with the lowest percentage going for B0 in that recent 'World Opinion Poll'. Only 9% liked him ...

re: #51 astronmr20

Thanx. Guess I just spell it out for now. Pak? Oh well.

re: #44 astronmr20

Just so you all are aware, "Paki" is generally a derogatory term.

And your point?

Obama has openly said he wants to go to war with Pakistan.

Yes, Once again a big hearty THANK YOU to the MSM that decided that OPSEC against the animals that want to bring Western Civilization back to the Bronze Age (a trip, I can sure most of us, won't be able to make, what with their plans for Jews, Gentiles, Non Believers, etc etc) that DAMNIT, the PEOPLE (sic) have a "Right To Know!" (c)...oh well.

Funny, that Right musta been in the earlier drafts of The Constitution, Bill Of Rights thingy...Never mind, I'm sure an Critical Update will be issued by the Obama presidency when Thy Most Holy Roller gets it...(Heaven Forbid).

Hey Joe Biden!...Call the Founding Fathers and tell them "They Missed a Spot!"

...Oh wait, Joe...err, nevermind.

/Obama 2008! - Because Government isn't supposed to be small and efficient...Its Supposed To ROCK! (Totally!)

re: #52 Dar ul Harbarian

True. But even one incident, ...

re: #6 Edouard

Sounds like it's time to directly "get to know" the new regime leaders over there.

I seem to recall a "You are either with us or with the terrorists" doctrine once upon a time.

Ask Charlie Gibson what he knows about that.

re: #54 yma o hyd

Indeed - and the Indians do seem to know whats what - they were the country with the lowest percentage going for B0 in that recent 'World Opinion Poll'. Only 9% liked him ...

Yup, the Indians have developed a new affinity for the USA and for Israel. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Survival will do that to ya.

re: #57 FrogMarch

What? Musta had a weak moment.

re: #31 Nevergiveup

If there are any Red Sox fans out there expecting help from the sinking Yankees, well that's like depending on the Pakistanies?

Excellent analogy — even though it hits home. Today is the first day in my life I'll be hoping the Yanks lose. And hoping the Dodgers Joe Torre wins it all. There, I said it.

Pock-is-ston, as The One pronounces it, will eventually have to be dealt with. Here's India's chance to join the fun...

re: #50 Dr. Shalit

"Dar" -

Any "rec(k)oning" could well be the end of Pakistan as an independent state.

-S-

Yes it could. It would be quite a mess, to say the least.

re: #51 astronmr20

None that I know of. I know it was intended as a convenient abbreviation here, but in the UK, skinheads use the term "paki" liberally.

Yep - and the police will have you for racial hate crime if you use it.

re: #56 Nevergiveup

And your point?

Derogatory as in racial.

re: #47 Thanos

The new gov't there is in a fight for their lives. The Taliban are assassinating PPP and ANP leaders weekly. I suspect there is tacit agreement that they will make some shows so the populace does not turn against them in large numbers. I also suspect that President Bush has green lighted any attacks on upper echelon AQ and Taliban leaders in order to flush out the big cheese.

Wouldn't that be an October Surprise.

re: #48 itellu3times

My apologies. Any more neutral abbreviation?

Pashtun if you are talking about the Frontiers, Pahktun is also acceptable.

Are we still paying jizyah to Paki?

re: #54 yma o hyd

Indeed - and the Indians do seem to know whats what - they were the country with the lowest percentage going for B0 in that recent 'World Opinion Poll'. Only 9% liked him ...

Nuclear deals are one thing, but their invaluable phone tech support is India's #1 bargaining chip as our ally.

It will be interesting to see how Obama demogouges this.
Wasn't it Rambo Hussein Obama who threatend to invade Pakistan to get Bin Laden?

So I'm guessing arming and training them was not a good idea.

But never mind, continue the training of Abbas's terrorists.

Too bad Palin wasn't asked about the Condi Doctrine where incompetence and putting your faith in untrustworthy Muslims is a virtue.

re: #57 FrogMarch

Obama has openly said he wants to go to war with Pakistan.

Yep. In a fair and balanced world these comments would be played side by side with these threats from Pakistan, and he'd be backpeddling so fast you couldn't count the uhhs and ahhs coming out of his mouth. The race would be over. Instead we'll still be seeing Palin be eviscerated for not knowing Gibson's definition of "Bush doctrine" for another week.

Hey Condi, pushing out Musharaf was a great idea!

You've only got 3 months left.

Better get a move on. So many problems, so little time to fuck things up.

re: #44 astronmr20

Until they "man-up" and stop sheltering terrorists within their borders, I think the name will hang around. Start acting like you are the "allies" you claim to be, and the name Paki will rapidly become just a distant memory.

re: #70 JSK1121

Nuclear deals are one thing, but their support is India's #1 bargaining chip as our ally.

"invaluable phone tech" --sorry just peed in my pants. Hold on. "Invavluable" that's a hoot?

re#48itellu3times
Paki is only derogatory because paranoid ghettoised Pakistanis in the UK interpret it as such.It is used by nonpakis without negative connotation.

Condi: Affirmative action meets Peter Principle.

re: #73 NC State of Mind

Precisely.

the DNC media will let Obama get away with anything.

re: #53 Nevergiveup

The fact still remains Musharraf was our guy. For what ever reasons he had, or whatever we had on him, Musharraf and the USA seemed to have an understanding of sorts. In addition he was the titular head of the Armed Forces. Now we seem to be flying solo.

N-g-u -

YUP!

-S-

...but it's OK for fighters from our country to violate the territorial integrity of Afghanistan.

A*holes

re: #6 Edouard

Sounds like it's time to directly "get to know" the new regime leaders over there.

I seem to recall a "You are either with us or with the terrorists" doctrine once upon a time.

This might just test the "grey area" a bit.

re: #72 Opinionated

So I'm guessing arming and training them was not a good idea.

But never mind, continue the training of Abbas's terrorists.

Too bad Palin wasn't asked about the Condi Doctrine where incompetence and putting your faith in untrustworthy Muslims is a virtue.

I thought the "Condi Doctrine" was that the Palestinians are the Blacks of the Middle East. We better ask Charlie Gibson?

Thank God the Lightworker will walk among us in 3 months time.

We have to just hang on till then.

if they cannot control the tribal areas they have no sovereign claim to it

re: #61 Nevergiveup

Yup, the Indians have developed a new affinity for the USA and for Israel. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Survival will do that to ya.

There are large numbers of Indians living in the UK - they are clever, hard working and have strong ties to the mother country.
Indians ahve been doing a balancing act between China on the one hand and Palistan on the other - Kshmir being the focus.
IIRC, the Indian army did quite well against both countries, in the 1960s and in the practically daily little skirmishes on the Kashmiri border.

Now they're being attacked by ROPer terrorists - they know full well that they cannot stay neutral and seem to have chosen which side to be on ... and its not China/Russia/Pakistan ..

re: #84 Maine's Michael

Thank God the Lightworker will walk among us in 3 months time.

We have to just hang on till then.

Choking on my spit with that one!

re: #47 Thanos

When anyone, including the leaders of a state, attempt to survive by in essence walking along the double yellow line dividing two speeding lanes of traffic, they will eventually get hit by a vehicle that drifts out of its lane.

Pakistan is finding itself in this position and it is one of their own creation. I believe it goes beyond the inability to actually assert leadership and command / control in Waziristan - but an inability of the government itself to not only pick a side and clean house to eliminate the radical influence in the ISI / Military of the salafists.

This statement could be posturing to prevent the government from being run over as they walk the double yellow line. It could also be very serious and a sign that the new government is leaning towards the radical islamic side of the equation as opposed to continuing on a pro-Western approach.

re: #84 Maine's Michael

Thank God the Lightworker will walk among us in 3 months time.

We have to just hang on till then.

He should get on his unicorn right now, ride a rainbow over there and show us how it's done.

Who has control of their nukes?

And just think - we very well may have a president inaugurated on January 20, 2009 who said the other night at the Columbia U forum that he just wants to "make government COOL again"!

General Abbas’ statement came as top brass of the Pakistan Army in their meeting on second day fully endorsed their chief’s warning that no country would be allowed to violate Pakistan’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.

So- conducting a raid, then pulling back is now violating sovereignty and territorial integrity? WOuldn't they only be able to claim that if there was occupation?

re: #90 Ziggy

Who has control of their nukes?

Heisenberg.

re: #89 itellu3times

He should get on his unicorn right now, ride a rainbow over there and show us how it's done.

I think He plans to do that. As soon as he finishes making fun of McCain's age and inability to use a keyboard.

re: #67 Sharmuta

And the press will downplay it and call it all a put-up job just for the election.......

re: #74 Maine's Michael

Hey Condi, pushing out Musharaf was a great idea!

You've only got 3 months left.

Better get a move on. So many problems, so little time to fuck things up.

The two minute drill to create a terrorist Palestinian State is in motion.

re: #91 Intrepid

And just think - we very well may have a president inaugurated on January 20, 2009 who said the other night at the Columbia U forum that he just wants to "make government COOL again"!

Like in nuclear winter?

Maybe India will let us have bases from which to attack pakistan.

re: #93 itellu3times

Heisenberg.

Funny, doesn't sound Pakistani?

re: #1 Pastorius

First time in history, that I know of, where two nuclear powers will square off against each other directly.

Time to read the riot act.

re: #96 Opinionated

The two minute drill to create a terrorist Palestinian State is in motion.

yeah but who ever thought that Olmert would be it's bigggest cheer leader?

re: #90 Ziggy

Who has control of their nukes?

That's an excellent question.

re: #96 Opinionated

The two minute drill to create a terrorist Palestinian State is in motion.

Well she will certainly be leaving a mark in the history books.

Unfortunately for all of us, it wil be a skidmark.

There are several factors that play into this, it's not as simple as the media would paint. Pakistan is under extreme stress right now due to Economic factors, particularly in the food and energy sectors. The India deal pretty much turned them against us (we tried to make the same deal with them but it fell through due to PML and MMA agitation against it)
Presidential candidates suggesting invasion, the infiltration of the Frontier Corps and the ISI by the jihadis, the grudging acceptance of Zardari as president, the failure of the first gov't coalition, the war inside Pakistan by AQ and the Taliban.

All of this results from the poor leadership they have, Musharraf included, and I don't see a good way out for them. I used to have some hope but not much anymore. At some point I think the Punjab and Sindh could break from the frontiers, but who knows. Right now the Taliban are trying to take their first large city, Peshawar.

Looks like Pakistan purchase 40! F-16s in '06. Was initially going to be 77, but the US wouldn't lower the unit cost.

re: #70 JSK1121

Nuclear deals are one thing, but their invaluable phone tech support is India's #1 bargaining chip as our ally.

They also have some icredibly rich industrialists who have taken over steel industries, wholesale, on all continents. And unlike the russian Mafia, they actually work.

Ttheir tech support can be brilliant - the Indian laydees not so much, but the lads are utterly charming and always up for a chat while the PC reboots ...)

re: #104 Cognito

That's an excellent question.

Just a minor point to ponder.

re: #103 Nevergiveup

yeah but who ever thought that Olmert would be it's bigggest cheer leader?

I did. Right from the start.

W and Condi and Baker and Co were overjoyed.

Never has Israel had a more pliant puppet in charge.

re: #107 NC State of Mind

Looks like Pakistan purchase 40! F-16s in '06. Was initially going to be 77, but the US wouldn't lower the unit cost.

That doesn't mean they know how to fly them well.

Sounds like Pakistan is ready for another of it's periodic military coups...

re: #51 astronmr20

Skinheads?....... Do you know what 'skinhead' means in Britain? : Hair cut with clippers, using clipper guards of varying lengths to suit preference. I personally use the bare clipper blades.

re: #77 hellosnackbar

re#48itellu3times
Paki is only derogatory because paranoid ghettoised Pakistanis in the UK interpret it as such.It is used by nonpakis without negative connotation.

That's bollocks. It's derogatory because back when the preferred sport of thugs was 'P**i bashing' it wasn't just Pakistanis that got it if they got caught. As the 'n' word is to black people, so is that word to people of Indian or 'Asian' background.

So now we are "racist" if we call a paki a paki? Tough shit. I don't live in Britain. Where I live we can still call people names if we want to. Also, I find being called a kafr racist. So there.

re: #102 The Other Les

Time to read the riot act.

Maybe not. It has been reported that the USSR was ready to deploy nuclear weapons against a Nuclear Israel in 1973, prompting Nixon to put the USA on a higher alert status.

Hey Pakistan!

}:D     [Bring it.]

re: #114 ploome hineni

WOW

cognutdo wrote a coherent post

Now, now. Play nice.

re: #3 MijaCat

So.

Despite the "tribal areas" being a no-mans-land for either the Pakistani army or the NATO forces in Afghanistan, the Pakis are threatening action if we go after terrorists and other fucktards in the tribal areas?

Some ally.

Mew

What we have here is a failure to understand the proper application of the concept of sovereignty. If you can't control a piece of real estate then you ain't sovereign over it.

/Rural Southern accent.

Pakistanis are pretty capable people. Good soldiers.

They don't have the sloppiness endemic to arab cultures.

re: #84 Maine's Michael

Sarc Filter works fine on my end.

Well let's see what Matt Damon has to say about this situation.

/sigh

Thanks NTY and MSM. Next time just keep your traps shut, the same goes for government officials!

The president of Pakistan is an agent of corruption and I hope the US military starts bombing before long.

re: #122 ploome hineni

nice girls go to heaven, bad girls go everywhere

I don't know how to respond to that one. I'd like to party with you, cowgirl.

re: #51 astronmr20

None that I know of. I know it was intended as a convenient abbreviation here, but in the UK, skinheads use the term "paki" liberally.

You also hear it from non-Muslim Indians in America...

re: #11 Nevergiveup

Hey you--Yeah you--you democratic liberal SOBs who wanted Mussaref out. Yeah, you bleeding hearts, so how is that working out so far?

On the plus side he actually got to leave office in something other than a body bag.

re: #109 Ziggy

Just a minor point to ponder.

I believe I know the answer, but yes, it's a point to ponder for sure, and I'm curious to see the reaction here.

Their program is divided up into several pieces -- manufacturing, storage and deployment, transportation, and so forth -- but the trigger is controlled by the Pakistani military. The Pakistani military, for what it's worth, is the least corrupt aspect of the country's structure. But that doesn't make me feel at ease, so to speak.

OK this is a fine discussion, but I came home ran and showered. I am drinking and waiting for my wife to get home with the kosher lobsters. Were is she?

Ploome, what does GMTA mean?

With all of Obamas bluster about Pakistan & Afghanistan, I do not see him breaking bad on any Muslim country. He might do some window dressing & that is it.
Islam is the faith of his yoot & he is way down with the Muslim relatives in Kenya. Add to that he sought out Muslim associations in college & in Chicago.
He will not stiff the Umma.

re: #121 Maine's Michael

You forgot the sarcasm tag.

re: #54 yma o hyd

Indeed - and the Indians do seem to know whats what - they were the country with the lowest percentage going for B0 in that recent 'World Opinion Poll'. Only 9% liked him ...

India has been fighting Muslim terrorism for a while. I usually get along fine with Indians; we all seem to understand the real threat.
No wonder they don't like B. Hussein 0bama.

re: #104 Cognito

That's an excellent question.

Pakistani National Command Authority

But as you pose, which faction is really in command of the command authority? The ISI? The Military? and what part of these organizations - the ones that support and encourage radical islam / salafists or the ones that are pragmatic and more western leaning?

re: #131 Maine's Michael

Ploome, what does GMTA mean?

Great minds think alike

re: #88 Athos

Agree.
And it looks as if they will be leaning to the islamist side - wasn't there a report recently that the madrassas are being rebuilt?

Btw - after Benazir Bhutto's assassination some talking heads were speculating that Pakistan might even split up into the various tribal areas. Hasn't happened yet, but it looks as if they're all drifting, army, government, parties ...

And that lot has nuclear weapons - time to get them out of their hands.

re: #129 Cognito

I believe I know the answer, but yes, it's a point to ponder for sure, and I'm curious to see the reaction here.

Their program is divided up into several pieces -- manufacturing, storage and deployment, transportation, and so forth -- but the trigger is controlled by the Pakistani military. The Pakistani military, for what it's worth, is the least corrupt aspect of the country's structure. But that doesn't make me feel at ease, so to speak.

I worry about them slipping one to other like minded fanatics.

re: #128 The Other Les

On the plus side he actually got to leave office in something other than a body bag.

Or at the end of a rope. Some of these middle east countries have not learned the fine points of democracy yet?

re: #133 rednaxela

You forgot the sarcasm tag.

No, I didn't. I think most people expert in the matter consider the Pakistanis disciplined soldiers (for the region).

We can all thank the New York Times for back stabbing America and putting our soldiers in Harms way, again. Whoever leaked these covert Operations to the NYT from the Pentagon should be hung.

I guess I should have put quotes around that and attributed to General Ashfaq Kayani

*slaps forehead*

re: #112 Ziggy

That doesn't mean they know how to fly them well.

And they're shipped with export avionics.

/which, if you're into long running rumors, may or may not contain some type of "back door kill switch"

re: #142 Maine's Michael

No, I didn't. I think most people expert in the matter consider the Pakistanis disciplined soldiers (for the region).

Certainly so. I think some people seem to be conflating the Pakistani military and intelligence services.

re: #61 Nevergiveup

Yup, the Indians have developed a new affinity for the USA and for Israel. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Survival will do that to ya.

Like how recently an Israeli radar satellite was launched on an Indian launcher, although after a delay forced by the US.

re: #143 Egfrow

We can all thank the New York Times for back stabbing America and putting our soldiers in Harms way, again. Whoever leaked these covert Operations to the NYT from the Pentagon should be hung.

I'd settle for having their paper going out of buisness.

re: #91 Intrepid

And just think - we very well may have a president inaugurated on January 20, 2009 who said the other night at the Columbia U forum that he just wants to "make government COOL again"!

Slightly OT - but: he got that straight from Tony Blair's cook-book. He proclaimed, when first in Office in May 1997, that this now was 'Cool Britannia' ...

re: #146 Killian Bundy

And they're shipped with export avionics.

/which, if you're into long running rumors, may or may not contain some type of "back door kill switch"

Never heard that one. Wouldn't that be smart...and useful.

re: #85 mahatma coat

if they cannot control the tribal areas they have no sovereign claim to it

"mahatma" -

"Ding, Ding, Ding, Ding, Ding, Ding, Ding! WE GOT A WINNAH HERE! That is all.

-S-

re: #71 opnion

It will be interesting to see how Obama demogouges this.
Wasn't it Rambo Hussein Obama who threatend to invade Pakistan to get Bin Laden?

Cool new word!

re: #41 itellu3times

Like, what if some moron starts flying Paki air against US troops? Haven't we shipped them F-16s, and who knows what kinds of tactical missiles and such? Are are troops on the ground prepared for such? What would a proper response be? Whew.

I just hope that our guys in Afganistan don't have to do the Anabasis thing.

The weakness in the "W" "you are with us or with the terrorists" policy is when the other party says "with ya" but then just go throught the "with ya" play motions and really don't accomplish anything. That way the can be "with you" and "them" at the same time and the enemy gets safe harbor. I'm sorry, but it is not a particularly brilliant policy. An 8th grade chess player could have neutralized it.

I think the only effective strategy to get the bad guys would have been; "This enemy has no borders and we will persue them everywhere and anywhere and we would appreciate your cooperation as we roll through". If the nay sayers suggest that's not neighborly as we invade Germany or Pakistan or..., well, they like taking "police actions" and guess what, if a perp runs into your house being chased by cops, the cops are not going to ask your permission as they kick in the door and run through your kitchen.

re: #151 Ziggy

Never heard that one. Wouldn't that be smart...and useful.

Well the rumor is when all the American F-14 experts had to hot tail it out of Iran, they pretty much disabled all the planes.

re: #153 debutaunt

Cool new word!

Say it loud, say it proud!

re: #130 Nevergiveup

OK this is a fine discussion, but I came home ran and showered. I am drinking and waiting for my wife to get home with the kosher lobsters. Were is she?

Getouttatown! Kosher lobsters?

re: #157 opnion

Say it loud, say it proud!

Color War?

re: #156 Nevergiveup

Well the rumor is when all the American F-14 experts had to hot tail it out of Iran, they pretty much disabled all the planes.

They should hit the kill switch at 30,000 feet.

re: #92 Sharmuta

So- conducting a raid, then pulling back is now violating sovereignty and territorial integrity? WOuldn't they only be able to claim that if there was occupation?

Well, yes, it is violating Pak's sovereignty. If a bunch of Mexican police drove into Tucson, shooting up the houses of some suspected gang members who happened to be Arizona citizens, we would say that Mexico violated our sovereignty. (even if they were, in fact, gang members)

The interesting point here is whether Pakistan can even claim Waziristan as part of their territory any more. The relationship between Pakistan and Waziristan seems now more akin to the relation between the US and Puerto Rico, or maybe even the US and Jamaica.

re: #158 Perry

Getouttatown! Kosher lobsters?

You never heard of them. They have been blessed by the Pope!

It's interesting how they won't retaliate against the murderers among them, murderers who have blown up a considerable number of their own citizens, but will retaliate against the US?

How much of this message is geared towards those same terrorists among them? To appease them maybe?

re: #142 Maine's Michael

The Pakistan military couldn't organize a piss up in a brewery if their lives depended on it.

So Pakistan won't fight the nearly stone-age goobers in their back yard, but they will fight USAF, Marine Recon, Rangers, SEALS, D-Boys. Yeah, good luck with that. I smell BS, saying crazy junk to keep the locals rooting for who ever is in charge over there.

re: #90 Ziggy

Who has control of their nukes?

Now, the reasonable Pakistanis. But with all the changes there, it wouldn't be too unlikely for a Taliban supporter to get access to them.
Getting one in a position to be delivered via container ship wouldn't be too hard, but they'd have to pick it up or have a way of setting it off at the right time.
If they just use a timer, we could hear of this strange mushroom cloud in the middle of the ocean.

re: #161 Zimriel

Well, yes, it is violating Pak's sovereignty. If a bunch of Mexican police drove into Tucson, shooting up the houses of some suspected gang members who happened to be Arizona citizens, we would say that Mexico violated our sovereignty. (even if they were, in fact, gang members)

didn't Mexico already do that.

re: #164 rednaxela

The Pakistan military couldn't organize a piss up in a brewery if their lives depended on it.

Maybe not, but they could blow up the brewery with a nuclear bomb. And that would be a waste of good beer.

re: #165 hurricane567

So Pakistan won't fight the nearly stone-age goobers in their back yard, but they will fight USAF, Marine Recon, Rangers, SEALS, D-Boys. Yeah, good luck with that. I smell BS, saying crazy junk to keep the locals rooting for who ever is in charge over there.

Their entire claim to fame is that they have nukes. They can give them to really bad guys, which is why Iran should be stopped.

re: #165 hurricane567

So Pakistan won't fight the nearly stone-age goobers in their back yard, but they will fight USAF, Marine Recon, Rangers, SEALS, D-Boys. Yeah, good luck with that. I smell BS, saying crazy junk to keep the locals rooting for who ever is in charge over there.

me too.

Sarah Palin's Favorability Rate With Young Men Soars to 100%; Enthusiasm "Off the Charts"
—Ace

Rhandhi Rhodhes claims Palin sleeps with teenage boys.

At this point she's been accused of sex with everyone but her husband.

[Link: ace.mu.nu...]

I'd like to see the list of winners Rhodes has slept with?

Well, yes, it is violating Pak's sovereignty. If a bunch of Mexican police drove into Tucson, shooting up the houses of some suspected gang members who happened to be Arizona citizens, we would say that Mexico violated our sovereignty. (even if they were, in fact, gang members)

If terrorist killers were moving in from the US to kill innocent Mexicans, then Mexican authorities have a right to defend themselves if the bordering country refuses to engage those terrorists...just like the PAK isn't doing much to kill those terrorists who kill innocence in Pakistan and in Afghanistan, including US and NATO troops.

Borders are not sacrosanct if criminals are infiltrating it daily to kill innocent people.

re: #161 Zimriel

Well, yes, it is violating Pak's sovereignty. If a bunch of Mexican police drove into Tucson, shooting up the houses of some suspected gang members who happened to be Arizona citizens, we would say that Mexico violated our sovereignty. (even if they were, in fact, gang members)

The interesting point here is whether Pakistan can even claim Waziristan as part of their territory any more. The relationship between Pakistan and Waziristan seems now more akin to the relation between the US and Puerto Rico, or maybe even the US and Jamaica.

Hey, genius, bands of raiders aren't going from Tuscon into Mexico and killing/destroying, and then scooting back into the US with the assistance of US intelligence and army.

Not a troll post, a sincere question...

Does Pakistan really pose a tangible threat as in...Do they have re-entry vehicles to deliver nukes here? Or is it that they have nukes, and the concern is that we'll be unable to successfully counter a potential "low-tech" delivery in the hands of a ROP'er?

re: #155 Max Darkside

Hmm. So, because there is the very likely possibility that one or more nations will only go through the motions of being 'with ya' in order to protect or promote their own self interests means that they aren't really 'with ya' the alternative is to provoke a far larger war, with far greater enemies?

Is the contention that the policy or the creators of the policy didn't accept or expect someone(s) to try to play both sides of the equation?

Wouldn't it be geopolitically better to accept what one can get from a nation like Pakistan to keep the radicals somewhat at bay and isolated than to push the entire country into the camp of supporting the radical islamists? While the issue in Pakistan is not decided, and does appear grim, the potential existed and exists that pragmatism will lead the country to decide to embrace the West and the 21st century as opposed the 7th century and turn into something worse than Afghanistan was in the 1990's. Isn't far more prudent to let that play out than to unilaterally attack them and try to impose order in the tribal regions?

What you advocate is identical to the naive and irresponsible approach that Field Marshall Obamamessiah {PBUH} has advocated.

re: #112 Ziggy

That doesn't mean they know how to fly them well.

There was an article in AIR INTERNATIONAL about a decade ago which showed the career path of pilots in the PAF. First they start out in old Soviet/Chicom junk, then they work their way through flying French Mirages, and only then would they be allowed to fly the F-16.

re: #158 Perry

Kosher salt water.

That's why the raids committed will be conducted by groups that don't officially exist! Deniability is so great, ain't it?

re: #174 brickthruplateglasswindow

Not a troll post, a sincere question...

Does Pakistan really pose a tangible threat as in...Do they have re-entry vehicles to deliver nukes here? Or is it that they have nukes, and the concern is that we'll be unable to successfully counter a potential "low-tech" delivery in the hands of a ROP'er?

I think they bought some from North Korea.
So the answer is "I don't know".

re: #177 Cap'n DOC

Kosher salt water.

No bris ceremony?

re: #174 brickthruplateglasswindow

Not a troll post, a sincere question...

Does Pakistan really pose a tangible threat as in...Do they have re-entry vehicles to deliver nukes here? Or is it that they have nukes, and the concern is that we'll be unable to successfully counter a potential "low-tech" delivery in the hands of a ROP'er?

Any nuclear materiel poses a threat. The level of that threat depends on the friendliness and stability of the country handling it. Very low, in the case of, say, Great Britain. Very high in the case of Pakistan, because of the lack of the aforementioned friendliness and stability.

Air Chief Marshal Tanvir Mahmood Ahmad, had claimed that the PAF has the capability to intercept air strikes inside Pakistan territory.

Bring it on little Mah-MooD!

If you won't go after the Terrorists in your hellhole country, we will! Our patience is wearing thin.

re: #44 astronmr20

Just so you all are aware, "Paki" is generally a derogatory term.

OK -- I just said it 'cause it sounds like "Saudi's"
But as I think about what this article is about, the Pakistani's who want to kill our troops -- who are doing a job the Pakistani's should be doing -- are worthy of derogation (is that a word?)

10-4 & 10-Q

re: #171 Nevergiveup

I suspect you may regret wanting to see that list if it ever came into your possession.

re: #174 brickthruplateglasswindow

Not a troll post, a sincere question...

Does Pakistan really pose a tangible threat as in...Do they have re-entry vehicles to deliver nukes here? Or is it that they have nukes, and the concern is that we'll be unable to successfully counter a potential "low-tech" delivery in the hands of a ROP'er?

2 Problems
1) they could start a nuclear war on the Indian sun-continent that could spread
2) they could sell one to bad people who could sneak it into Baltimore-The Sum of all your fears.

re: #174 brickthruplateglasswindow

Not a troll post, a sincere question...

Does Pakistan really pose a tangible threat as in...Do they have re-entry vehicles to deliver nukes here? Or is it that they have nukes, and the concern is that we'll be unable to successfully counter a potential "low-tech" delivery in the hands of a ROP'er?

Low tech means of delivery. I'm not even sure if Pakistan has missiles that can reach all of India. But the ISI has contacts in the Taliban and probably Al Qaeda, could supply them with some "devices" and they could deliver them to, say parts of Afghanistan, or elsewhere.
Or someone in Pakistan could stick one in a container on its way to LA or NY.

re: #137 ploome hineni

Karen Hughes, Stay Home!
What on earth is she doing in the Middle East?
By Fred Kaplan

hilarious

Not so funny after all.

Hughes was very good for US politics, but was a first-class fiasco overseas. The idea was sound, an outbound communications program, and unfortunately she killed it. If Bush has had one huge character failing, it has been his lack of effort in communicating his own ideas. Have to blame some of that on Rove and company, as well.

re: #166 Kosh's Shadow

Now, the reasonable Pakistanis. But with all the changes there, it wouldn't be too unlikely for a Taliban supporter to get access to them.
Getting one in a position to be delivered via container ship wouldn't be too hard, but they'd have to pick it up or have a way of setting it off at the right time.
If they just use a timer, we could hear of this strange mushroom cloud in the middle of the ocean.

Better the middle of the ocean than in the US

re: #171 Nevergiveup

The usual suspects, including Bobo the Hobo.

re: #184 mitthrawnurdo

I suspect you may regret wanting to see that list if it ever came into your possession.

good point--were is the burn bag?

re: #23 pittboy

Does the "no foreign troops" category include terrorists from Syria, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, etc.?

The agreement that Pakistan made with the tribal leaders of Waziristan includes language that foreign fighters are to leave unless they are incapacitated. Also there is not tobe an cross border actions.

So now do we make the Paks live up to their own treaty with the Taliban?

re: #171 Nevergiveup

Sarah Palin's Favorability Rate With Young Men Soars to 100%; Enthusiasm "Off the Charts"
—Ace

Rhandhi Rhodhes claims Palin sleeps with teenage boys.

At this point she's been accused of sex with everyone but her husband.

[Link: ace.mu.nu...]

I'd like to see the list of winners Rhodes has slept with?

Why? To send them your condolences?

I'm not sure what to make of this - are the Pakistanis saying this just to appease the locals, are they getting background pressure from jihadist groups to stop US incursions, or are they finally showing their true face now that M's gone?

/Let's hope we have plans to secure the nukes if everything goes to hell.

re: #21 geata

Threatening war with an ally who just happens to be the most powerful country on earth. Brilliant.

Wonder if the paki's wil change the name of the Pakistan to:

TheDuchy of Grand Fenwick, and attempt to remake the movie The Mouse That Roared?

re#150 wish bone,
I used to work with a Sikh lad ,and he always referred to them as Pakis,it never occurred to me that it was insulting except by perrenially thin skinned pakis.
It's a long time since I heard the expression "paki- bashing";it seems to have died the death, hopefully along with its evil practice.

re: #189 ploome hineni

they HAVE given their nukes to bad guys

and nothing happened to Kahn.....he is a national hero

Did the CIA ever have him in their gunsights? If anyone needed to be taken down, it was it is that POS Kahn.

re: #88 Athos

When anyone, including the leaders of a state, attempt to survive by in essence walking along the double yellow line dividing two speeding lanes of traffic, they will eventually get hit by a vehicle that drifts out of its lane.

Pakistan is finding itself in this position and it is one of their own creation. I believe it goes beyond the inability to actually assert leadership and command / control in Waziristan - but an inability of the government itself to not only pick a side and clean house to eliminate the radical influence in the ISI / Military of the salafists.

This statement could be posturing to prevent the government from being run over as they walk the double yellow line. It could also be very serious and a sign that the new government is leaning towards the radical islamic side of the equation as opposed to continuing on a pro-Western approach.

I have to agree, after all Hamid Gul is still alive.

re: #181 Cognito

Good response.

Any nuclear materiel poses a threat.

Yes, but I think the issue goes beyond this. As you touch on, there is a 'state of mind' element to the question. But I think it goes to the point around - Does the country posses nuclear weaponry as a necessary evil for deterence purposes or does the country believe it needs nuclear weapons as evidence of national pride and achievement?

Depending on these two possible camps, which is more likely to employ the weapons?

re: #187 itellu3times

Not so funny after all.

Hughes was very good for US politics, but was a first-class fiasco overseas. The idea was sound, an outbound communications program, and unfortunately she killed it. If Bush has had one huge character failing, it has been his lack of effort in communicating his own ideas. Have to blame some of that on Rove and company, as well.

You can't teach talent. Bush does not have communication talent.
I've been impressed by Rove's communication ability on Fox, though.

I don't disagree at all about Hughes.

re: #174 brickthruplateglasswindow

Not a troll post, a sincere question...

Does Pakistan really pose a tangible threat as in...Do they have re-entry vehicles to deliver nukes here? Or is it that they have nukes, and the concern is that we'll be unable to successfully counter a potential "low-tech" delivery in the hands of a ROP'er?

The issue is multilayered. First we supply through and over Pakistan to Afghanistan, losing those supply routes would jeopardize Afghanistan.
It offers save haven to AQ and the Taliban should we not operate in those areas.
It ratchets up the tension between India and Pakistan, the bombings today won't help either.
The have no means to conventionally deliver the nukes. But Pakistan slipping into the radical islamic sphere with nukes is nothing but bad.

re: #193 MandyManners

Send them notices to get tested for STDs?

re: #176 The Other Les

There was an article in AIR INTERNATIONAL about a decade ago which showed the career path of pilots in the PAF. First they start out in old Soviet/Chicom junk, then they work their way through flying French Mirages, and only then would they be allowed to fly the F-16.

That still doesn't mean they can fly them well, but still...very unsettling. Gotta run, have a great day lizard people.

re: #168 Nevergiveup

Agreed, but I don't think they would, especially not in response to US military intervention. They would just cower.

The bigger problem is handing over nukes to other folks who would use them in a western country. And I certainly do not discount that.

re: #175 Athos

Is the contention that the policy or the creators of the policy didn't accept or expect someone(s) to try to play both sides of the equation?

I think so. I think the policy was made not to be effective in solving the problem, but the policy itself plays both sides and thus is neutralized by a "plays both sides" response.

I'm also presuming that containment with least "damage" was not their objective, but maybe it was, and if so, your point is well taken and the policy did just what it was supposed to do.

What you advocate is identical to the naive and irresponsible approach that Field Marshall Obamamessiah {PBUH} has advocated.

/wipes chin after tossing lunch. ... spit... DO NOT put me in that bucket. I'm voting for Palin and that other, that other guy running with her.

re: #171 Nevergiveup

I could say something about that individual, but I like to believe that I'm a gentleman and it would result in being struck by the banning stick.

re: #116 UberInfidel67

So now we are "racist" if we call a paki a paki? Tough shit. I don't live in Britain. Where I live we can still call people names if we want to. Also, I find being called a kafr racist. So there.

"Paki" is considered a racist term. Using it doesn't make you a racist. Using it after you have been informed that it is a racist term makes you a dumbass at the least, and a racist dumbass at the most.

re: #177 Cap'n DOC

Kosher salt water.

Oh. Of course. Silly me.

/?

re: #1 Pastorius

You never heard of the Cold War?

re: #187 itellu3times

Lack of communication or an over dependence on loyalty versus ability to communicate and execute on his behalf?

He has not used the bully pulpit and this is a major error on his part. But putting the wrong people in the wrong jobs for the wrong reasons is also a big failing.

re: #174 brickthruplateglasswindow

Not a troll post, a sincere question...

Does Pakistan really pose a tangible threat as in...Do they have re-entry vehicles to deliver nukes here? Or is it that they have nukes, and the concern is that we'll be unable to successfully counter a potential "low-tech" delivery in the hands of a ROP'er?

They are not a threat to the US nor are they threatening the US, but they are the main logistics path to Afghanistan, if they simply deny us ports and roads, it would be a serious problem. The Karachi government has virtually no control over half of their land in the tribal territories, which is where the Taliban and al-Qaeda now live, raid Afghanistan, and go home to rest. The Pakistani troops on the border, and the border line itself, keep us from attacking them at home. Pakistan wants to continue to pretend to protect their borders, can't blame them for that, but if they have no control, or offer quiet support, to the Taliban for their activities, that is the issue.

re: #199 Athos

Good response.

Yes, but I think the issue goes beyond this. As you touch on, there is a 'state of mind' element to the question. But I think it goes to the point around - Does the country posses nuclear weaponry as a necessary evil for deterence purposes or does the country believe it needs nuclear weapons as evidence of national pride and achievement?

Depending on these two possible camps, which is more likely to employ the weapons?

I'm not sure that's an answerable question. I think that in Pakistan's case it's a blend of the two -- both to deter, in their view, an age-old enemy, and bolster national pride -- so it's hard to parse the two.

re: #209 Reno911

I haven't. Is that during the time when the US government wasn't "cool"?

/sarc

re: #209 Reno911

You never heard of the Cold War?

That sounds like one of the annoyingly framed questions Gibson asked.

re: #200 jwb7605

You can't teach talent. Bush does not have communication talent. I've been impressed by Rove's communication ability on Fox, though.

Yes, Rove can speak very well, and he's mostly a brilliant guy, but he never simply hired fifty PR guys to write and read and argue the points out publicly. Why not?

Bush, in his fashion, hired Rove, and let him run. Bush did his part, attempting to hire talent, but I can't help believe he only got half his money's worth.

re: #174 brickthruplateglasswindow

Not a troll post, a sincere question...

Does Pakistan really pose a tangible threat as in...Do they have re-entry vehicles to deliver nukes here? Or is it that they have nukes, and the concern is that we'll be unable to successfully counter a potential "low-tech" delivery in the hands of a ROP'er?

Not really in that sense. But if you look at every major terror attack in the past 15 yrs or so you will find ties to Pakistan or groups in the tribal lands. Most of these were groups spun up by political factions, or to undermine neighbors, but they've all slipped the leash now. That's the threat.

re: #210 Athos

Agreed, see my #216.

Just returned. My parents are OK and the wind there is dying down. Very gusty here, but the main storm is staying east and heading for my sister.

If Pakistan strongly and relentlessly hunts and eliminates terrorist threats within their country, fine. In that case we will honor your national sovereignty. If, however, they wish to harbor terrorists, aiding our enemies overtly or passively, well, ask Muammar Gaddafi how that works in practice.

re: #215 debutaunt

You never heard of the Cold War?

That sounds like one of the annoyingly framed questions Gibson asked.

Heh.

"How cold was it, Charly?"

re: #200 jwb7605

You can't teach talent. Bush does not have communication talent.

Yes... but can he send an email?

re: #190 Cap'n DOC

The usual suspects, including Bobo the Hobo.

What in the world is that?

Not a smart-ass question, but Does America have any support in any parts of Pakistan?

re: #202 mitthrawnurdo

*whack*

re: #223 Maximu§

Not a smart-ass question, but Does America have any support in any parts of Pakistan?

Anywhere our special forces are hiding.

re: #223 Maximu§

Not a smart-ass question, but Does America have any support in any parts of Pakistan?

The problem in any Islamic country is the central government barely has any control of anything.

re: #223 Maximu§

Not a smart-ass question, but Does America have any support in any parts of Pakistan?

Only when a natural disaster hits.

re: #223 Maximu§

Not a smart-ass question, but Does America have any support in any parts of Pakistan?

Sort of a smart ass answer:
Yes, but most of them are driving taxis or running convenience stores here now.

re: #150 yma o hyd

Slightly OT - but: he got that straight from Tony Blair's cook-book. He proclaimed, when first in Office in May 1997, that this now was 'Cool Britannia' ...

"Borrowing Barry" fits so well with "Plagiarist Plugs".

re: #213 Cognito

This is just a personal supposition around that question, but I tend to hold Pakistan into that side of the question that developed the weapons more as a point of national pride and accomplishment. Yes, they claim they did so in the intent to create a viable alternative to India being a nuclear power, but India has struck me as the non-aggressor in the recent challenges around Kashmir. I see India as being less likely to making a first strike.

I also calculate the needed Pakistani government awareness and compliance with the actions of AQ Khan - being it formal or informal (with Gul's ISI taking the lead and the government being incapable of halting / controlling Gul) - as also evidence towards stronger willingness to see these weapons as one more tool in the aresenal - and one that does more being used than sitting in a bunker.....

re: #229 jwb7605

Sort of a smart ass answer:
Yes, but most of them are driving taxis or running convenience stores here now.

Is that you Joe Biden? Come on down!

re: #224 MandyManners

Ouch! I felt that all the way in PA from...wherever you're from. Please, no more! I'll be good, I promise!

re: #222 MandyManners

Ramblings of a junkie, I suspect. Someone I picture 'communicating' with Rhandi.

re: #231 Athos

Agreed.

re: #223 Maximu§

Not a smart-ass question, but Does America have any support in any parts of Pakistan?

Only by those Pakistani's who prefer a modern democratic form of government living in the 21st century. Unfortunately, this is a minority in that country. The country cannot decide what their identity is or what they want it to be. The scary part is when most countries find themselves in this position, it usually results in a Civil War to determine which direction they do take.

On Fox just now they reported that the most likely cause of yesterday's train crash is that the Metrolink engineer ran a red light. Also, he was a contractor filling in, not a Metrolink employee, and he was killed in the crash.

/which kind of makes one wonder . . . what if . . . what was his name?

I think that there is a well trained core in the Pakistan military that is in control of the nukes, and I'm not that worried.

What we are seeing is a pressure cooker effect - the jihadis do not have many places to go anymore, they've been forced back to the frontiers of Pakistan, and they are fighting to keep a toehold there. The exit strategy when/if things go terribly awry will be a diaspora to Sudan, Yemen, Somalia, Thailand, Malaysia. There they will start again trying to make new or expanded "wilderness" per their latest doctrine. I'm seeing signs of that diaspora already btw.

Winter comes soon, and the back-passes close to Afghanistan, it's going to be interesting to watch what happens next. If they decide to winter North of the Durand, they are in for a big surprise.

re: #220 itellu3times

Heh.

"How cold was it, Charly?"

hahahahahahhahahahaahaha

Remember all of those anti-U.S. training camps that used to be in Afghanistan? They are now operating freely in Pakistan. Training the next generation of terrorists intent on killing innocent Americans and Westerners.

Until the Pakistan government DOES something about THAT, they (the training camps) are legitimate targets. You are either with us in the war on terror, or you are against us.

The Pakistan Army has been ordered to retaliate against any action by foreign troops inside the country

You and what army, hotshot?

Seems to me that Pakistand ceded federal control over Waziristan to the tribal warlords. So...it's no man's land.

Sounds like we bought these "friends" and as soon as the cash goes, so does our "friendship".

I wonder how these terrorists in Northern Pakistan are adjusting to the Predator drones? It can't be easy trying to fool these drones, but I imagine they use decoy groups to draw away the predators, while the dangerous ones slip across the border.

You know what I'm talking about.... you can't go into a 7-11 or a dunkin Donuts if you aren't a Pakistani....

/wait a minute....

re: #223 Maximu§

Not a smart-ass question, but Does America have any support in any parts of Pakistan?

The urban moderates like us a bit... it's kind of like a love / hate relationship though. They want to visit, they want to send their kids to our universities, but they will badmouth us every chance they get. We are hated, feared, reviled, but underneath it all lies respect.

re: #34 yma o hyd

yma -

Let me ask you a question - as all 'y'all seem to live in the UK - IF - India were to take over the Pakistani state tomorrow - would you care? Seems to me that was the original plan in the 1940's - Perhaps Your Foreign Office was right on that one in the late 1940's.

-S-

re: #241 The Sanity Inspector

You and what army, hotshot?

Seems to me that Pakistand ceded federal control over Waziristan to the tribal warlords. So...it's no man's land.

Just keep in mind that this could be double speak. There are armies of chechens, uzbeks, arabs, and sometimes even us that pass South of the Durand line.

So let me walk through this. Given that 1) Taliban forces are coming across from Pakistan and attacking Afghanistan; a country with which we are (to say the least) closely tied. And 2) Since Pakistani forces are not attacking the Taliban bases within their borders, we can assume that Pakistan does not consider the Taliban to be, themselves, outsiders (“all elements of the National Power under the new democratic leadership will safeguard the territorial integrity of Pakistan with full support and backing of the people of Pakistan.”). Then, 3) We must conclude that any future cross-border action is coming from Pakistan itself, thus representing an invasion of Afghanistan by Pakistan. Afghanistan to reserve for itself, via its own or allied armed forces, all rights of self-protection and retaliation accorded any nation at war.
And that's what you get when you don't police your borders.

re: #8 Dr. Shalit

Right! I have an "alpha-numeric" answer - A-10. Spray, rinse and repeat as necessary.

-S-

"As you ascend in Hell, we'd like to thank you for flying Warthog Air."

re: #207 boogberg Sorry but I still disagree. paki paki paki paki

re: #10 Dar ul Harbarian

Considering that individual Pakistani army units are either nowhere near the jihadists or collaborating with them, this has no impact on US military action.

People we trust, who've seen them in action, say they also suck ass are poorly trained and led, along with being generally inept.

re: #247 Pullus Iulius

So let me walk through this. Given that 1) Taliban forces are coming across from Pakistan and attacking Afghanistan; a country with which we are (to say the least) closely tied. And 2) Since Pakistani forces are not attacking the Taliban bases within their borders, we can assume that Pakistan does not consider the Taliban to be, themselves, outsiders (“all elements of the National Power under the new democratic leadership will safeguard the territorial integrity of Pakistan with full support and backing of the people of Pakistan.”). Then, 3) We must conclude that any future cross-border action is coming from Pakistan itself, thus representing an invasion of Afghanistan by Pakistan. Afghanistan to reserve for itself, via its own or allied armed forces, all rights of self-protection and retaliation accorded any nation at war.
And that's what you get when you don't police your borders.

They are attacking the Taliban in their borders, 85 dead in Bajaur offensive yesterday. What they are not doing is taking a path to victory. They are not going directly after the leadership, instead they fight well telegraphed punitive expeditions. Those didnt' work well for the British when they were there either. What does work is taking out the new warlords, as the British took out the Tippoo Sultan, so should Kayyani be going directly after Baitullah Mehsud and company.

re: #245 Dr. Shalit

yma -

Let me ask you a question - as all 'y'all seem to live in the UK - IF - India were to take over the Pakistani state tomorrow - would you care? Seems to me that was the original plan in the 1940's - Perhaps Your Foreign Office was right on that one in the late 1940's.

-S-

The problem with India taking over the Pakistani state is that India would have to kill most of Pakistan's population for their control to be stable. Not gonna happen, unless Pakistan nukes a major Indian city in which case...

re: #16 Pastorius

One thing that is interesting to note is that Pakistan ceded Waziristan a couple years ago. [SNIP] Now, however, they are, apparently, claiming it as their own territory. Maybe they ought to make up their freaking minds.

Maybe they're trying to provide their pederastsbrothers-in-arms with some cover and breathing room. Could this be a sign of great progress?

Does Pakistan produce ANYTHING worthwhile?

My oldest son in his 3rd week of bootcamp may soon be fighting these Maniacs on the mountainous border of Afghanistan.

re: #50 Dr. Shalit

Any "rec(k)oning" could well be the end of Pakistan as an independent state habitable area.

There, fixed that for ya'!

re: #252 ploome hineni

As I said, it's a minority of those in the country. Did you skip the sentence after the one you marked in bold? You appear to have taken it as if I said that it is a majority of those in the country which is not what I said. So please focus on reading comprehension as opposed to drama.

re: #175 Athos

What you advocate is identical to the naive and irresponsible approach that Field Marshall Obamamessiah {PBUH} has advocated.

Actually, not. The opportunity for such a strategy has passed. Obama is saying he is considering playing a card that might have been useful at the beginning of the game, but is obviously foolish now.

Pakistan is too scared to go into that area. Don't know who they will "retaliate" against.

re: #105 Maine's Michael

Well she will certainly be leaving a mark in the history books. Unfortunately for all of us, it wil be a skidmark.

Owwww! That was NASTY, no matter which way you meant it (I count at least three).

Pakistan Army Ordered to Retaliate Against US Raids

They can kill the terrorists on their own or stand back and let us do it for them. Those are their choices.

Giving terrorists safe harbor is not an option.

re: #248 PSGInfinity

"As you ascend in Hell, we'd like to thank you for flying Warthog Air."

PSGI -

YUP.

-S-

re: #256 Maximu§

Does Pakistan produce ANYTHING worthwhile?

"Max" -

If you are into it:

#1. HASHISH