ISI chief implicated in 9/11

[Deltacamelately]

Maj,

Why would India get squeezed? AFAIK, GoI was not backed in any of her wars.

Doktor,

It ain't no US/Western pressure that might squeeze in India. Its the Paks. They would do every bit to pull in India along, while getting hammered by the US forces.
Once in, it will be a pretty dirty war for all the belligerents.

[Socrates]

it would make the goverrment chosse there peole or the U.S most goverment would chosse to stay in power

[Doktor]

Doktor,

It ain't no US/Western pressure that might squeeze in India. Its the Paks. They would do every bit to pull in India along, while getting hammered by the US forces.
Once in, it will be a pretty dirty war for all the belligerents.

Maj,

Thanks, for clarifying.

This is the same logic with Iran will hit Israel, Bahrain and other nations that are friendly to USA in case of attack from US?

Personally, I have issues with that logic. If a country is being attacked by the US military, their C&C will be hit first and hard. At least this is how I got it from Iraq and Serbia.

How will they launch attacks on anyone after that?

Then, there is the "get the nukes first" addition wrt Pakistan which makes the math weird.

[lemontree]

Wouldn't have worked - Pakistan is not Iraq, there is no 'majority sect oppressed by a minority dictator'. A US invasion would have only united the majority of the population of Pakistan, with only the handful of Baloch and Sindhi Feudal controlled groups aligning themselves with a US government.

Your comment illustrates the problem with the thinking in US policy making circles - a detached, simplistic, 'head in the clouds' type of policy prescription for complex problems.

Pakistan as you see it are the Punjabi muslim sunnis.....the Baloch, Sindhis and Baltis would have sided with the US.
Irrespective of that, the US would have bombed you back to the stone age.

You have to get out of your "head in the clouds" type of belief that Pakistan is invincible.

[Deltacamelately]

Maj,

Thanks, for clarifying.

This is the same logic with Iran will hit Israel, Bahrain and other nations that are friendly to USA in case of attack from US?

Personally, I have issues with that logic. If a country is being attacked by the US military, their C&C will be hit first and hard. At least this is how I got it from Iraq and Serbia.

How will they launch attacks on anyone after that?

Then, there is the "get the nukes first" addition wrt Pakistan which makes the math weird.

The PA Generals, or atleast a section of them are paranoid about India. They want to start afresh, i.e. to compete with India starting from scratch, even if it means starting the race with both sides wielding wooden spears instead of guns and fighters. They don't want to go down alone, rather pull India alongwith.

How/if they manage this is debatable, but they are likely to rush to their eastern borders with the first American bomb dropping on their head.

[Agnostic Muslim]

Pakistan as you see it are the Punjabi muslim sunnis.....

No, that is how you and many other rabid anti-Pakistan commentators see it.

the Baloch, Sindhis and Baltis would have sided with the US.

Only the Sardar/Wadera controlled Baloch and Sindhi tribes would side with the US, and together they make up an insignificant minority. Both Sindh and Balochistan have a significant population of Pakhtun, Punjabis and Muhajir groups, so there would be no 'neat and tidy delineation of warring sides' even in Sindh and Balochistan, and outside of India, no one really buys the argument of the residents of the Northern Areas supporting India or the US.

Irrespective of that, the US would have bombed you back to the stone age.

That was not the point I was responding to, it was the claim by Zraver that an Iraq style transitional government would be in place in Pakistan right now had the US attacked Pakistan instead of Iraq.

You have to get out of your "head in the clouds" type of belief that Pakistan is invincible.

Understanding my posts before you comment would really help.

[Agnostic Muslim]

The PA Generals, or atleast a section of them are paranoid about India. They want to start afresh, i.e. to compete with India starting from scratch, even if it means starting the race with both sides wielding wooden spears instead of guns and fighters. They don't want to go down alone, rather pull India alongwith.

How/if they manage this is debatable, but they are likely to rush to their eastern borders with the first American bomb dropping on their head.

The PA Generals are no more paranoid about India than the US Generals were about the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and some conservatives continue to be WRT China and Russia today.

The whole 'start from scratch' canard is based on comments attributed to some retired officer working for some political party - using that to generalize sentiment across the entire PA Officer Corps would be silly.

[lemontree]

No, that is how you and many other rabid anti-Pakistan commentators see it.

Your nation made the world rabid towards your nation, so dont blame us for our views.

Only the Sardar/Wadera controlled Baloch and Sindhi tribes would side with the US, and together they make up an insignificant minority. Both Sindh and Balochistan have a significant population of Pakhtun, Punjabis and Muhajir groups, so there would be no 'neat and tidy delineation of warring sides' even in Sindh and Balochistan, and outside of India, no one really buys the argument of the residents of the Northern Areas supporting India or the US.

That is what you would like to believe.

That was not the point I was responding to, it was the claim by Zraver that an Iraq style transitional government would be in place in Pakistan right now had the US attacked Pakistan instead of Iraq.

I agree with you. When the Pakistanis them selves cannot govern that state, how can a US installed govt govern!

Understanding my posts before you comment would really help

Try sticking to facts and not fairy tale, that would really help.

[zraver]

Wouldn't have worked - Pakistan is not Iraq, there is no 'majority sect oppressed by a minority dictator'. A US invasion would have only united the majority of the population of Pakistan, with only the handful of Baloch and Sindhi Feudal controlled groups aligning themselves with a US government.

Your comment illustrates the problem with the thinking in US policy making circles - a detached, simplistic, 'head in the clouds' type of policy prescription for complex problems.

In 2001 Pakistan had no air force to speak of, no real navy and its best tank was an up-gunned Chicom copy of the T-55 that could not penetrate the Abrams armor or fight at night. Pakistani unity hasn't stopped India, and lately the Pakistani army has been fighting a virtual civil war against the Pashtun part of the country which is only nominally under federal control anyway even at the best of times. Pakistan's unity is so fragile the country has internal passports, the numbers of minorities have been shrinking as they get forced out, extremism not nationalism is the force on the rise...

To this must be added the effects of a US attack. I still say nuclear to make sure the Pakistani nukes stayed dead. That is going to cause shock, to which you must add in the sudden sinking of the Pakistani navy, the collapse of the power grid, attacks on C4SRI assets all on night 1. Then a sustained bombing campaign while the US and UK prepare an invasion force. Tough pickle for Pakistan, any army unit that tries to leave the Indo-pak border gets clobbered by the USAF/USN and leaves its brothers that much weaker if India decides to join the coalition of the willing to teach Pakistan a lesson about supporting terror, after all with the US leading the charge and 9-11 providing political cover at the UN its time for some sub-continental score settling.

While all this is going on, US media outlets interviewing the various talking heads and retired generals start talking about Balouchistan, Pashtunistan and Punjabistan along the lines we see of a new federal semi autonomous arrangement like Iraq (Sunni, Shia, Kurd). Several Pakistani expats along with Bhutto are joined into a Free Pakistan government ready to land in Pakistan and set up a new moderate government.

Bhutto's supporters would be quick to jump on the chance to give the military some payback. Of course the Musharraf (if he is still alive after US air strikes) will probably strike first and repressive measures against Punjabi moderates aligned with Bhutto will certainly not help Pakistani unity.

[Deltacamelately]

Jason. That was mean. :D

[Minskaya]

In 2001 Pakistan had no air force to speak of, no real navy and its best tank was an up-gunned Chicom copy of the T-55 that could not penetrate the Abrams armor or fight at night. Pakistani unity hasn't stopped India, and lately the Pakistani army has been fighting a virtual civil war against the Pashtun part of the country which is only nominally under federal control anyway even at the best of times. Pakistan's unity is so fragile the country has internal passports, the numbers of minorities have been shrinking as they get forced out, extremism not nationalism is the force on the rise....

Pakistan is also a failed monetary state. If the US should entirely cut off all current funding, Pakistan's treasury would be in severe straits within a fortnight.

[Deltacamelately]

The PA Generals are no more paranoid about India than the US Generals were about the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and some conservatives continue to be WRT China and Russia today.

Irrelevant. The paranoia has 60 plus years of forensic evidence.

The whole 'start from scratch' canard is based on comments attributed to some retired officer working for some political party - using that to generalize sentiment across the entire PA Officer Corps would be silly.

It would be a canard only if the entire PA Officer Corps would have managed to preserve the secular and professional attributes it inherited from the British Indian Army. However, a significant section, if not the majority have degraded to that of religious zealots swearing Jihad and training/abetting terrorists. You have your own rights to disagree, but then the world opinion is severly tilting away from what you may want to believe.

[lemontree]

Jason. That was mean. :D

...and I thought that I was being mean, Jason outdid me :D

[lemontree]

Pakistan is also a failed monetary state. If the US should entirely cut off all current funding, Pakistan's treasury would be in severe straits within a fortnight.

Yes, but Pakistan can get funding from the Saudi's and teh Chinese. But with the Chineses they will have to sell themselves, and they are pretty good at that anyways.

[Deltacamelately]

...and I thought that I was being mean, Jason outdid me :D

He presented a scenario which I doubt

i) Either AM and his countrymen have not perceived
ii) They wilfully prefer to ignore

What Pakistan should really really worry is a day when the UN, in whatever scenario, gives a green go ahead and I for one do not believe in Pakistan's invincibility.