• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Attack within Pakistan

Per the question in the thread


  • Total voters
    32
Wouldnt the fact that the government of Pakistan is currently at war with the taliban appear to contradict this?

Who are the Taliban? Would someone care to give an actual definition in this context? As far as I can see the people in Swat are the tribal people there who were promised their tribal law under the British and when Pakistan became a country which the central gov't then has tried to reverse. They might have links with some of the genuine Taliban but as usual the term Taliban is being thrown around willy nilly.
 
Its a difficult question with a lot of competing variables to weigh. Here's a few that come to mind.

1. How much could be gained in the fight against the Taliban by such a strike?

If we could wipe out the Taliban completely, it becomes much more appealing. Even preventing them from seizing power in Pakinstan would be a worthwhile goal. But if were talking about just capturing/killing a few people and/or bases of operation then the gains are far les significant. What are the realistic gains we can hope to achieve?

2. How much would such an action destablize the Pakistani government?

If it lead to a complete collapse of the Pakistani government, that could be disasterous given their status as a nuclear power. We definately don't want to acceleerate or cause such a collapse. However if the Pakistani government is going to collapse either way, then it could be worth it just to prevent the Taliban from filling the void.

3. Would it further radicalize the Pakistani population?

As others have pointed out, it is difficult if nto impossible to completely defeat guerrilla/insurgent forces with traditional armies. Hearts and minds of local populations is very important in limiting and eventually eliminating such forces. Would such an action be seen as a hostile invasion by a large segment of the Pakistani population? Would it push them closer to the Taliban and other radical militant elements?

One thing I would say is aboslute is that militant radicals such as the Taliban cannot be allowed to gain access to Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. I think in that point we would have pretty widespread international support, particularly from India, Isreal, and probably even Iran.

At least right now, with Pakistan FINALLY doing something theirselves, more drone attacks by America would just make the population lose all of their desire to fight that Taliban.

Even if we could help Pakistan strategically, if Pakistan is really going to push back the Taliban then they don't really need our help, even if theoretically we could quicken Pakistan's victory.
 
Wouldnt the fact that the government of Pakistan is currently at war with the taliban appear to contradict this?

Not really because they aren't actually fighting them, the Pakistani government has repeatedly offered amnesty and asylum to the Taliban, it is in fact the Taliban that is attacking the Pakistani state not the other way around.
 
Wouldnt the fact that the government of Pakistan is currently at war with the taliban appear to contradict this?

They're at war "NOW" but that wasn't the cause when this topic came up for discussion.

:mrgreen:
 
Aggressive interventionists must be stopped. We cannot let militarists and interventionists like yourself to pervert our civilisation and security to lead to the rise of despotism.

Yet more rhetotic.

Stoping Iran and the Taliban from getting nukes PREVENTS issues. I am sorry you are unable to see that.

You cannot bury your head in the sand and wait for Iran and the Taliban to calm down. That will not work.
 
Yet more rhetotic.
:lol:

You accusing anyone of rhetoric.:rofl


Stoping Iran and the Taliban from getting nukes PREVENTS issues. I am sorry you are unable to see that.
Intervening in foreign countries reduces external security by making the world more unstable and giving less and less respect for national sovereignty. It also erodes domestic liberty by being an more continuous war footing and giving the military more and more of a place in society. I'm sorry you cannot grasp this. There are few things more dangerous than aggressive interventionists.

You cannot bury your head in the sand and wait for Iran and the Taliban to calm down. That will not work.
You cannot solve the world's problems and you will create more if you try as keeps happening.
 
:lol:

There are few things more dangerous than aggressive interventionists.

Ya for example apocalyptic religious fundamentalists with nuclear weapons who are bent on destroying liberal democracy and establishing a one world caliphate ruled under puritanical sharia law. Besides the war with the Taliban is not interventionist it is a defensive war in response to the U.S. being attacked.
 
Ya for example apocalyptic religious fundamentalists with nuclear weapons who are bent on destroying liberal democracy and establishing a one world caliphate ruled under puritanical sharia law. Besides the war with the Taliban is not interventionist it is a defensive war in response to the U.S. being attacked.
The people in Swat are not the exact same people as the rulers of Afghanistan, this is a misconception due to the media using the word poorly, an estimated 20-40% of those called Taliban are from that organisation or completely intertwined with it. There are links with many but the people in Swat are tribal groups trying to get their tribal law and autonomy, that they were promised in the original Pakistani constitution, recognised.

They are not about to take over Pakistan nor get hold of Nuclear weapons.

The global jihadists who are murdering innocent people every day of the week in all four corners of the world must be stopped.
Not by means that destabilise the world, destroy respect for national sovereignty and harm domestic liberty.
 
The people in Swat are not the exact same people as the rulers of Afghanistan, this is a misconception due to the media using the word poorly, an estimated 20-40% of those called Taliban are from that organisation or completely intertwined with it. There are links with many but the people in Swat are tribal groups trying to get their tribal law and autonomy, that they were promised in the original Pakistani constitution, recognised.

Prove it.

They are not about to take over Pakistan nor get hold of Nuclear weapons.

Then why are they at the gates of Islamabad as we speak?

Not by means that destabilise the world, destroy respect for national sovereignty and harm domestic liberty.

Maybe we should ask them to pretty please stop invading Pakistan and trying to overthrow their government. :roll: Our right to stop jihadists from obtaining nuclear weapons trumps their right to sovereignty.
 
The US Army got its ass handled by guerilleros in Viet-Nam, is going to retreat from Iraq and is not winning in Afghanistan, even with hundreds of billions of dollars being spent.

Why do you think it would work in Pakistan? Why do you think it would not be a quagmire?
You vastly overstate the premise of the Army getting its ass handled. The military did very well, the politicians and policies were the primary problems.
 
Prove it.
I saw it on I believe Newshour.

What is certainly true is that this strange homogenous idea the media gives is far from that accurate. Those in the Swat have a large amount of native people wanting to resurrect their original constitutionally granted autonomy and law.

Then why are they at the gates of Islamabad as we speak?
Because it is close to the tribal areas. Are you suggesting they are likely to take it over. They are getting their butts kicked as we speak.

[
Maybe we should ask them to pretty please stop invading Pakistan
:roll: Man you don't know what you are talking about.

and trying to overthrow their government. :roll: Our right to stop jihadists from obtaining nuclear weapons trumps their right to sovereignty.
Man I hate liberal interventionists. As if a world where China and Russia can ignore national sovereignty at the drop of a hat will ben an improvement.
 
The people in Swat are not the exact same people as the rulers of Afghanistan, this is a misconception due to the media using the word poorly, an estimated 20-40% of those called Taliban are from that organisation or completely intertwined with it. There are links with many but the people in Swat are tribal groups trying to get their tribal law and autonomy, that they were promised in the original Pakistani constitution, recognised.

They are not about to take over Pakistan nor get hold of Nuclear weapons.

Not by means that destabilise the world, destroy respect for national sovereignty and harm domestic liberty.

Stop making excuses.

The Taliban MUST be stopped. If you do not have the stomach for it, step out of the way and leave it to the brave and the bold.

In any event, your attitude reflects the attitudes of those who have allowed religious fundementalists to flourish in the first place.

I find your castigation of preventative actions against he Taliban to be offensive and nieve.

You should be ashamed of yourself.
 
Stop making excuses.

The Taliban MUST be stopped. If you do not have the stomach for it, step out of the way and leave it to the brave and the bold.

The fallacy here is that A) the United States is capable of stopping the Taliban better than the elected government of Pakistan is, and B) that our presence wouldn't make the situation worse.

It is highly unlikely that Pakistan's military would ever voluntarily turn over nuclear weapons or nuclear secrets to unreliable ****-ups like the Taliban. But if there's any chance at all that they would, a major American offensive in Pakistan just might be the best way to do it. Keep in mind that there are certain elements of the Pakistani Army who, if not outright sympathetic to the Taliban, are at least in cahoots with extremists.

For now, we should continue doing what we've been doing: Assisting the government of Pakistan behind the scenes. US soldiers or bombs on Pakistani soil would most likely radicalize the population against us and further destabilize the government.

Now if the Taliban actually succeeds in overthrowing the government (which seems less likely now than it did a couple weeks ago), then our options may have to change. But for now, it would be foolish to attack within Pakistan.
 
Stop making excuses.

The Taliban MUST be stopped.
Who are the Taliban? I'm looking for a decent definition before I consider invading places.
If you do not have the stomach for it, step out of the way and leave it to the brave and the bold.
This is not an argument.
In any event, your attitude reflects the attitudes of those who have allowed religious fundementalists to flourish in the first place.
Conservatives?

I find your castigation of preventative actions against he Taliban to be offensive and nieve.
I find your breathtaking lack of respect for national sovereignty and complete militarism and interventionism to be offensive and downright dangerous, perhaps one of the most dangerous currents in Western society today.

You should be ashamed of yourself.
As should you.
 
I saw it on I believe Newshour.

What is certainly true is that this strange homogenous idea the media gives is far from that accurate. Those in the Swat have a large amount of native people wanting to resurrect their original constitutionally granted autonomy and law.

Because it is close to the tribal areas. Are you suggesting they are likely to take it over. They are getting their butts kicked as we speak.

:roll: Man you don't know what you are talking about.

Man I hate liberal interventionists. As if a world where China and Russia can ignore national sovereignty at the drop of a hat will ben an improvement.

News flash!!!

The Taliban need to be stopped.

If you don't have the stomach to help, get out of the way and remain quiet.
 
The fallacy here is that A) the United States is capable of stopping the Taliban better than the elected government of Pakistan is, and B) that our presence wouldn't make the situation worse.

Typical liberal rhetoric. Most liberals know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about warfare. Ergo ... the liberal opinion of this situation is a falacy that must be completely ignored.



It is highly unlikely that Pakistan's military would ever voluntarily turn over nuclear weapons or nuclear secrets to unreliable ****-ups like the Taliban. But if there's any chance at all that they would, a major American offensive in Pakistan just might be the best way to do it. Keep in mind that there are certain elements of the Pakistani Army who, if not outright sympathetic to the Taliban, are at least in cahoots with extremists.

Again ... you have no clue what you're talking about. We're NOT TALKING ABOUT THE PAKISTANIS HANDING IT OVER VOLUTARILY!!!! HELLO MCFLY?

We're talking about the Taliban SIEZING THOSE WEAPONS FROM THE PAKISTANI GOVERNMENT!!!!!

For now, we should continue doing what we've been doing: Assisting the government of Pakistan behind the scenes. US soldiers or bombs on Pakistani soil would most likely radicalize the population against us and further destabilize the government.

Actually ... the Pakistanis dislike the Taliban more than we do. Therefore, if Taliban members are being killed I doubt the Pakistanis will give much of a damn that we're killing terrorists inside their country.

Now if the Taliban actually succeeds in overthrowing the government (which seems less likely now than it did a couple weeks ago), then our options may have to change. But for now, it would be foolish to attack within Pakistan.

Says you!

You know nothing about military operations. The key here is to STOP THE TALIBAN BEFORE they are able to sieze nuclear weapons from Pakistan.

We CANNOT wait until AFTER THE FACT. It will be TOO LATE to stop them if we do.

You need to realize that the time to act is NOW. The Pakistani government has realized this fact.... WHY CAN'T YOU?

The Talibastards are being stopped because they are a bunch of ****bags who deserve a painful death.

Get with the program or go read a book.

Please refrain from dooming the rest of us to die because you do not see any reason to prevent terrorists from being able to cause death and destruction.
 
Typical liberal rhetoric. Most liberals know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about warfare. Ergo ... the liberal opinion of this situation is a falacy that must be completely ignored.

Juvenile name-calling aside, I find it funny that you can make this claim after the previous president - hardly a liberal wuss - essentially drove our foreign policy into the ditch. Recent history simply does not match up with this.

Furthermore, what makes you think that American leaders understand Pakistan's problems better than Pakistani leaders do?

Vader said:
Again ... you have no clue what you're talking about. We're NOT TALKING ABOUT THE PAKISTANIS HANDING IT OVER VOLUTARILY!!!! HELLO MCFLY?

We're talking about the Taliban SIEZING THOSE WEAPONS FROM THE PAKISTANI GOVERNMENT!!!!!

Oh noes, you're typing in caps. That must mean your argument is more logically sound than mine.

You need not worry about the Taliban forcibly seizing the weapons from the Pakistani military. The Pakistani military has kicked the Taliban's ass pretty much every time they've directly engaged in combat.

Vader said:
Actually ... the Pakistanis dislike the Taliban more than we do. Therefore, if Taliban members are being killed I doubt the Pakistanis will give much of a damn that we're killing terrorists inside their country.

How would you like it if, for example, a foreign country bombed the **** out of Kansas to get rid of the Westboro Baptist Church, or bombed the **** out of Michigan to get rid of Tim McVeigh's buddies...without our elected government's permission?

Vader said:
Says you! You know nothing about military operations. The key here is to STOP THE TALIBAN BEFORE they are able to sieze nuclear weapons from Pakistan.

We CANNOT wait until AFTER THE FACT. It will be TOO LATE to stop them if we do.

You misunderstand what "seizing nuclear weapons" entails. Let's say that hypothetically, the Taliban mounted some huge offensive against a nuclear facility and somehow managed to overtake the Pakistani military. It's not as though they would suddenly be able to press a button and destroy a major city within the hour. A nuclear weapon is an extremely complicated machine. There are too many safeguards in place for that, and no one in the Taliban would have much experience with the nukes anyway. It would take them, at a minimum, a year to even figure out how it works and how to operate it. That would be plenty of time for us to act if necessary. Our military undoubtedly has contingency plans in place that could be carried out within a day or two, let alone an entire year.

Vader said:
You need to realize that the time to act is NOW. The Pakistani government has realized this fact.... WHY CAN'T YOU?

Like I said, I am completely in favor of assisting the Pakistani government. But American boots on the ground is neither helpful to the Pakistanis nor desired by the Pakistanis.

Vader said:
The Talibastards are being stopped because they are a bunch of ****bags who deserve a painful death.

Get with the program or go read a book.

Please refrain from dooming the rest of us to die because you do not see any reason to prevent terrorists from being able to cause death and destruction.

It is emotion-filled, logic-free rhetoric like this that makes it obvious that you should have absolutely no say in foreign policy. Fortunately, the people in charge of our foreign policy seem less driven by emotion than you.
 
Last edited:
News flash!!!

The Taliban need to be stopped.

If you don't have the stomach to help, get out of the way and remain quiet.

I don't take orders from you, if you don't want to discuss this like a grown up and just want to continue your usual extreme and absurd comments then that is not my fault.
 
I don't take orders from you, if you don't want to discuss this like a grown up and just want to continue your usual extreme and absurd comments then that is not my fault.

No ... you bury your head in the sand and HOPE the enemy doesn't get nukes.

You would rather wait for some Islam-o-nazi terrorist lunatic to use a nuke to commit mass-murder before you are willing to do anything.

This is unacceptable where nuclear weapons are concerned.

If you cannot see this, you are BLIND.
 
Juvenile name-calling aside, I find it funny that you can make this claim after the previous president - hardly a liberal wuss - essentially drove our foreign policy into the ditch. Recent history simply does not match up with this.

Spare me your liberal rhetoric.

Furthermore, what makes you think that American leaders understand Pakistan's problems better than Pakistani leaders do?

I think we know the damage nuclear weapons can do and I think we're acting to prevent Taliban ****bags --- WHO ARE ALLIED WITH AL QAEDA --- from seizing those weapons and proving them to Al Qaeda.

If you cannot make the connection, you are NOT QUALIFIED to discuss the topic.

Oh noes, you're typing in caps. That must mean your argument is more logically sound than mine.

My argument is more sound than yours because I am in touch with reality and I know how the world works. You clearly do not.

You need not worry about the Taliban forcibly seizing the weapons from the Pakistani military. The Pakistani military has kicked the Taliban's ass pretty much every time they've directly engaged in combat.

Yes, they are, BECAUSE WE TOLD THEM IF THEY DIDN'T ACT WE WOULD. We do not want Al Quack getting nukes. We WILL NOT allow Talibastards anywhere even close to nukes.


How would you like it if, for example, a foreign country bombed the **** out of Kansas to get rid of the Westboro Baptist Church, or bombed the **** out of Michigan to get rid of Tim McVeigh's buddies...without our elected government's permission?

This is liberal rhetoric and an irrelevant comparison. In any event, the Westboro Baptist Church is not a heavily armed terrorist group that is trying to seize control of territory is not theirs.

You are wrong -- your comparison is ABSOLUTELY IRRELEVANT.

You misunderstand what "seizing nuclear weapons" entails. Let's say that hypothetically, the Taliban mounted some huge offensive against a nuclear facility and somehow managed to overtake the Pakistani military. It's not as though they would suddenly be able to press a button and destroy a major city within the hour. A nuclear weapon is an extremely complicated machine. There are too many safeguards in place for that, and no one in the Taliban would have much experience with the nukes anyway. It would take them, at a minimum, a year to even figure out how it works and how to operate it. That would be plenty of time for us to act if necessary. Our military undoubtedly has contingency plans in place that could be carried out within a day or two, let alone an entire year.

You know NOTHING about how nuclear weapons work.

Once they seized the nuclear arsenal -- they could break down the warheads and give the warheads to Al Qaeda for use in construction of a dirty bomb.

They are NOT GOING TO LAUNCH THEM!

They will give (or sell) the components to Al Qaeda, Iran, Syria, or whomever else wants to buy them.

If you had even the first clue what you were talking about, you would realize that.

You are NOT QUALIFIED to discuss this subject.

Like I said, I am completely in favor of assisting the Pakistani government. But American boots on the ground is neither helpful to the Pakistanis nor desired by the Pakistanis.

You are not qualified to determine what is and is not useful in preventing Taliban ****bags from seizing power and nuclear weapons.

It is emotion-filled, logic-free rhetoric like this that makes it obvious that you should have absolutely no say in foreign policy. Fortunately, the people in charge of our foreign policy seem less driven by emotion than you.

There is plently of logic in what I am saying. It's just dismissed because the liberal mind cannot seem to accept that freaks who want nukes must be stopped BEFORE THEY GET NUKES or millions will die.

People who think like I do made certain that terrorist have not been able to pull of attack on American soil for over half a decade. People like you, who clearly have no idea what they are talking about, need to stop preaching nieve rhetoric.

Wexxman --- brown-nosing is lame --- even for you.
 
No ... you bury your head in the sand and HOPE the enemy doesn't get nukes.
They aren't going to. They are loosing without your invasion plans.
You would rather wait for some Islam-o-nazi terrorist lunatic to use a nuke to commit mass-murder before you are willing to do anything.
Nope, I'd just rather that was a reasonable possibility first and then I'd take cautious, gradual steps not leap to a massive invasion.

[
This is unacceptable where nuclear weapons are concerned.

If you cannot see this, you are BLIND.
Not an argument.
 
No ... you bury your head in the sand and HOPE the enemy doesn't get nukes.

You would rather wait for some Islam-o-nazi terrorist lunatic to use a nuke to commit mass-murder before you are willing to do anything.

This is unacceptable where nuclear weapons are concerned.

If you cannot see this, you are BLIND.

Vader how would you propose replacing the Pakistani government after Pakistan decends into anarchy as a result of foriegn incursion?
 
Spare me your liberal rhetoric.

Let's see...my previous post was filled with facts about foreign policy. Your latest post is filled with more insults and hysteria, and almost no facts or reasoning at all. That being the case, I will address the only point you made that is even remotely grounded in reason:

Vader said:
You know NOTHING about how nuclear weapons work.

Once they seized the nuclear arsenal -- they could break down the warheads and give the warheads to Al Qaeda for use in construction of a dirty bomb.

They are NOT GOING TO LAUNCH THEM!

They will give (or sell) the components to Al Qaeda, Iran, Syria, or whomever else wants to buy them.

OK, first of all, the Taliban regards Syria as a secular "infidel" nation (which it is, in many respects). They hold Iran in even lower esteem: The Islamic Republic is a mortal enemy of the Taliban. If the Taliban ever DID become a nuclear power, it's much more likely that Damascus or Tehran would be a target rather than a customer. But in any case, the Taliban will not become a nuclear power, which brings me to my next point:

You are severely underestimating how complex a nuclear weapon is. They can't just take over a nuclear facility, and have the nuke on a truck to Osama Bin Laden a few hours later who then takes it to a random city and sets it off. The Taliban is not exactly a highly-educated crack team of scientists who understand nuclear physics...and even if they were, they would have to overcome all of the safeguards first.

Even if somehow they managed to seize a nuke, it would be over a year before there is any chance they could use it or "break down the warheads" (whatever that means) to give to al-Qaeda.

Look at it this way: If someone gave YOU a nuclear weapon, would you have the faintest idea how to set it off? They don't have big red "DETONATE" buttons on them.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom