It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why Not Pakistan?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 15 2005 @ 09:37 PM
link   
Question for the Fox viewers. I know you haven't been told what to think on this one, yet, but I wonder if you could help me.

Why hasn't Pakistan been 'liberated' as part of the 'War on Terror'?

Pakistan has no democracy. Gen. Musharaff is a leader who assumed power in a military coup (The Saddam argument) and has refused to allow a democratic process to decide who governs. (The 'Democracy' argument)

They have a nuclear capability (sorry 'we' have a capability' - they have 'WMD') plus a significant launch capability. (The WMD / protecting America argument)

They are an Islamic nation - the original islamic nation - and have harboured terrorism / terrorists (The Al Quida argument)

They have exported nuclear technology to Lybia, Iran, Iraq and no doubt elsewhere. (The proliferation argument)

Parts of the county are ruled by Sharia law and gang rape is an acceptable court sentence. (The Human Rights argument)

They are the home of (and supporters of) the Taliban. (The Taliban argument)

So apart from the fact they never bought anthrax off Rumsfeld what exactly is the difference? Why are they a strategic ally while Iraq 'needed' to be invaded?


Couldn't be the oil could it?

R




posted on Mar, 15 2005 @ 09:44 PM
link   
Well for one thing, they actually have nukes...

For another, were they to actually have democratic elections, they'd probably make Bin Laden their president.



posted on Mar, 15 2005 @ 09:56 PM
link   


They probably would if he existed / the CIA would let him


R



posted on Mar, 16 2005 @ 03:51 AM
link   
Pure and simple political expediency.

They required the tacit support of Musharaf to go ahead with the attacks on Afghanistan.

Quite simply, they would rather deal with the devil they know in a Western trained military man such as Musharaf than the potential of a hard-lime Islamist who could well be elected.

An earlier comment was on the money with respect to the Taliban being trained in Pakistan. The mudrassas of northern Pakistan were the breeding ground for the Taliban.

What has to be recognised that much of the population of northern Pakistan, closer to the Khyber Pass are the same ethic group as the Taliban; the Pathan (Pashtun).

Pakistan is an uneasy ethnic mix to start with. A little reflection first, before we start heading in gung-ho, folks.

We need to have an end-game figured out and Pakistan would be as messy as Iraq, with neighbouring India probably not being a healthy add to the mix



posted on Mar, 16 2005 @ 08:56 AM
link   
America has no right going into Pakistan.



posted on Mar, 16 2005 @ 11:15 AM
link   
Doesnt pak also have a miliatry pact with China?



..



posted on Mar, 16 2005 @ 03:45 PM
link   
I appreciate irony is a bit of a rare commodity state-side but really!

All the arguments I gave you for invading Pakistan are EXACTLY the 'reasons' used to convince the passive populations (ours and yours) that invading Iraq and Afganistan was justified.

If the arguments were valid you should be invading Pakistan. If you're not invading Pakistan then the arguments aren't (and never were) valid.

So it's only about oil.

Any other answers?

R



posted on Mar, 16 2005 @ 05:52 PM
link   
Your unassailable logic, and witty repartee have won me over.


Seriously your logic is flawed in multiple respects. First of all your statement of the reasoning for the last two wars we have launched is based on flawed logic. Afghanistan has NO OIL hell afghanistan probably has less paved road than the average mid sized american city, and a tenth of the skilled workforce.

That being said shall we move on to a straight comparison of Iraq to Pakistan?

Iraq: was already in a politically tenuous situation with the world community at large

Pakistan: Has strategic alliances and close ties with nations we can't afford to piss off

Iraq: had noone other than Israel that they could launch any of their supposed WMD goodies at in range. And Israel although known to be combattive depends too much on military aid worth billions a year, and therefor when we told them no matter what they need to chill they listened.

Pakistan: Has Nuclear weapons and the systems to launch them and a neighbor most of us like to call India which they share an enmity that has more than once escalated into violence. Thereby creating a situation where as soon as the first smart bomb hit we would be pretty much guaranteeing a glowie calcutta and Bombay.

Do I need to say more?

[edit on 16-3-2005 by Sugarlump]



posted on Mar, 17 2005 @ 10:25 PM
link   
I didn't mention Afganistan but seeing as you did - it is vital for the access to Russian oil. Plus it allows CIA to re-start the heroin production and multiply their black budget. Oh and it was good TV.

The people that run your country created reasons to invade Iraq for their own commercial interests. You twist facts to create reasons to invade valuable countries.

Extending your weak logic, any country threatened by you should have nukes and you won't bother them. No wonder Iran wants nuclear - it's the only protection against your imperialist expansion.

Your soldiers and ours have died for their profits. If you can't see the lies you're fed, the evil done in your name and the fact that you will eventually suffer then I feel very sorry for you.



posted on Mar, 17 2005 @ 10:39 PM
link   
Excellent question and one that I have done a little research on,


A Question about Pakistan's Musharraf "Terrorist or not?"


Personally I do not trust the man simply because I do not trust the country. The seem to be helping but keeping that scientists who sold the Islamic bomb to the highest bidder from being questioned is a bad sign.....



posted on Mar, 17 2005 @ 10:51 PM
link   
Can't see how one single scientist can be responsible for exporting nuclear centrifuges Have you seen the size of these things/ How many did they have in the first place for them to not notice them being exported to 3/4 countries?.

Seems clear to me they're much more of a threat to global stability than Iraq ever was. Yet they're Bush's friends.

I can't see how they can be OK / to be supported - unless it's all about oil.



posted on Mar, 17 2005 @ 11:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by CTID56092
Why hasn't Pakistan been 'liberated' as part of the 'War on Terror'?

They have nukes, and liberation woudl result in the nukes falling under the control of whoever got to them.

Pakistan is ruled by a military dictatorship that is, nonetheless, relatively benign. He's a true Tyrant perhaps, a tyrant being, in ancient greece, someone who took charge when the quasi-democratic oligarchs were overrun with corruption and greed and ineptitude. He's also rather cooperative.

Also, pakistan is under no sanctions, and outside of the possiblity of the US pressuring it, no one in the world is seriouslly calling upon pakistan to really reform, install democratic government, lighten up on civil rights, and the rest, whereas with iraq, all that was happening, and there was, what, a decade of crippling sanctions, so any more to happen had to be militaristic.

So the question is, why attack pakistan?

As far as oil, it would be foolish to pretend that oil has nothing to do with what goes on there. No oil, no geostrategic concern, no action. Of course, there are other geostrategic concerns outside of oil, and the global community was doing well enough with oil before the iraq war anyway.



posted on Mar, 17 2005 @ 11:37 PM
link   
Can't figure how to quote and answer point by point on this board so please forgive the numbering


Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by CTID56092
Why hasn't Pakistan been 'liberated' as part of the 'War on Terror'?


1. They have nukes, and liberation woudl result in the nukes falling under the control of whoever got to them.

2. Pakistan is ruled by a military dictatorship that is, nonetheless, relatively benign. He's a true Tyrant perhaps, a tyrant being, in ancient greece, someone who took charge when the quasi-democratic oligarchs were overrun with corruption and greed and ineptitude. He's also rather cooperative.

3. Also, pakistan is under no sanctions, and outside of the possiblity of the US pressuring it, no one in the world is seriouslly calling upon pakistan to really reform, install democratic government, lighten up on civil rights, and the rest, whereas with iraq, all that was happening, and there was, what, a decade of crippling sanctions, so any more to happen had to be militaristic.

4. So the question is, why attack pakistan?

5. As far as oil, it would be foolish to pretend that oil has nothing to do with what goes on there. No oil, no geostrategic concern, no action. Of course, there are other geostrategic concerns outside of oil, and the global community was doing well enough with oil before the iraq war anyway.


1. Same would have applied in Iraq if they'd had NBC. Can only assume, then, that they knew there wasn't any

2. Yes you choose your friends, your enemies and make the facts fit to justify imperialism

3. You've chosen to ensure it's not a debate, with 3-4 carefully chosen oppression stories, talking up legally-sanctioned gang rape etc that perception could be easily changed

4. No the question is if the 'facts' justified invading Iraq then why don't the same facts 'force' you (reluctantly, of course) to extend the moral crusade and tackle Pakistan.

5 . 'The Global Community'? - do you really believe this stuff? That just means WTO exploitation corporations trampling health & safety, workers' rights etc to prop up your economy.

If it's not solely about oil then it can only be Isreal's security.




[edit on 17-3-2005 by CTID56092]

[edit on 17-3-2005 by CTID56092]



posted on Mar, 17 2005 @ 11:51 PM
link   
Simple the war on terror is a farce... the USA has no interest in pakistan...

Despite their obvious similarities to Iraq, numerous terror groups in its borders, and the fact a top ranking official has admited to selling nuclear technology on the black market...

They help the US get the countries are are pushovers and economically valuable, so they're safe...

Thats why not Pakistan... is they had mineral resources, oil, or were part of the route of a hugely profitble gas pipeline, then they would be invaded... oh and if they werent so powerful militarily (i.e nukes) they may have been done...

The reason the US went into Iraq was they knew they didnt have WMDs so they knew they would be a pushover... look at the countries the
US has invaded in the last 20 years... have any of them been a real threat? No. Why dont they Invade countries like Nth Korea, or Pakistan, or Israel (not a threat to the US bu a threat alot of other countries, my opinion you dont have to agree there) with nukes?

The US doesnt want a challenge they want easy wars against nations which can make their corporations rich $$$



posted on Mar, 18 2005 @ 12:40 AM
link   
G'day


Spot on mate - if we can all see this why can't the American people?

With you on the Isreali invasion - a just cause / actually worth risking the lives of our troops for IMO



posted on Mar, 18 2005 @ 01:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by CTID56092
G'day


Spot on mate - if we can all see this why can't the American people?

With you on the Isreali invasion - a just cause / actually worth risking the lives of our troops for IMO


We (meaning most ofthe rest of the world, including us down under :up
thend to see things in a different light than thse constantly exposed to the American propaganda machine... sadly, even our cozy little land downunder id starting to be lost in the influence of the most effective propaganda machine on the planet...



posted on Mar, 18 2005 @ 01:33 AM
link   
Ours too mate.

I don't know - we drink their Coca Cola, allow their GM to pollute our land, their WTO to enforce unfair trade practices on us, offer our youth as bullet-stoppers and they still want to turn us into clones.

Why they don't just capture us all & force us to sweep their streets, donate our organs to keep them alive etc I don't know. It'd be more honest. I'm waiting for an imposed global tax to pay for all these bases that defend us against the bogeyman - oh there already is.

I wish the majority in America could see - we used to love America (overall) and were grateful for the things they gave us (teenagers, feminism, hippies etc). The neo cons have p*ssed all that goodwill away for short-term monetary gain and an over-stretched empire that one day (after my time) will fall into ash & dust.

Both our countries are their 'natural allies' and don't get the worst deal - and yet we're starting to hate the US; no wonder Arabs etc are queueing up to have a go.



posted on Mar, 18 2005 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by CTID56092
1. Same would have applied in Iraq if they'd had NBC. Can only assume, then, that they knew there wasn't any

Yes, but vx gas that is thought to be carefully hidden in iraq is less of a danger so called 'broken arrows' in pakistan.


2. Yes you choose your friends, your enemies and make the facts fit to justify imperialism

Where is there a forcing of the facts? Hussein gased the kurds, used rape as an institutional method of control, and massacred the swamp arabs, while having come to power as part of an imperial political machine that was merely replacing one part of itself with another. Musharraf has done none of that. He came to power over a democratic government that was widely recognized as corrupt and dangerous. He's a tyrant. Not all tyrants are dangerous and not all tyrants need to be destroyed thru military force.

3. You've chosen to ensure it's not a debate, with 3-4 carefully chosen oppression stories,

I have done nothing of the sort. This is my open and honest consideration of the issue.

talking up legally-sanctioned gang rape etc that perception could be easily changed

The pakistani government is the legal authority, not the illegal sharia courts that rule anarchic waziristan. waziristan is a part of pakistan, not all of it. Also, the government of musharraf is opposed to those actions, in step with the international community. If one wants to stop those things from happening, its better to help musharraf stop them, rather than destroy mussharaff, and then police waziristan on your own.


4. No the question is if the 'facts' justified invading Iraq then why don't the same facts 'force' you (reluctantly, of course) to extend the moral crusade and tackle Pakistan.

Becuase pakistan is not an openly hostil enemy of the US that constantly shoots down US warships and trains terrorists while pursuing illegal weapons programs and not cooperating with the international community. Iraq wasn't simply over 'they got big bombs, better git em'


5 . 'The Global Community'? - do you really believe this stuff?

Indeed I do, do you not think that international law and the UN have any meaning?


That just means WTO exploitation corporations trampling health & safety, workers' rights etc to prop up your economy.

Indeed it does not.


If it's not solely about oil then it can only be Isreal's security.

So basically your only intent here is that 'george bush is an asshole who is only interested in money' and, if not that then 'the jews are controlling the US and murdering millions', correct?


Spot on mate - if we can all see this why can't the American people?

Apparently the american people have a better understand of history and international geopolitics than you, which is pretty amazing.




[edit on 17-3-2005 by CTID56092]

[edit on 17-3-2005 by CTID56092]



posted on Mar, 18 2005 @ 02:24 PM
link   
CTID,

In point of fact I am extremelly unhappy about the current war we are in. In return for me throwing in a harmless joke at the beginning your next post was more or less an attack on me personally and Americans in general. In response to this I am going to do nothing other than refute your statement once again politelly.
Nygdan and others have continued down the path as to why we shouldn't invade pakistan so I will not even bother to address that. Instead I am going to illustrate a few points so you fully understand the supposed benefits we as the American people are NOT reaping from our war for oil.

Gas prices have steadilly risen since 9/11 and are showing no sign of slowing down.

Our friends and neighbors and families are coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan physically and emotionally scarred for life.

By lumping all americans into the NeoCon camp you are dangerously stereotyping us and creating an enemy you cannot afford to have. Namelly the American people, At some point this Neo Con insanity will end and when it does I really don't think you want to have attracted the Ire of the American People. Because while a government might deal with someone in the name of expedience if you alienate the countrie's people that will no longer be a politically survivable option.

Please don't believe what you see on CNN, Most americans do not share the views they would have you believe, and by believing that most of us are in lock step with current government policy you are in fact buying directly into the propaganda.



posted on Mar, 18 2005 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

Spot on mate - if we can all see this why can't the American people?

Apparently the american people have a better understand of history and international geopolitics than you, which is pretty amazing.


At least 52% of us do



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join