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

[QUOTE=Ridge;29747553]I wonder how much force they will have if we cut the billions of dollars we send them every year.[/QUOTE] They've already stated (or many have stated in their government) that the aid does more harm than good and they don't want it anyway. We should cut all foreign aid, anyway.

So now Pakistan is not handing over documents in the Raid. Here is the final FUCK YOU Pakistan.

[QUOTE=s0beit;29756014]We should cut all foreign aid, anyway.[/QUOTE] To just Pakistan, or everywhere?

Launch more raids as soon as possible just to annoy Pakistan.

[QUOTE=Tac Error;29733299]What is your definition of a "best" military?[/QUOTE] The one that can actually get on a boat, sail across the ocean, defeat naval defenses, and launch a proper invasion. All of Europe, Canada, and Australia combined wouldn't have the naval power necessary to launch a full scale assault on another nation. Most nations can put up some sort of defense, whether it be guerrilla or otherwise, but a real military is determined by how effective they can be overseas. Defense is easy, offense is hard.

[QUOTE=GunFox;29767631]The one that can actually get on a boat, sail across the ocean, defeat naval defenses, and launch a proper invasion. All of Europe, Canada, and Australia combined wouldn't have the naval power necessary to launch a full scale assault on another nation. Most nations can put up some sort of defense, whether it be guerrilla or otherwise, but a real military is determined by how effective they can be overseas. Defense is easy, offense is hard.[/QUOTE] Not all nations need to have a formidable navy to conduct an offense or be good at it. The Soviet Army and it's concept of the "theater-strategic operation" in the 1980s comes to mind, but that stuff is probably too complex for most of you to understand. But like I said, you'll end up with a biased definition anyways.

[QUOTE=Tac Error;29767722]Not all nations need to have a formidable navy to conduct an offense or be good at it. The Soviet Army and it's concept of the "theater-strategic operation" in the 1980s comes to mind, but that stuff is probably too complex for most of you to understand. But like I said, you'll end up with a biased definition anyways.[/QUOTE] Uh, it's not really that complex. It was actually conceived in the 20s, first off, and it's not much more than changing what used to be thought of as a front or group of fronts into a large area of operations, focusing on armored spearheads. And that whole concept was designed with fighting NATO in Europe in mind. Not overseas.

[QUOTE=Canesfan;29768812]Uh, it's not really that complex. It was actually conceived in the 20s, first off, and it's not much more than changing what used to be thought of as a front or group of fronts into a large area of operations, focusing on armored spearheads.[/quote] What was conceived in the 1920s was deep operations/deep battle, not Ogarkov's theater-strategic offensive. The TSO isn't all that new, but seeing it as simply "deep battle straight from WWII/1920s with small changes" is incorrect. You might as well call American "shock and awe" not much more than changing bits of "blitzkrieg" to fit American needs. But arguing "it's new/not new" is beside the point. If it's really "not that complex", then why is it that Western officers of nearly all of NATO in the 1980s had a hard time understanding Soviet concepts like the TSO, save for a few specialists in their respective "Soviet Studies offices" by the late '80s? Since Soviet military art takes combined arms into consideration, a focus on "armored spearheads" is a gross stereotypical oversimplification of what would be employed or focused on, especially when the Yom Kippur War showed that reliance on tanks was no longer going to be a viable thing. I say it's complex because most of the time, Facepunchers associate "Soviet" and "military" with human wave attacks and inflexible commanders. The truth is more complex than that and many people today have a hard time understanding Soviet military art given a good track record of Western military successes in the 1990s. [quote]And that whole concept was designed with fighting NATO in Europe in mind. Not overseas.[/QUOTE] It wasn't "designed with fighting NATO in Europe in mind". In theory, it could be also applied to other locations like the Middle East and the Far East. The point is that depending on your geographical location, naval expeditionary capability is not the only way to "invade another nation". But if you ask me, a real military is determined by its effectiveness in carrying out the military needs required by the state, not by how good its expeditionary capability is. The US military is [i]not[/i] a universal benchmark to mirror-image other armies with.

I'm gonna have to agree with GunFox here. Projecting power over land is certainly a good thing but controlling the seas and the skies is just as important. That is though, if you wish to project power and hold them all to the same standards. Each country to their own needs surely but a comparison on similar challenges they both might face is something that should be examined.

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;29766013]To just Pakistan, or everywhere?[/QUOTE] Everywhere, it's been exhibited many times that foreign aid does more harm than good, from many perspectives. Let's take for example America's stranglehold on other nations in the form of aid, those governments like the aid so they decide to comply with whatever the United States "suggests", sometimes not. This may seem beneficial to you if you're a central authority type person who believes the United States is always right, I'm not one of those people. It works the same way for other countries though. Many forms of aid prop up dictatorships or unfavorable characters (Egyptian foreign aid for example, but then that's a light example because there was instances way back when where we just handed out aid like candy and gave money to leaders who routinely killed a load of people every now and again), exacerbate internal government corruption and so on. Then you have places like Israel which, lol Israel. It's nice to "donate" money to something that matters but throughout history foreign aid has done minimal good and substantial harm. The people rarely get it, the private industry of those countries are not uplifted (as most of the money is absorbed by government or corrupt officials and not actually given to people to spend, or consume). What they need is less bad government propped up by the United States and more trade. Tariffs and subsidy in the United States should be ended so we can start purchasing from low-balling developing countries. [url]http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17095866[/url] [url]http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/75582/20101025/is-aid-doing-haiti-more-harm-than-good.htm[/url] [url]http://www.kstatecollegian.com/opinion/foreign-aid-does-more-harm-than-good-to-africa-alternatives-must-be-found-1.2450859[/url] People often said after the last time Foreign aid was discovered to be a horrible policy, that just doing foreign aid [i]correctly[/i] would fix it. It didn't. The aid is the problem, surely worse governments could do worse things with that aid but the fact remains that it isn't helping their countries in the slightest and is probably actually harming the citizens there as a result.

They're mad cause we made their security look like a fucking joke. What makes it even funnier is we obviously didn't warn them about the raid, so we think it is to.

[QUOTE=Devodiere;29769414]I'm gonna have to agree with GunFox here. Projecting power over land is certainly a good thing but controlling the seas and the skies is just as important. That is though, if you wish to project power and hold them all to the same standards. Each country to their own needs surely but a comparison on similar challenges they both might face is something that should be examined.[/QUOTE] I never said that air or sea power is insignificant. GunFox's wording suggests that a "good" military should always have an overwhelmingly superb expeditionary capability to be good on the offensive, regardless of their states' interests. Let's take Germany and Sweden. Do they possess good or excellent military forces? Undoubtedly. Does a lack of an American-style expeditionary capability negate all of that to hell? Absolutely not. I'm not against comparisons of countries' militaries with similar international interests, like the US and the UK, but to treat military A and military B as mirror-images of each other - and punishing or belittling the one which lacks capabilities of the other due to lack of a need to focus on that aspect - is not a good comparison. [editline]11th May 2011[/editline] Right, we're hopelessly off-topic here. What were we talking about, Pakistan? I'm out of this thread for now.

The best country and military force in the world vs a third world country. I can already guess who is going to win.

US tells Pakistan about Raid Pakistan Government tells Al Qaeda Rinse and repeat :colbert: