• 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
Vader how would you propose replacing the Pakistani government after Pakistan decends into anarchy as a result of foriegn incursion?

Stop with your liberal spewage.

We are not talking about replacing the Pakistani govenment. We are talking about preventing it from falling by driving the Taliban out of the area.
 
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:

Keep living on planet denial.


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.

HAve you ever considered the idea that just the idea of the Taliban having nuclear weapons is just plain bad. I don't want them to ever even have the chance to even BREATHE on nuclear device of ANY kind.

In regard to the Taliban breaking down the warheads; you are correct. They would need help. The more likely scenario is that they would set them off by tampering and cause a nuclear catastrophy. This is just as unacceptable as handing them over to Al Quack or the various other nations who shouldn't have them.

I am not a nuclear weapons expert. I have enough common sense to avoid scewing with a nuclear weapon. The Taliban does not... and therein lies a problem.
 
They aren't going to. They are loosing without your invasion plans.

Nobody was talking about an invasion. You assumed that ... and guess what the makes you!

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.

And ... you would be wrong. We cannot wait for the Taliban to get the nukes BEFORE we take action. That is not how things work.

Not an argument.

Nothing you've said is an argument. You're all for the burrying your head in the sand while the Taliban get their hands on nuclear weapons.

This is a nieve, foolish, course of action that WILL NEVER COME TO PASS because people like myself will step up and prevent it.
 
Nobody was talking about an invasion. You assumed that ... and guess what the makes you!
You talk about it all the time mate.


And ... you would be wrong. We cannot wait for the Taliban to get the nukes BEFORE we take action. That is not how things work.
They are not likely to get these short range nukes, they have been beaten back, they were never likely to get them.
Nothing you've said is an argument.
Yes it is, it had relevant premises, logic and conclusions. It wasn't just accusing people of burying their heads in the sand without really showing how and what this means.


This is a nieve, foolish, course of action that WILL NEVER COME TO PASS because people like myself will step up and prevent it.
Not an argument. But if you want to fly to Pakistan I won't stop you.;)
 
-- 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!!!!!

That would happen much faster if US troops went into Pakistan - invited or uninvited. Better in this instance not to radicalise the local population against you.

-- 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 --

Pakistan served as safe harbour for the Taliban who invade each spring into Afghanistan killing US, UK and Canadian troops. However, there will be some Pakistanis who do dislike the Taliban (whatever name you wish to call them) and many are in power - better to strengthen their arm than undermine them and see them removed by preemptive action.
 
We are talking about preventing it from falling by driving the Taliban out of the area.

Yes and your proposed method of doing so [correct we if im wrong] is armed incursion without the permission of the pakistani government. Juding from historical precedent [e.g iran during/after ww2] your proposed course of action would destabilise the government to the extent thats its basically a non entity. This would necessitate its being replaced. Its perfectly valid to ask how you would replace it given that you proposed this course of action.
 
Yes and your proposed method of doing so [correct we if im wrong] is armed incursion without the permission of the pakistani government. Juding from historical precedent [e.g iran during/after ww2] your proposed course of action would destabilise the government to the extent thats its basically a non entity. This would necessitate its being replaced. Its perfectly valid to ask how you would replace it given that you proposed this course of action.

WRONG.

Driving the Taliban out is NOT going to destabilize the government. That is liberal rhetoric.

Your question is invalid.
 
WRONG.

Driving the Taliban out is NOT going to destabilize the government. That is liberal rhetoric.

Your question is invalid.

No my question is based on historical precedence. Why dont you provide evidence to the contrary?
 
Iran is a nation run by terrorists.

In any event, Iran is not a valid comparison.

Which makes little sence given that I was refering to the downfall of the Qajar dynasty [which i wrongly claimed happend after ww2 when it acutally happend after ww1]. Anyway you,ve yet to explain why it wasnt a valid comparison. Like ive said if foriegn troops entered pakistan without permission the Pakistani army would try to remove them (as they have stated themselves). This would envitably result in a confrontation. Do you honestly belive this would have no destabilising effect attal? What are you basing this on?
 
Last edited:
It is liberal rhetoric that massive incursions violating national sovereignty don't tend to destabilise gov'ts?:roll:

Yes, it is.

Nobody said ANYTHING about a massive incursion except the liberals.

We're talking about keeping nukes out of the hands of Taliban morons. You're talking about an invasion. The two are NOT related.

Besides ... I have yet to meet a true old-left liberal who had the slightest clue how military operations work.
 
Which makes little sence given that I was refering to the downfall of the Qajar dynasty [which i wrongly claimed happend after ww2 when it acutally happend after ww1]. Anyway you,ve yet to explain why it wasnt a valid comparison. Like ive said if foriegn troops entered pakistan without permission the Pakistani army would try to remove them (as they have stated themselves). This would envitably result in a confrontation. Do you honestly belive this would have no destabilising effect attal? What are you basing this on?


Again ... the point you're missing is that NOBODY is talking about deploying troops. You created that falacy.

There are other ways to intervene.
 
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.
This is why no one takes you seriously. Is this your attempt at intelligent discourse?

You continue to spew ignorant, hyperpartisan oral diarrhea all over this forum and it gets old quick. No one likes a partisan parrot. Either make an intelligent, fact-based argument or stop posting.
 
Again ... the point you're missing is that NOBODY is talking about deploying troops. You created that falacy.

There are other ways to intervene.

Then what other form would this attack take?
 
Again ... the point you're missing is that NOBODY is talking about deploying troops. You created that falacy.

There are other ways to intervene.

Well, I suggested that we give the Pakistani government diplomatic, financial, and military assistance. You criticized that idea, saying it was "typical liberal rhetoric" and helpfully suggesting that I was "not qualified to discuss the topic."

So if deploying troops is a no-go, and helping the Pakistani troops is a non-starter, what kind of intervention DO you want? :confused:
 
Zyphlin lets go and do it,anyone who threatens the USA,we will just give them the Strapp again,the pakis are rubbish and so as all the rest who tries to
undermine this great country of the USA,and we will back everyway,also Laila will as well.

so there u go,back u guys to the hilt as u have done for us here in the United Kinkdom.

mikeey.


PS Lailla are u a M U supporter.haha i am a Celt the same as Gorbals Mick
the speaker of the house,sobe it from the east end of glasgow.
 
Yes, it is.

Nobody said ANYTHING about a massive incursion except the liberals.

We're talking about keeping nukes out of the hands of Taliban morons. You're talking about an invasion. The two are NOT related.
Oh come on, you go on about it all the time. When baldly pronounce the need to depose people and such all the time, what do you think people are going to take away from that?

You still haven't defined the Taliban.
Besides ... I have yet to meet a true old-left liberal who had the slightest clue how military operations work.

What does that have to do with me? The person who set up the traditionalists usergroup on this site.:confused:
 
This is why no one takes you seriously. Is this your attempt at intelligent discourse?

You continue to spew ignorant, hyperpartisan oral diarrhea all over this forum and it gets old quick. No one likes a partisan parrot. Either make an intelligent, fact-based argument or stop posting.

Egoff,

Who let you out of your cage?

:mrgreen:
 
Last edited:
Well, I suggested that we give the Pakistani government diplomatic, financial, and military assistance. You criticized that idea, saying it was "typical liberal rhetoric" and helpfully suggesting that I was "not qualified to discuss the topic."

So if deploying troops is a no-go, and helping the Pakistani troops is a non-starter, what kind of intervention DO you want? :confused:

The best way to handle it is to conduct missile strikes on all known Taliban strongholds.

Yes, there will be civilian casualties; however, casualties are a part of war. Those people chose to live with the Taliban ****bags; therefore, they must be willing to accept the consequences of their choice.

I am not a fan of slaughtering civilians; however, we CANNOT allow the Taliban ****bags to hide among civilians and expect to be safe from attack.

The Taliban is an Al Qaeda-friendly group. Therefore, they must utterly and completely annihilated.

It seems harash I know! War is filled with hard choices and terrible losses that seem to go on without end. War sucks!

The Taliban hid Bin Laden and his scumbag buddies ... now they can pay the cost of that foolish decision.

So ... when the Taliban begin closing in on a country with nuclear arms; I say WIPE THE TALIBAN OUT.

However, in lieu of that, I think the best course of action is drone-based missile strikes on Taliban outposts.

This will keep the Taliban from building up forces for an assault on Pakistani territory.
 
The best way to handle it is to conduct missile strikes on all known Taliban strongholds.

Yes, there will be civilian casualties; however, casualties are a part of war. Those people chose to live with the Taliban ****bags; therefore, they must be willing to accept the consequences of their choice.

I am not a fan of slaughtering civilians; however, we CANNOT allow the Taliban ****bags to hide among civilians and expect to be safe from attack.

The Taliban is an Al Qaeda-friendly group. Therefore, they must utterly and completely annihilated.

It seems harash I know! War is filled with hard choices and terrible losses that seem to go on without end. War sucks!

The Taliban hid Bin Laden and his scumbag buddies ... now they can pay the cost of that foolish decision.

So ... when the Taliban begin closing in on a country with nuclear arms; I say WIPE THE TALIBAN OUT.

However, in lieu of that, I think the best course of action is drone-based missile strikes on Taliban outposts.

This will keep the Taliban from building up forces for an assault on Pakistani territory.

Missile strikes are only good at destroying major facilities or camps. And you can count the number of those under Taliban control on one hand.

The only way to stop the Taliban from advancing is with troops on the ground...either ours or Pakistan's. It would be a mistake to put our own troops on the ground, since that would further radicalize the population and destabilize the government at precisely the moment when we cannot afford to do that. For that matter, missile strikes would do the same thing...and would be less effective at accomplishing the goal in the first place.

The only sensible course of action right now is to assist Pakistan's military behind the scenes.
 
Back
Top Bottom