Pakistani PM Warns of 'Full Force' Response to Future U.S. Raids - Polidicks

What exactly do they mean by full force? By the way, they have been receiving millions in dollars of aide, I doubt they'll do anything.

[QUOTE=LinuX;29732363]I'm scared. I don't want my city to be nuked :ohdear:[/QUOTE] You're in luck, then.

The only country that wins in a US-Pakistan war is India

Seriously Pakistan? SERIOUSLY? Hi, we're the United States, we spend 150% of your GDP on our military alone and you just threatened us. In addition to this, our response to any provocation which claims American lives is responded to with insane levels of retribution. So if you were to go "full force" against a raid against a top terrorist leader, things would end so very very poorly for you. The best case scenario is that we invade and rename your country to "shitfuckistan"

Haha wow, Pakistan. You are the one who had been hiding osama for the past 9 and a half years, and denying that the you knew and now saying full force. eh. tsk tsk tsk

[QUOTE=Chilean;29730685]He kind of has a point. If some other country did an operation like that here without telling us, we'd be pissed. I'm not saying anything about whether or not it was the right thing to do, just saying that you can't expect them to be totally cool with it necessarily.[/QUOTE] Not really, the difference is that they didn't WANT to do anything because the politicians are all corrupt. If Pakastani Mean Guy #1 was in the USA, we'd cooperate with them, which is something they didn't do.

[QUOTE=GunFox;29732689]Seriously Pakistan? SERIOUSLY? Hi, we're the United States, we spend 150% of your GDP on our military alone and you just threatened us. In addition to this, our response to any provocation which claims American lives is responded to with insane levels of retribution. So if you were to go "full force" against a raid against a top terrorist leader, things would end so very very poorly for you. The best case scenario is that we invade and rename your country to "shitfuckistan"[/QUOTE] Bloodthirst ^^^ You're a terrible person. [editline]9th May 2011[/editline] Also jingoistic.

[QUOTE=GunFox;29732689]Seriously Pakistan? SERIOUSLY? Hi, we're the United States, we spend 150% of your GDP on our military alone and you just threatened us. In addition to this, our response to any provocation which claims American lives is responded to with insane levels of retribution. So if you were to go "full force" against a raid against a top terrorist leader, things would end so very very poorly for you. The best case scenario is that we invade and rename your country to "shitfuckistan"[/QUOTE] You are my favorite poster, you give me hope about everything. I know you probably think lowly of me, but even so, keep doing what you do.

[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;29732744]Bloodthirst ^^^ You're a terrible person. [editline]9th May 2011[/editline] Also jingoistic.[/QUOTE] Bloodthirsty? Try realistic

[QUOTE=lulzbocksV2;29731371]I won't go and say that Pakistan should be ignored. They do have nuclear weapons, after all.[/QUOTE] What will happen if they use, or even hint at using a nuclear weapon is so fucking bad for them it's ridiculous. [editline]9th May 2011[/editline] they will literally be the target of everyone, every single Western nation.

[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;29731208]I hope they realise a "full force" response would be signing their death warrent.[/QUOTE] Pakistan has a formidable army backed by billions and billions of US money

[QUOTE=JerryK;29732792]Pakistan has a formidable army backed by billions and billions of US money[/QUOTE] US has a super formidable army backed by nearly a trillion US money

[QUOTE=Zambies!;29731817]India do your thing. Get Pakistan to pull out of the war on terror, India to move in. India doesn't sponsor terrorism.[/QUOTE] what about telemarketers? i think it's pretty close to terrorism [editline]9th May 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Tetracycline;29732803]US has a super formidable army backed by nearly a trillion US money[/QUOTE] ok? i didn't say we wouldn't win it'd still most likely be a drawn out battle with lots of losses on both sides

pakistan is seriously fucking lucky we have had as much patience with them as we have and not invaded like we did with afghanistan but this is all just dick waving, the pro al qaeda pieces of shit in office need to act like they are willing to retaliate against the us government, since al qaeda basically has a large chunk of pakistan by the balls even if(when) the us rolls in again to kill some terrorist leader all pakistan will do is another dick wave followed by them begging us for more "counter-terrorism aid"(i.e. the pm's second beach home) [editline]10th May 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;29732744]Bloodthirst ^^^ You're a terrible person. [editline]9th May 2011[/editline] Also jingoistic.[/QUOTE] not really its p. true what did we do with afghanistan, any attempt to use "full force" retaliation against any us operatives in pakistan will probably be met with a hellfire missile right up the pm's ass

[QUOTE=JerryK;29732810]ok? i didn't say we wouldn't win it'd still most likely be a drawn out battle with lots of losses on both sides[/QUOTE] Do you think that the American public today can stomach the possibility of significant casualties (1 or 2 brigades put out of action due to losses, for example) in a conventional conflict?

[QUOTE=JerryK;29732810] ok? i didn't say we wouldn't win it'd still most likely be a drawn out battle with lots of losses on both sides[/QUOTE] not in a conventional war pakistans only hope would be guerrilla warfare(which would render a good portion of their conventional military useless anyways) and even then we seem to be getting better at handling that ever since vietnam plus many us soldiers have been fighting in terrain similar to pakistan for years, so our soldiers know how to fight in those conditions [editline]10th May 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Tac Error;29732937]Do you think that the American public today can stomach the possibility of significant casualties (1 or 2 brigades put out of action due to losses, for example) in a conventional conflict?[/QUOTE] um ya if we just bring up the fact pakistan has been harboring bin laden for years i think the american public would be fairly willing to fight

[QUOTE=yawmwen;29732968]not in a conventional war pakistans only hope would be guerrilla warfare(which would render a good portion of their conventional military useless anyways) and even then we seem to be getting better at handling that ever since vietnam plus many us soldiers have been fighting in terrain similar to pakistan for years, so our soldiers know how to fight in those conditions [editline]10th May 2011[/editline] um ya if we just bring up the fact pakistan has been harboring bin laden for years i think the american public would be fairly willing to fight[/QUOTE] Because we're bloodthirsty motherfuckers. We aren't happy until thousands of brown people die.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;29732968]not in a conventional war pakistans only hope would be guerrilla warfare(which would render a good portion of their conventional military useless anyways) and even then we seem to be getting better at handling that ever since vietnam plus many us soldiers have been fighting in terrain similar to pakistan for years, so our soldiers know how to fight in those conditions [editline]10th May 2011[/editline] um ya if we just bring up the fact pakistan has been harboring bin laden for years i think the american public would be fairly willing to fight[/QUOTE] Oh wow, more Ten Feet Tall Americans.

also this is a moot point anyways because pakistan knows its a war they wont win they arent going to do shit besides puff out their chests and pretend they are serious [editline]10th May 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;29733013]Because we're bloodthirsty motherfuckers. We aren't happy until thousands of brown people die.[/QUOTE] hm? i never said that, i said it would be fucking suicide for pakistan to attack [QUOTE=Tac Error;29733048]Oh wow, more Ten Feet Tall Americans.[/QUOTE] what do you mean by that? it isnt just the americans, the british would help out too, and hell, maybe more countries would join up like the last few times we decided to fuck over a middle eastern country

[QUOTE=yawmwen;29733054]what do you mean by that? it isnt just the americans, the british would help out too, and hell, maybe more countries would join up like the last few times we decided to fuck over a middle eastern country[/QUOTE] Well, good luck getting your international support. What I mean is the myth that the American military will win [i]any[/i] conventional conflict guaranteed, no exceptions.

also sorry if i sound a bit jingo its just incredibly frustrating and ridiculous to me that the pakistani government would be mad at us for taking out one of the most dangerous men in the world, the guy that orchestrated the worst terrorist attack on us soil, while we give them billions of dollars to supposedly fight terrorism, because we decided to keep the raid a secret because enough of your fucking government is on al qaeda's payroll and would ruin the operation

LULZ PAKIS ARE PAID BY TALIBBANS HAHA LETS FUCK UP THEIR COUNTREY 2!!11 USA USA USA USA USA

We will kill you to save you from the taliban.

[QUOTE=Tac Error;29733125]Well, good luck getting your international support. What I mean is the myth that the American military will win [i]any[/i] conventional conflict guaranteed, no exceptions.[/QUOTE] i dont think that, i mean we have p much the best military in the world right now, but its becoming overfunded, bloated, and stretched out there is no guarantee that we could win against a nation like china, russia or the uk in straight conventional warfare [editline]10th May 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Falchion;29733193]LULZ PAKIS ARE PAID BY TALIBBANS HAHA LETS FUCK UP THEIR COUNTREY 2!!11 USA USA USA USA USA[/QUOTE] no one was arguing when we invaded afghanistan

When forces are fighting with what William Lind calls "fourth generation warfare" methods, they can use states as a method of countering their superpower adversaries. [editline]9th May 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=yawmwen;29733199]i dont think that, i mean we have p much the best military in the world right now, but its becoming overfunded, bloated, and stretched out there is no guarantee that we could win against a nation like china, russia or the uk in straight conventional warfare[/QUOTE] You had the best military in the world...back in the early-mid 1990s.

[QUOTE=Tac Error;29733209]When forces are fighting with what William Lind calls "fourth generation warfare" methods, they can use states as a method of countering their superpower adversaries. [editline]9th May 2011[/editline] You had the best military in the world...back in the early-mid 1990s.[/QUOTE] The who's is the best now?

Pipe down shortstack

[QUOTE=Tac Error;29733209]When forces are fighting with what William Lind calls "fourth generation warfare" methods, they can use states as a method of countering their superpower adversaries.[/QUOTE] what are you talking about? they can use states? do you mean like using their own states or our states? and fourth generation warfare is just a fancy term for insurgency, and an insurgency doesnt have a political state not to mention there are methods of dealing with insurgency as well [quote]You had the best military in the world...back in the early-mid 1990s.[/quote]and who has the best military now then?

[QUOTE=Swilly;29733277]The who's is the best now?[/QUOTE] Pakistan, obviously

What is your definition of a "best" military?