|
Pakistan is cracking (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| cronodevir |
| quote: | Originally posted by malek
easy just bomb pakistan back to the middle ages. |
Pakistan also has nuclear weapons. And the ablity to use them on any country it wants. |
|
|
| Purple |
| What will happen to the nukes in Pakistan if it cracks?:) |
|
|
| cronodevir |
| Maby they will get into the proper hands to balence the power, so the USA won't think so highly of itself. I hope the worst people get them. That will cuase USA to think again when doing stupid like Operation Iraq |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by cronodevir
Maby they will get into the proper hands to balence the power, so the USA won't think so highly of itself. I hope the worst people get them. That will cuase USA to think again when doing stupid like Operation Iraq |
LOL...
That's some dreamy thinking. You actually think the US or its allies will let Taliban militants have nuclear weapons? Or India and Iran for that matter? You must be out of your mind:whip: |
|
|
| cronodevir |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
LOL...
That's some dreamy thinking. You actually think the US or its allies will let Taliban militants have nuclear weapons? Or India and Iran for that matter? You must be out of your mind:whip: |
Do you actually think the US and its allies have the ability to do anything about it?
India already has nuclear weapons. So does pakistan. And China and Russia, all who don't have any problem trading with Iran. |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by cronodevir
Do you actually think the US and its allies have the ability to do anything about it?
India already has nuclear weapons. So does pakistan. And China and Russia, all who don't have any problem trading with Iran. |
Most certainly they can do something. Just because they're not talking about it doesn't mean they can't intervene. It is most certainly within the power of NATO or the US to intervene in Pakistan, as much as I and you would not like them to.
The difference between India and a potential Talibanized Pakistan is India isn't ruled by a radicalized government. Are you saying you would trust fundamentalist jihadists with nuclear weapons? Do you think if they used nukes to 'balance the power of the USA' as you say, the USA would just stand there and watch it happen? Reality-check, the US doesn't stand around and wait for something to happen.
Saddam didn't have WMDs, but if we know without a doubt that Pakistan will be under the control of radical jihadists with a nuclear arsenal, I don't think the USA let alone the international community would stand by and watch. |
|
|
| cronodevir |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
Most certainly they can do something. Just because they're not talking about it doesn't mean they can't intervene. It is most certainly within the power of NATO or the US to intervene in Pakistan, as much as I and you would not like them to.
The difference between India and a potential Talibanized Pakistan is India isn't ruled by a radicalized government. Are you saying you would trust fundamentalist jihadists with nuclear weapons? Do you think if they used nukes to 'balance the power of the USA' as you say, the USA would just stand there and watch it happen? Reality-check, the US doesn't stand around and wait for something to happen.
Saddam didn't have WMDs, but if we know without a doubt that Pakistan will be under the control of radical jihadists with a nuclear arsenal, I don't think the USA let alone the international community would stand by and watch. |
Iraq is proof, that not ameirca, no its europeans allies, have the ability or power...to do anything about those 'jihadists'...sorry. if pakistan is taken over, the US can do nothing. |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by cronodevir
Iraq is proof, that not ameirca, no its europeans allies, have the ability or power...to do anything about those 'jihadists'...sorry. if pakistan is taken over, the US can do nothing. |
Iraq is proof of a borderline civil war. Most of the insurgency are Iraqi nationalists. Al-Qaida plays a limited role in the overall insurgency, with foreigners making up the majority of car bombs and suicide bombers. The success of stability in the Anbar province testafies to the fact that Al-Qaida only maintains an influence when the local population is complicit.
I'm sorry, but the Iraqi insurgency is not jihadist. |
|
|
| cronodevir |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
Iraq is proof of a borderline civil war. Most of the insurgency are Iraqi nationalists. Al-Qaida plays a limited role in the overall insurgency, with foreigners making up the majority of car bombs and suicide bombers. The success of stability in the Anbar province testafies to the fact that Al-Qaida only maintains an influence when the local population is complicit.
I'm sorry, but the Iraqi insurgency is not jihadist. |
What do you think those insurgents are? They are the same as the 'jihadists' only people call them insurgents instead. Further more, it is proof that ameirca is unable to handle simple situations given to them, such as a so called civil war [which isn't a civil war at all, its actually iranians being sent into iraq to keep sunnis out of power.]
Reguardless of who is called what, the situation in Iraq is sevreal thousand times smaller than a people, aquiring a country which has access to nuclear weapons.
The united states army can't handle IDE's, you expect them to handle the threat of nuclear annihaltion? If it actually came to that, of course.
PErsonally, i hope they do get nuclear weapons, because, as i said, it will give a balence of power, if arabs got ahold of nuclear weapons, the tables would be even, they would be able to force ameircans out of the middle east, at the threat of nuclear war. They would be able to force the zionists out of the region. Both of those things, i think are the only thing leading to a better situation in the middle east.
Why do you think ameirca hasn't try to mess with China/Pakistan/India/Russia or any other countres or regions?..because those other coutnries and regions have access to nuclear weapons. If arabs got nukes, the middle east wouldn't be such an easy target for the ameircans to cause as much trouble as they are.
Personally, i believe every country in the world should have access to nuclear weapons, the world would be alot more peaceful than. Because no one would have the upper hand. Well, specificly, the united states and the UN wouldn't have the upperhand. Two of the worst things to hit this planet. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by cronodevir
Further more, it is proof that ameirca is unable to handle simple situations given to them, |
Iraq is simple.
:haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by cronodevir
They would be able to force the zionists out of the region. |
out of what region? |
|
|
| cronodevir |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
out of what region? |
Palestine. The area from egypt to lebenon.
Iraq is a simple situation, a band of people makeing homemade bombs. If the troops can't handle that, and put an end to it, well..pfffffttt....lol |
|
|
|
|
