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

unless your talking about the current afghanistan conflicts i was still under the assumption we were talking about the hunt for bin laden and other terrorist leaders

[QUOTE=yawmwen;29734280]thats against geneva convention isnt it? military personnel are supposed to be identifiable from civilians if they are going to actually be fighting and there arent really a lot of civilians in that area anyways, i dont even think there are any villages in the general vicinity where it would be useful[/QUOTE] Hide the bulk of our troops in the tunnels. Then, have small insertion teams act as civilians and keeping us up to date. As soon as either the Afghan Government rolls over or the Taliban start to make an offensive, SUCKER PUNCH THEM! [editline]10th May 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=yawmwen;29734296]unless your talking about the current afghanistan conflicts i was still under the assumption we were talking about the hunt for bin laden and other terrorist leaders[/QUOTE] We're woefully off topic by now.

[QUOTE=Swilly;29734291]Its like the USSR using unmarked cargo ships to Invade Seattle! WiC reference[/QUOTE] that part of the game pissed me off because i live in seattle :frown: and it didnt even really look like seattle at all i was dissapointed

[QUOTE=yawmwen;29734333]that part of the game pissed me off because i live in seattle :frown: and it didnt even really look like seattle at all i was dissapointed[/QUOTE] Late 80's Seattle is different than current Seattle.

[QUOTE=Swilly;29734308]Hide the bulk of our troops in the tunnels. Then, have small insertion teams act as civilians and keeping us up to date. As soon as either the Afghan Government rolls over or the Taliban start to make an offensive, SUCKER PUNCH THEM! [editline]10th May 2011[/editline] We're woefully off topic by now.[/QUOTE] ok yea this is has almost nothing to do with anything anymore i dont even know why im still up :v: [editline]10th May 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Swilly;29734344]Late 80's Seattle is different than current Seattle.[/QUOTE] :frown:

[QUOTE=yawmwen;29734353]ok yea this is has almost nothing to do with anything anymore i dont even know why im still up :v: [editline]10th May 2011[/editline] :frown:[/QUOTE] Go sleep then bro :v:

Take over Pakistan like the Soviets did with the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan, Al-Qaeda?Pakistan bitching problem solved and mountains are a lesser problem :v: [quote]Soviet advisers disabled equipment, blocked arms rooms and prevented a coordinated Afghan military response. Soviet airborne and SPETSNAZ forces seized the Salang tunnel, key airfields, and key government and communications sites in Kabul. Soviet SPETSNAZ soldiers killed President Amin. The Soviet ground invasion force crossed into the country, fought battles with pockets of Afghan military resistance and occupied the main cities while the Soviet government installed their Afghan puppet regime.[/quote]

Pakistan didn't even deserve its independence. Should had sticked to the Greater India.

[img]http://i.imgur.com/zftSe.jpg[/img] It's just the government who are assholes remember.

Well I wouldn't absolve the entire population either. Even if there are some who go against the government's position, plenty more support it. They aren't all supportive of the government obviously, but the ones who do cannot just be ignored.

[QUOTE=Thom12255;29734995][img_thumb]http://i.imgur.com/zftSe.jpg[/img_thumb] It's just the government who are assholes remember.[/QUOTE] the flag is on fire in that banner

Who is Usama bin Laden?

[QUOTE=Carbon Knight;29730655]Really now? One of the most wanted mass murderers in the world is caught in your country and your response is a threat?[/QUOTE] Easy now, we have the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfowitz_Doctrine]Wolfowitz doctrine[/url] to suppress potential threats from other nations and to stop them from rising to super power status. And the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine]Bush doctrine[/url] to give the U.S. the right to attack any nation that may be used as refuge by terrorists, no distinction made between actual terrorists and people who just live in that nation. [b]Warning:[/b] You can't possibly call me a conspiracy theorist or schizophrenic for what I'm about to say. The Bush doctrine is a collection of strategies and ideas for guiding U.S. foreign policy. What this means is: -You are a threat to the U.S. for having a different ideology. -The U.S. can attack anyone who has a different ideology, justifying that they were taking out a perceived threat before it could cause harm to them. -Any country where some people may have a different ideology is an enemy of the U.S. -The U.S. has the right to establish their democratic government anywhere in the world, even without approval from international bodies like the United Nations. To sum it up accurately, the U.S. gave themselves the right to declare anyone who's not them as a threat that they can destroy, and then proceed to implement their democratic government anywhere it isn't. The U.S. says that people with different ideology to them are that way because they do not experience freedom and come from places in social disarray. Any country where these perceived threats emerge from is considered a threat to the U.S. that they will fight using democracy. [b]/fact[/b] Do all America-supporting, freedom loving, morally conscious, propaganda-free people approve of the United States' conduct I accurately described? Or were you unaware of how they [i]really[/i] operated? I'd really like anyone to prove this is false, as this isn't the reality that I would want if given the choice. So rate me agree if you think the above is true. And rate disagree if you think it is untrue. Clock if everyone already knows it's the truth, and support the U.S. on this. "If there is anyone in the world today who doubts the seriousness of the Bush Doctrine, I would urge that person to consider the fate of the Taliban in Afghanistan, and of Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq." [b]-Dick Cheney[/b]

[QUOTE=THEMikeDurham;29735531] [b]Warning:[/b] You can't possibly call me a conspiracy theorist or schizophrenic for what I'm about to say.[/QUOTE] Sure I can, you schizophrenic conspiracy theorist. Though I'm pretty sure you're right.

My opinions on this are really split, I can understand Pakistan getting pissed off (They did get illegally invaded after all) but Taliban fighters use their military road systems and we can't pursue or fly air over their borders to take out routed guys. but they also do fight the Taliban and have been hit by terrorist attacks as well as contributing quite a few soldiers to US peacekeeping. Even so the US would never invade Pakistan in their current state, they would get far to even a fight to make it worth it. The Pakistan army did beat the US and UK (Plus every other army in the world) in the Cambrian patrols exercise in 2010 (which is tough as fuck, 60lb and one team spent 48 hours in the field and only made it 60km due to bogs and the terrain.) Plus their military is far from basic, had a familiarisation course with some of their manpads (ANZA and a wire guided one which I forget the name of) which opened my eyes to just how good their military is. Lots of unjust hate in here. :saddowns:

[QUOTE=RichardCQ;29735554]Sure I can, you schizophrenic conspiracy theorist. Though I'm pretty sure you're right.[/QUOTE] If I was right, then that doesn't prove anything about the coming New World Order, or that it will even happen for that matter! Does the NWO, a one world government, really sound that crazy when the world's only super power aims to establish its system everywhere on the planet?

[QUOTE=THEMikeDurham;29735590]If I was right, then that doesn't prove anything about the coming New World Order, or that it will even happen for that matter! [/quote]Yup.[quote] Does the NWO, a one world government, really sound that crazy when [B][highlight]a[/highlight] world's superpower[/B] aims to establish its system everywhere on the planet?[/QUOTE] I'm reminded of the British Empire. Things didn't go so well for them in the end.

[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]I'd imagine they'd be more supportive of a conventional war with clear goals (e.g. the initial deposing of Saddam), and an actual threat to the US mainland, as opposed to the 7 years of faffing about and getting troops blown up by IEDs that followed. [QUOTE=Tac Error;29733364]It is my opinion that any "best" classification is fundamentally misguided. Militaries all over the world are tailored to their specific national requirements. If you have, say, an obsession over air power and technology, you'll favor militaries that rely on it extensively, and punish those that don't. You'll just end up with a biased list.[/QUOTE]Thing is, though, they have absolutely ludicrous amounts of equipment due to the equally ludicrous amounts of money spent on their military (more than the next 3 largest combined iirc); the only other country that comes close is Russia, with China on the path to catching up. I know you're not fond of the technological advantage argument, but it does present hard limits to an enemy. If a SAM site's range is far less than that of the ordinance carried by a US warplane (I think it was in a Syria thread we discussed this; iirc the main mobile SAM system used by them has a missile range of 9km), then that's just fact that the SAM site is holding the shit end of the stick. The US military sure as hell isn't efficient or value-for-money, but throw enough money at something and you can just drown the enemy in bombs, bullets and other nasty fast-moving and pointy things. This speech by Hitler comes to mind: (not that i'm insinuating the US are Nazis) "And if the British Air Force drops two, three or four thousand kilos of bombs, then we will now drop 150,000, 180,000, 230,000, 300,000 or 400,000 kilos, or more, in one night. If they declare that they will attack our cities on a large scale, we will erase theirs!" The most significant limitations would be manpower and political willpower, but i'd imagine both would cease to be a problem in a significant conventional war (such as WW2)

[QUOTE=Carbon Knight;29730655]Really now? One of the most wanted mass murderers in the world is caught in your country and your response is a threat?[/QUOTE] The people who agreed with this post, to my assumption, are generally often exposed to mainstream media and believe in certain parts. They think that Osama Bin Laden is a mass murderer, as told by mainstream media. What they may not know is that the Bush doctrine was introduced right after 9/11. This was so the U.S. can commit any action towards places such as Pakistan because they "harbor terrorists". Anyone who is in these countries that are exploited by the U.S. are labelled enemies of America and threats to our freedom. Having similar ideology to these people (terrorist or not) will brand you as a threat to the U.S. [b]Coincidence?[/b] What's the chances that as soon as a terrorist group attacks America, the U.S. gives themselves the right to attack any nation where potential threats of terrorism have or may have existed? If Bin Laden caused 9/11, then why should a whole country be categorized as the enemy just because he lived there at some point? Your corrupt government claims a terrorist group currently/previously lived in a country, and that everyone living there is guilty of terrorism. So if 9/11 was caused by the U.S, then the Bush doctrine lets them put the blame on any country/person they claim to be "associated" with the terrorists, and gives them the right to attack/invade them. [b]Edit:[/b] The Bush doctrine identifies me as a threat of terrorism, because I have different beliefs than the U.S. I can be labelled as a threat to freedom, because beliefs opposing those of the U.S. impede the improvement of freedom. "The defense of freedom requires the advance of freedom."[b]-Bush[/b] That's right, what they're saying here is that they have the freedom to attack anyone with different beliefs to them. Restricting the U.S. from doing so would be restricting freedoms, which equals taking away freedom, which equals terrorism, which equals YOU ARE IN FUCKING PERIL! Good thing the U.S. saves the day, as they destroy anyone who takes away your god given rights.

[QUOTE=THEMikeDurham;29735753]The people who agreed with this post, to my assumption, are generally often exposed to mainstream media and believe in certain parts. They think that Osama Bin Laden is a mass murderer, as told by mainstream media. What they may not know is that the Bush doctrine was introduced right after 9/11. This was so the U.S. can commit any action towards places such as Pakistan because they "harbor terrorists". Anyone who is in these countries that are exploited by the U.S. are labelled enemies of America and threats to our freedom. Having similar ideology to these people (terrorist or not) will brand you as a threat to the U.S. [b]Coincidence?[/b] What's the chances that as soon as a terrorist group attacks America, the U.S. gives themselves the right to attack any nation where potential threats of terrorism have or may have existed? If Bin Laden caused 9/11, then why should a whole country be categorized as the enemy just because he lived there at some point? Your corrupt government claims a terrorist group currently/previously lived in a country, and that everyone living there is guilty of terrorism. So if 9/11 was caused by the U.S, then the Bush doctrine lets them put the blame on any country/person they claim to be "associated" with the terrorists, and gives them the right to attack/invade them.[/QUOTE]:laugh:

[QUOTE=Sgt Doom;29735793]:laugh:[/QUOTE] I'm interested. Which part is funny? Is it the part where it's too late, we're already fucked?

[QUOTE=THEMikeDurham;29735906]I'm interested. Which part is funny? Is it the part where it's too late, we're already fucked?[/QUOTE]Mainly the big bolded [b]Coincidence?[/b] part. Almost scripted in it's commonness.

[QUOTE=Sgt Doom;29735932]Mainly the big bolded [b]Coincidence?[/b] part. Almost scripted in it's commonness.[/QUOTE] Alright, I can see that. So then the rest of what I posted left you speechless?

[QUOTE=THEMikeDurham;29735950]Alright, I can see that. So then the rest of what I posted left you speechless?[/QUOTE]Nah, that stuff just reminds me of Groundhog Day with regards to the frequency such stuff is posted.

[QUOTE=Sgt Doom;29735959]Nah, that stuff just reminds me of Groundhog Day with regards to the frequency such stuff is posted.[/QUOTE] If documents of "such stuff" like the Wolfowitz and Bush doctrine are so frequently posted, then you're obviously misinformed about what it is/does, or you choose to support it. And also, you'd be great at making a response to it. If you've seen/revised the argument so much, you should be good at getting to the point of why people should support the U.S. on it.

I like how you went from "The US has a resurgent problem with imperialistic doctrine" to "The NWA is coming!" to "THEY CAN SILENCE ME! BE AFRAID, ALL OF YOU!". Good little decline there. [QUOTE=THEMikeDurham;29736019]If documents of "such stuff" like the Wolfowitz and Bush doctrine are so frequently posted, then you're obviously misinformed about what it is/does, or you choose to support it. And also, you'd be great at making a response to it. If you've seen/revised the argument so much, you should be good at getting to the point of why people should support the U.S. on it.[/QUOTE] You missed his point. It's the dumb conspiracy stuff that always gets posted.

[QUOTE=THEMikeDurham;29736019]If documents of "such stuff" like the Wolfowitz and Bush doctrine are so frequently posted, then you're obviously misinformed about what it is/does, or you choose to support it. And also, you'd be great at making a response to it. If you've seen/revised the argument so much, you should be good at getting to the point of why people should support the U.S. on it.[/QUOTE]I never said I support it. You're simply taking everything to the extreme by e.g. equating those doctrines with the implementation of the NWO. Your argument stems from primarily psychological problems, there's very little ways to disprove it, in much the same way Russell's teapot can't be disproved; that's why we have the burden of proof concept.

[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;29736043]I like how you went from "The US has a resurgent problem with imperialistic doctrine" to "The NWA is coming!" to "THEY CAN SILENCE ME! BE AFRAID, ALL OF YOU!". Good little decline there.[/QUOTE] You just need to properly read what I said, instead of regurgitating the average response to the mentioning of anything that was ever called a conspiracy theory. I first mentioned the NWO here by saying what I had just brought attention to doesn't prove that it exists or will happen. Then I said that the one-world government concept, from the NWO conspiracy theory, doesn't seem that far fetched when the world's only super power declares war on anyone who thinks different, and proceed to establish their democratic government all over the globe.

TL;DR USA wouldn't do shit to Pakistan If they actually did something about the terrorist.

[QUOTE=THEMikeDurham;29736094]You just need to properly read what I said, instead of regurgitating the average response to the mentioning of anything that was ever called a conspiracy theory. I first mentioned the NWO here by saying what I had just brought attention to doesn't prove that it exists or will happen. Then I said that the one-world government concept, from the NWO conspiracy theory, doesn't seem that far fetched when the world's only super power declares war on anyone who thinks different, and proceed to establish their democratic government all over the globe.[/QUOTE] There exists enough power among other governments to stop us if we actually went out of control, the idea of an NWO based around an American superpower is absurd. We may still be the top in military power, but China is catching up rapidly, and we're more than in the hole so far as economic power goes. e: An NWO through defeat doesn't make much sense either, it's not a very effective global community if you wipe out anyone different.