Code ORANGE,..& the next war,..the next country.

Originally posted by smirkley
Becouse the US needs the countries to use USD, not to have the populations dis-appear. Its what keeps the USD viable, mass circulation and usage.

I was going to say there can't be that many people in that country maybe 50 million but turns out I would have put my foot in my mouth with that comment.

holy # !!!
PAKISTAN Population:
147,663,429 (July 2002 est.)
www.nationbynation.com...

I guess 147 million Muslims in love with the dollar would be a good thing. But I still doubt they will invade. If they do thou you owe yourself a pat on the back

Originally posted by Leveller
You just gotta laugh.

"American special forces to roam freely in Pakistan to snatch up members of Al-Queda that we currently cannot get to because of the policies in Pakistan."?

You have no clue about the area you are talking about do you? Even if the world was invited to send in it's special ops forces it couldn't do # against the guys holding out in Northern Pakistan. You're talking about a terrain and social structure that can never be broken by military means.
Whlst I agree that Pakistan poses a major problem because of it's extremists, it is a country that is almost impossible to neutralise through force.

If it were, India would have dealt with it long ago.

Funny you laugh but no one said a full out invasion would be needed. I was saying that India would initiate the war and then special forces groups, 6-8 man teams could enter Pakistan and search the area alot better than they could now. All the forces of Pakistan would be on the easter portion of the country to fight with India while leaving large portions of the west easily navigatable. How is terrain an issue, we are not sending in tanks to go rolling through thick brushes of forest or to roam up and down steep untraveled mountains.

Claiming someone has no clue what they are talking about is a insecurity about your own opinions because you do not fully believe in them, therefor have to try to put someone else down to make your reasoning more viable.

6 to 8 man teams would not stand a chance.
You are talking about tribal controlled areas in mountainous areas that are not compatible with any type of warfare that has ever been fought by Western forces.
You are also talking about invading a nuclear capable country.

I would suggest that you read up a little bit more on the area that you are talking about as you plainly do not have a clue about the subject at this point in time.

Originally posted by Leveller
6 to 8 man teams would not stand a chance.

We are also talking about Arabs. Israel alone kicked the # out of all of them. Iraq never had a chance in the first gulf war or the latest one. Arabs suck in modern warfare.

Originally posted by Leveller
6 to 8 man teams would not stand a chance.
You are talking about tribal controlled areas in mountainous areas that are not compatible with any type of warfare that has ever been fought by Western forces.
You are also talking about invading a nuclear capable country.

I would suggest that you read up a little bit more on the area that you are talking about as you plainly do not have a clue about the subject at this point in time.

You know you dont know what I know about any particular topic. No one said anything about INVADING anything. America does have special ops teams and CIA agents who could blend right in in the area as well. My point was with the topic at hand, that America would not invade Pakistan, but rather they would have India initiate something over the Kashmir region. While India cause trouble in Kashmir, forces in Pakistan would have to leave the tribal areas on the border of Afghanistan. They have left before when tensions were high.
Your telling me with reduced troop presence on the Afghan border that our troops could not do what they are trained to do? They couldnt hide themselves and monitor the areas better? They couldnt convince certain members of community to give up information? They wouldn tbe able to gain furthur knowlegde on terrorists in that region?

For you to tell anyone they dont know anything about the topic is completely stereotypical and completely offbase. If you think you know so much more than I do, why dont you actually add some insight into the topic instead of trying to flame other viewpoints.

Well....I am kinda thinking that, maybe some carpet bombing and bunker busting in the mountain-afghan border.....

And possibly just walk in and pretty much "be there". Nuclear inspections and money audits.



I wonder how many nearby countries watched Iraq be basically steamrolled. I wonder how many would say it wasnt worth the resistance to want to try to resist themselves, if the question was directed their way.


Lybia pretty much doesnt want any problems, from anybody.

[Edited on 26-12-2003 by smirkley]

Originally posted by DiRtYDeViL
We are also talking about Arabs. Israel alone kicked the # out of all of them. Iraq never had a chance in the first gulf war or the latest one. Arabs suck in modern warfare.

You're not talking about Arabs in this area. You are talking about local tribes who have been living in this area since time immemorial. Sure, they might harbour a few foreigners, but they do so grudgingly and only do so as long as it suits their purpose.

Do you honestly believe that we don't already have special ops forces operating in this area already? Especially when it is believed that this is the area that Osama Bin Laden is hiding in.
Musharref is widely regarded as being a puppet to the West. Do you really think that he would refuse the West access to the area where the most wanted man in the world is hiding?

And what results have we gleaned?
Jack #.

You are talking about an area that no military force in history has ever been able to subdue. The only way to bring that part of the world under control is to squeeze it from both sides through education by it's own citizens.
You might send your 6 man teams in, but they would be facing hundreds of local tribesman who know every cave, rock and pebble. Do you really expect such a weak force to destroy a people who have fought and survived invaders for thousands of years on the same terrain, year in, year out?

Air power would be useless against them. Armour would be useless against them. Small teams of spec ops would have no major impact. The change needs to come from within Pakistan itself. Invasion would only worsen the situation and that is why it hasn't been done before.

As for the Indian point? India and Pakistan have had 3 major wars over the last 20 years. Kashmir is miles away from the point of interest though and there is no way India would get involved in something like this. In fact if you read the news, India and Pakistan are probably having their best terms of relationship ever!!!
India recognises the threat of Pakistan's nuclear deterrant and even though it has a conventional army that is roughly 20 times the size of Pakistan's it is held in check.
You might be blase and arrogant enough to think that India might bow to the US but you ARE ignorant. You are talking about the 2nd most populous country in the world, a massive economy (8% growth this year alone) and a superpower in it's own right. India will not act unless it is in her interest and the invasion of Pakistan is NOT in her interest.
You may as well say that India has an argument with Canada and because of that, the US will take Toronto next week. And that would be a far more likely scenario.

Originally posted by Leveller

Originally posted by DiRtYDeViL
We are also talking about Arabs. Israel alone kicked the # out of all of them. Iraq never had a chance in the first gulf war or the latest one. Arabs suck in modern warfare.

You're not talking about Arabs in this area. You are talking about local tribes who have been living in this area since time immemorial. Sure, they might harbour a few foreigners, but they do so grudgingly and only do so as long as it suits their purpose.

Do you honestly believe that we don't already have special ops forces operating in this area already? I am sure we do.Especially when it is believed that this is the area that Osama Bin Laden is hiding in.
Musharref is widely regarded as being a puppet to the West. Do you really think that he would refuse the West access to the area where the most wanted man in the world is hiding?He may be a puppet but he also knows that he will be even more of a target if he granted full access to the US to patrol those border areas.

And what results have we gleaned?
Jack #.Nothing comes overnight, I never claimed it did.

You are talking about an area that no military force in history has ever been able to subdue. The only way to bring that part of the world under control is to squeeze it from both sides through education by it's own citizens.
You might send your 6 man teams in, but they would be facing hundreds of local tribesman who know every cave, rock and pebble. Do you really expect such a weak force to destroy a people who have fought and survived invaders for thousands of years on the same terrain, year in, year out?No one is talking about destroying the area or the people who live in it, only to gain better intel on Al-queda and possible terrorists. These areas are also simpathetic to the Taliban and what OBL is trying to do.

Air power would be useless against them. Armour would be useless against them. Small teams of spec ops would have no major impact. The change needs to come from within Pakistan itself. Invasion would only worsen the situation and that is why it hasn't been done before.Well we heard the same thing about Afghanistan and that turned out differant now didnt it? Again, not talking invasion here. And I agree they do need better education.

As for the Indian point? India and Pakistan have had 3 major wars over the last 20 years. Kashmir is miles away from the point of interest though and there is no way India would get involved in something like this. Its been a point of dissention for awhile now.In fact if you read the news, India and Pakistan are probably having their best terms of relationship ever!!!Only because of the cooperation between the two and the threat of nuclear wat between the two has subdued the conflict. That doesnt mean anything though,that can change on a moments notice.
India recognises the threat of Pakistan's nuclear deterrant and even though it has a conventional army that is roughly 20 times the size of Pakistan's it is held in check.Both have the same reason for not attacking eachother as we did during the cold war. Mutual destruction.
You might be blase and arrogant enough to think that India might bow to the US but you ARE ignorant. You are talking about the 2nd most populous country in the world, a massive economy (8% growth this year alone) and a superpower in it's own right. India will not act unless it is in her interest and the invasion of Pakistan is NOT in her interest.India's interest may not be with attacking Pakistan, but remember this is a war on terror and either your with us or against. India will not go against us on that issue.They have neen affected by Pakistani terrorists for years now.
You may as well say that India has an argument with Canada and because of that, the US will take Toronto next week. And that would be a far more likely scenario.Canada and America have never been involved in a conflict and dont have the differances that these two countries have. Its apples and oranges, remember 3 wars in 20 years vs how many for us and Toronto?

Originally posted by Leveller

Originally posted by DiRtYDeViL
We are also talking about Arabs. Israel alone kicked the # out of all of them. Iraq never had a chance in the first gulf war or the latest one. Arabs suck in modern warfare.

You're not talking about Arabs in this area. You are talking about local tribes who have been living in this area since time immemorial. Sure, they might harbour a few foreigners, but they do so grudgingly and only do so as long as it suits their purpose.

Do you honestly believe that we don't already have special ops forces operating in this area already? Especially when it is believed that this is the area that Osama Bin Laden is hiding in.
Musharref is widely regarded as being a puppet to the West. Do you really think that he would refuse the West access to the area where the most wanted man in the world is hiding?

And what results have we gleaned?
Jack #.

You are talking about an area that no military force in history has ever been able to subdue. The only way to bring that part of the world under control is to squeeze it from both sides through education by it's own citizens.
You might send your 6 man teams in, but they would be facing hundreds of local tribesman who know every cave, rock and pebble. Do you really expect such a weak force to destroy a people who have fought and survived invaders for thousands of years on the same terrain, year in, year out?

Air power would be useless against them. Armour would be useless against them. Small teams of spec ops would have no major impact. The change needs to come from within Pakistan itself. Invasion would only worsen the situation and that is why it hasn't been done before.

As for the Indian point? India and Pakistan have had 3 major wars over the last 20 years. Kashmir is miles away from the point of interest though and there is no way India would get involved in something like this. In fact if you read the news, India and Pakistan are probably having their best terms of relationship ever!!!
India recognises the threat of Pakistan's nuclear deterrant and even though it has a conventional army that is roughly 20 times the size of Pakistan's it is held in check.
You might be blase and arrogant enough to think that India might bow to the US but you ARE ignorant. You are talking about the 2nd most populous country in the world, a massive economy (8% growth this year alone) and a superpower in it's own right. India will not act unless it is in her interest and the invasion of Pakistan is NOT in her interest.
You may as well say that India has an argument with Canada and because of that, the US will take Toronto next week. And that would be a far more likely scenario.

Hell I don't know it was just an observation about Arabs. I don't think we are going to invade them anyway.

www.pakistan-facts.com...

Given the prominence that North Korea's nuclear program has achieved in U.S. foreign policy, it is a little odd that Pakistan-which U.S. intelligence agencies are convinced supplied North Korea with technology to pursue its nuclear program-has thus escaped high-level pressure from Washington.

In the view of some analysts, Pakistan is "double-dealing" with the U.S., claiming to work together in the war against terrorism while maintaining ties with North Korea of the sort that essentially facilitated the current nuclear tension on the Korea Peninsula. After the 9/11 terrorist attacks the U.S. invested a lot of political capital to cultivate improved ties with Pakistan. The U.S. waived all economic sanctions against Pakistan in return for Pakistani cooperation in the war against terrorism. Now President George W. Bush has his hands tied. The U.S. government has doggedly worked to stem the proliferation of nuclear (as well as chemical and biological) weapons to hostile and unstable countries.

Why tolerate Pakistani proliferation and possession of nuclear weapons, yet take such a hard line against North Korea for following a similar path?

Although Pakistan now admits buying missiles from North Korea, it initially denied it. Pakistan is probably one of the only cases where it has no history of testing or development and all of a sudden it displays a fully developed ballistic missile. Then it tests it over an urban center. That degree of confidence suggests that a tested, reliable weapon system has been procured.

That Pakistan obtained ballistic missiles from North Korea is not in question. U.S., British, and South Korean intelligence officials have long wondered how Pakistan would repay the debt. The answer seems to be: by providing North Korea with enrichment technology.

There are some Bush Administration officials who cite another explanation. It is simply too dangerous to alienate Pakistan. It is a possessor of nuclear weapons, but it also is the most politically unstable of all nuclear powers. It is economically bankrupt, and a home to rising Islamic fundamentalism. Given the right circumstances, Pakistan could proliferate nuclear weapons to other entities hostile to the U.S., including international terrorists. "There is enormous concern that if Pakistan became a failed state it would be a total disaster," Kampani said. "The U.S. obviously wants to see to it that Musharraf is able to reform Pakistan. They realize that it was because of its isolation, economic situation, and sense of strategic paranoia during the 1990s that Pakistan did what it did with North Korea; it could do it again if faced with similar situation." Can Musharaf-"one bullet away from eternity," as one observer described Musharaf's current dilema-make such reforms?

Indeed, there are many would-be buyers out there. Saudi Arabia, for one. Saudi Arabia is believed to have funded part of Pakistan's nuclear weapons program. Last year the Saudi defense minister was given a tour of the centrifuge uranium enrichment labs, which raised eyebrows among U.S. officials. It seems to be the case, then, that the U.S. is protecting Pakistan. The news leaks suggest that the U.S. government has stumbled upon evidence and is warning Pakistan publicly. But the leaks stop short of incriminating it to the extent that Congress and the U.S. public would demand that the U.S. government come down on Pakistan.



This seems to tie in NK, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan into a network of associations in developing a nuclear capability in the region. Coincidentally all at-risk for replacement currency, countries.

But with Pakistan already on the edge, it might be wise to conveniently be ready to 'catch' her if she falls. There may be little need for heavy military action.


.

I really hate to bump ancient threads, but this topic in particular seems to have resurfaced and become a viable consideration moreso now.

Its been 4 years since I drew these coorolations, and yet, this month, we are now seeing the fruition of the same mindsets becoming everpresent and in the forefront.

So, again I suggest, Pakistan, the next target, and for the same reasons.

Any additional reasons are just compounding on the base issues imo.

No?



edit-sp

[edit on 23-7-2007 by smirkley]

Sure bump it in another four years and continue to do so, until one day, you become a legend around here kid.

Originally posted by InterWeb
Sure bump it in another four years and continue to do so, until one day, you become a legend around here kid.

Actually I am glad this thread got bumped. Honestly, I did not even realize the date on it till I got to the end of the thread. It is very relevant to todays situations. Next time you want to post, might I suggest adding to a discussion rather than attacking someone else.

Now to get to the topic at hand, very interesting and certainly a possible scenario. I tend to think Iran is certainly at the top of the list, followed by Syria and then maybe Pakistan. However it does appear that the US is growing weary of Pakistan.

I am very interested to see what others will contribute to this thread.

Originally posted by InterWeb
Sure bump it in another four years....

I dont think I will have to bump it again in 4 years, as current events in Pakistan are very dynamic and change comes soon.


The talk is, if the Pakistan regime falls, the nukes they own may need to be 'rescued', let alone the issue of the mountain regions needing 'cleansing', but also the rupee needing 'supporting'.

Now, given those three concerns, if Musharraf is booted from power, the need to act will be of great concern. One, out of fear of use, two, to maintain the current war against terror, and three, to protect some interests of great concern.

Let alone that we dont want China to get involved.

....kid

edit-sp

[edit on 24-7-2007 by smirkley]

"Code ORANGE......feels different this time?.....military in LA,....flights cancelled.......Libia throwing up hands?...

It all fits in just perfectly.

So which is the next country to be involved in a war with the USA?

My best guess....Pakistan"

I was talking about the info above, which he posted in 2003 (first post on this thread) Pakistan gave into the USA from the get-go and have been involved with the USA over Iraq and Afghanistan, this is not news now? Whys this news now? I would say, if this is news now, then that’s one pirate that missed the ship.

What you think with this info the CIA (who have been in Pakistan and most likely control the nuclear weapons) have not already taken action, then Click Here and catch-up.

Half the time I wonder if some of you people just WANT something to happen, God help us all the next time something "feels different this time"

Originally posted by InterWeb
I was talking about the info above, which he posted in 2003 (first post on this thread) Pakistan gave into the USA from the get-go and have been involved with the USA over Iraq and Afghanistan, this is not news now? Whys this news now? I would say, ...

Well, read around, Pakistan is about to be in the folds of new leadership, and the US has been padding the current leadership with billions of dollars to keep it afloat.

Also, the new leadership may not be one that you want to have a hand on the buttons, ya know?

.... if this is news now, then that’s one pirate that missed the ship.

This pirate aint missed nothin yet that I can see. You should check your own itinerary for current departures.....

What makes the situation in Pakistan particularly frightening is the combination of a weak President and a country that already has nuclear weapons. If Pakistan's government were to fall, the risk to the world could suddenly be greater than that from Iran, at least for the short term, and the US could be thrust into an exceptionally difficult situation.
source

Three top-ranking US officials spoke in unison over the weekend, hinting at direct US military strikes inside Pakistan - White House spokesman Tony Snow, White House Homeland Security Adviser Fran Townsend, and National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell.

The US media have since carried reports quoting unnamed sources that the White House is already weighing "options" involving "deniable covert action" by US special forces inside Pakistan; US air strikes against "known terrorist compounds" in Pakistan's tribal areas; or a large-scale ground offensive across the border from Afghanistan.

-snip-

The Supreme Court verdict dramatically altered the political equations within Pakistan. For one thing, Bhutto has begun developing cold feet about Musharraf's staying power. At the very least, she is marking time, waiting and watching the rapidly developing flow of events. She has since told the London Sunday Times that Musharraf "has lost his moral authority. His popularity rates are down, and it would be very unpopular if we saved him. We would lose votes by being associated with him."

-snip-

Given the interplay of these complex factors, Washington may have to resort to the one available "exit strategy" - imposition of emergency rule in Pakistan. It is not Washington's problem that the survival of Pakistan is in the medium term critically dependent on the restoration of democracy and rule of law. For the present US administration, the priority will be to salvage the war in Afghanistan. It doesn't want to leave a legacy of losing two wars in a row. If the end justifies the means, Washington will not hesitate to engineer a pretext for the imposition of emergency rule in Pakistan.

source

Originally posted by ashley
Everybody seems to be forgetting the original plan.The plan is to get a pipeline from the caspian region to the coast.In the beginning of this administrations reign one of the first things they did was to offer the taliban a carpet of gold or a carpet of bombs.
The taliban said F.U..That is why they went into afghanistan,not because of terrorism but to secure the area for the pipeline.Anybody can look at a map and see that afghanistan is useless for a pipeline because it is landlocked,but if you get syria,iran and iraq then the pipeline will continue to the mediterranean.As soon as iraq was the target after afghanistan it all became to clear where the next invasion would occur.It will be iran and syria.It has to be.Actually only northern iran is needed,so maybe some caarving up of that country will be necessary.Im still sticking to the original plan and saying iran and syria will be next.

The pipeline doesnt have to go through Syria, Turkey is enough..If they get that pipeline through northern Iran to the place called "Batman" in Turkey then the connection with the "west" is made..Then again Turkey also made a strange signal with the last elections going less secular.
Maybe a good idea of keeping them on a leash by pretending they could join the EU and so keep them secular with western style reforms, but i dont think they keep buying that #..Still a good NATO partner though.
But yes Pakistan is a possible threat , eversince Khan build the exact copy of the UCN[Almelo] in Pakistan.And even more now with the growing presence of the Taliban/AQ in that country, i read somewhere on ATS that taliban could actually be usefull for Musharaf against some separatist army in Pakistan.
The biggest problem is, the US happens to have a military dictator installed and so his reign will not last very long. If not now certainly in the future cause most the youth goes to schools controlled by mosques, and since the majority have better excess to those schools then others i find that pretty disturbing.Even the judiciary is beginning to question his rule[big time], but if the army still got his back, then the pooh hasnt hit the fan yet..
Keeping him in control is the only option, any military action is out of the question..






[edit on 24-7-2007 by Foppezao]

Must admit the pirate had a good foresight in this one..just saw this discussion began in 2003

This is an interesting blur on one of WashingtonPost's opinion column,...

By early 2005, Musharraf himself was talking about technical help from the Americans, and there was an optimism expressed in Islamabad about unprecedented intelligence cooperation. A Pakistani "offensive" in the tribal areas was promising to eradicate "foreign elements."

Now Pakistan complains that it isn't getting information. What happened? The United States was providing intelligence partly to justify U.S. operations to Pakistani authorities and partly to push the Pakistanis themselves to go after the big fish. A profusion of al-Qaeda's third-in command were killed, but the big fish seemed fairly safe. Once the Pakistani offensive stalled and the "ceasefire" was reached with the tribal elements, U.S. operations seemed to have stalled as well.

The White House now correctly says that Pakistan must police its own territory, and those who call for unilateral U.S. action while also protesting the Iraq war are being hypocritical. But that begs the question: Why are we no longer providing Pakistan with intelligence today? Is it because we found it was making its way back to the bad guys?

...But I suspect that the answer is yes -- something happened. It isn't the reason al Qaeda has found safe haven in Pakistan, but it may help us understand that there's more going on here than just he said/she said.

source

Now wouldnt that be interesting, finding out that the intel being provided to Pakistan was being leaked to the Taliban, noting that top-level arrests are all but non-existant when the US isnt doing the work.

hmmm


Which is worse,... sneaking weapons to the bad guys in Iraq, such as Iran is attempting to deny?...

Or sneaking intel to the bad guys, while preparing to perform some 'policing' in your own country.