Steve

The biggest problem, I think, is Afghanistan is so backward, so tribal, and so strange (to us) that, I think we should have just gone in, tried to kill/capture as many as we could, and leave. If they reconstituted the camps, flatten them. Rinse and repeat as necessary.

In hindsight, I agree. However, now that we are in deep, it is a much tougher decision. What would happen if we just left now?

Ray Jay wrote:Steve

The biggest problem, I think, is Afghanistan is so backward, so tribal, and so strange (to us) that, I think we should have just gone in, tried to kill/capture as many as we could, and leave. If they reconstituted the camps, flatten them. Rinse and repeat as necessary.

In hindsight, I agree. However, now that we are in deep, it is a much tougher decision. What would happen if we just left now?

Probably a major propaganda victory for Islamists and instability in Pakistan. That's why I think if we're going to do something like this, we have to secure the nukes. After that, we can keep them scrambling with missiles, airstrikes, and occasional Special Ops missions.

I don't think we should be expending American lives to try to drag the Islamic version of the Flintstones into the 17th Century. The price is too high. We hear progress is being made. Okay, all I know is the war still goes on and some of the men I talk to are pretty messed up from watching their buddies get blown up because, in part, of the restrictive ROE's. No police officer in the US would work under the rules our troops have to work under.

1) expand the conflict into Pakistan by either invading the areas AQ is in or by stealing their nukes, or both; 2) Leaving and regularly (and indiscriminately) bombing suspected terrorist training camps

1) So you would go to war with Pakistan?
Steal their nukes? You're kidding right? You have any idea of the logistics involved in this James Bond?

2) So you're supportive of the Drone missions that Obama has been stressing over the last two years?

rickyp wrote:1) expand the conflict into Pakistan by either invading the areas AQ is in or by stealing their nukes, or both; 2) Leaving and regularly (and indiscriminately) bombing suspected terrorist training camps

1) So you would go to war with Pakistan?
Steal their nukes? You're kidding right? You have any idea of the logistics involved in this James Bond?

We can't leave and let AQ or its allies get the nukes. If that means stealing them, destroying them, or doing something else to neutralize them, then yeah, that's what we have to do. It could be finding a ruthless dictator to install, but nuclear weapons cannot be in the hands of Islamists. Period.

2) So you're supportive of the Drone missions that Obama has been stressing over the last two years?

Don't leave off the first part: leaving.

Steve, do you really think that stealing another country's nuclear arsenal would not raise a huge amount of problems? If Pakistan was in any way likely to work against extremism, that would be one thing to guarantee it wouldn't. Perhaps you don't understand the history of nuclear proliferation in the Indian Subcontinent.

danivon wrote:Steve, do you really think that stealing another country's nuclear arsenal would not raise a huge amount of problems? If Pakistan was in any way likely to work against extremism, that would be one thing to guarantee it wouldn't. Perhaps you don't understand the history of nuclear proliferation in the Indian Subcontinent.

Will the history of nuclear proliferation matter when there is a mushroom cloud over Jerusalem?

I'm sure it will cause problems. I'm not suggesting it as the first order of business. I am saying the status quo is merely feeding Americans into a war zone without much purpose. As an American, I find that unacceptable. We need to change course.

steve

We can't leave and let AQ or its allies get the nukes

Pakistan's military has nukes as a deterent to India. They are, according to Pentagon reports, very secure and professionnally managed and protected in extremally secure locations . What makes you think the AQ represent a genuine threat to them or that they have the knowledged required to operate them, and retarget them? (Right now, I think New Delhi would be worried not Jeruselum)

rickyp wrote:steve

We can't leave and let AQ or its allies get the nukes

Pakistan's military has nukes as a deterent to India. They are, according to Pentagon reports, very secure and professionnally managed and protected in extremally secure locations .

Uh-huh. These are the same people who in 10 years haven't been able to find OBL. How many times have they been wrong?

We know Pakistan's intel service and government are rife with Islamists. If we pull out, we are rolling the dice on these nukes.

As for India, I, personally, am not that worried about them launching. If Obama is, maybe he should mediate in their border disputes (Kashmir, etc.).

What makes you think the AQ represent a genuine threat to them or that they have the knowledged required to operate them, and retarget them? (Right now, I think New Delhi would be worried not Jeruselum)

Of course, you're the guy who thinks AQ is not involved in Libya, so . . . your credibility is about . . . zero.

What would the terrorists love to have their hands on more than anything? Nukes. What is the least stable (meaning easiest to topple) government with nuclear weapons? I vote for Pakistan.

steve

If we pull out, we are rolling the dice on these nukes

.

In what way is the US currently involved in securing the Pakistan nuclear arsenal?
When you say "if we pull out" ? what on earth are you talking about? The entire US military presence in Pakistan is limited to 70 advisors - and even they aren't officially admitted . They have nothing to do with nuclear security.
Pakistan have been unilaterally responsible for the security of their nuclear arsenal since they developed the capability.

source:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/23/world/asia/23terror.html

rickyp wrote:steve

If we pull out, we are rolling the dice on these nukes

.

In what way is the US currently involved in securing the Pakistan nuclear arsenal?

I have seen Secretary Gates assure Congress the nukes are safe. He didn't tell the world how he knew.

When you say "if we pull out" ? what on earth are you talking about? The entire US military presence in Pakistan is limited to 70 advisors - and even they aren't officially admitted . They have nothing to do with nuclear security.

I know it's hard, but try to pay attention. I said, on a few occasions, if we pull out of Afghanistan . . . there would be consequences in Pakistan, probably the collapse of the government. If that happens, who is securing those nukes?

Answer: whoever comes to power.

There is a reasonable chance that party may have Islamist leanings.

steve

if we pull out of Afghanistan . . . there would be consequences in Pakistan, probably the collapse of the government

Why?
Becasue the Taliban would come to power again?
And who are the friends of the Taliban? That is, who helped the Taliban for years against the Russians? Pakistan. Specifically Pakistani intellligence. Were the Pakistani nukes somehow threatened the last time the Taliban were in power in Afghanistan?

I have seen Secretary Gates assure Congress the nukes are safe. He didn't tell the world how he knew

But he never said that US presence in Afghanistan or Pakistan was required for their security did he? So, again, what evidence do you have for your theory that the security of the Pakistani nukes are threatened by a US pull out?

rickyp wrote:steve

if we pull out of Afghanistan . . . there would be consequences in Pakistan, probably the collapse of the government

Why?
Becasue the Taliban would come to power again?
And who are the friends of the Taliban? That is, who helped the Taliban for years against the Russians? Pakistan. Specifically Pakistani intellligence. Were the Pakistani nukes somehow threatened the last time the Taliban were in power in Afghanistan?

I have seen Secretary Gates assure Congress the nukes are safe. He didn't tell the world how he knew

But he never said that US presence in Afghanistan or Pakistan was required for their security did he? So, again, what evidence do you have for your theory that the security of the Pakistani nukes are threatened by a US pull out?

Well, my good friend, Osama, tells me . . .

You are incredible. And, that's not good.