The Liberal Gun Club Forum

It just keeps getting better and better...
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/worl ... 538305.cms

Washington is thick with speculation about American contingency plans in the event of a nuclear heist in Pakistan, notwithstanding assurances (most notably by Senator John Kerry) that the US has no designs on Pakistani nukes. But every U.S statement is dissected in Pakistan for hidden meanings amid fears that Washington is planning to neutralize its nuclear arsenal.

I particularly like the part where the article asserts that the US has "forked out over $100 million to improve their security"...and has no idea how the money was spent.

If we cut troop numbers to 20k in Astan, we could airlift supplies instead of going through Pstan. Sounds like a win win. On the other hand, the prezinent is an awfully sharp guy and if he says we need to keep the same numbers for now, I'm sure he has a good reason.

Oldskool wrote:On the other hand, the prezinent is an awfully sharp guy and if he says we need to keep the same numbers for now, I'm sure he has a good reason.

The problem I have with this is, the american public has been burned a number of times in living memory by trusting the guy that was in the oval either through evidence he was awfully sharp or by sheer presumption that the dude in there must be awfully sharp. We've got plenty of bodybags and PTSD scars to show for that trust.

I'd like some reasons. Don't trust the next generation of pakistani military leaders? Potus can quit dancing on the head of a pin and go ahead and say it's hard to imagine none of those next gen leaders were complicit in hiding OBL, so some caution in the form of some dedicated boots on the ground near an al queda friendly nuclear armed nation is prudent. I'm not going to assume that's his reason just because he's sharp, dick cheney and karl rove are also sharp guys. Sharp isn't good enough anymore, not for me, and the reasons that are left blank are just as indicative as the reasons that are given.

"dick cheney and karl rove are also sharp guys"

They were sharp as far as idealogical con artists go, but they don't have much else upstairs. It's hard to accuse Obama of being idealogical about much of anything. I think right now he's hanging Pakistanis out to dry and I think the way the OBL raid was carried out was a part of that strategy. He knew how much it would embarrass them and he knew he would have that much more leverage if they complained about it.

That's just it. You think it, but you don't know. The general public doesn't know, it's a blank spot that we're filling in according to our own personal rorschach style responses. Leverage to what end, a purging of the lower ranks of the paki military of AQ affiliates? A rehab of the US image to salvage those lower ranks of officers so that there's less friction later on? A careful setting up of possible emergency plans just in case a few of those AQ friendly lower officers open a path for some militant group to get hold of nuclear material for a dirty bomb? What's the correct thing to fill in the blank? I'm no longer happy 'thinking' it is one way or another. I'm sick of being handed press briefings where nothing is substantially outlined. It's our collective ass that has to cover the checks these presidents write, and the usual song and dance has to go.

I'm going to play my old age card here. When I was born, Eisenhower was in his second year of office. In 1960, my mom took me and my brother to the airport to see John Kennedy when he was running for president. I grew up watching him and Johnson and then all the rest. It's not hard to tell the good presidents from the bad ones and its not hard to see that they all get stuck with shitty deals left over from the last guy.

Looking at the players, it is easy to become pessimistic. These guys have been at each other's throats for a thousand years. Tribal, religious...they don't care, one reason is as good as the other to kill.

It really isn't any secret that Pakistan wanted to absorb Afghanistan after the Soviets departed, or was hoping anyway. It is why Pakistan was so demanding of us, as we provided aid to the Afghans, that we do it through them, and as Pakistan was the only way into Afghanistan, we were left little choice (other than to not get involved...)

Pakistan insisted that the aid [including, among other things, thousands of AK's (purchased for about $100.00 each from China), a bunch of 12 and 14mm anti-air guns and ultimately Stingers] go to them and they would dole it out.

They, in turn, sent it off to a religious zealot named Haqani, whom they counted on to be supportive and ultimately brought forth the Taliban, while ignoring a moderate, pro west guerrilla, named Massoud. All of this because Pakistan wanted an ally in its dispute with India. All while promising up the ass that they were not pursuing nuclear weapons.

Edit: We wouldn't let the Paki's have the Stingers...we gave those out ourselves, and replaced them only when an empty tube was returned