Pakistan arrests five CIA assets who were instrumental in getting OBL

If we werent already in a drained economy, still in 2 wars, you may have some merit, but we cant afford another war.

Hell people lost their shit from just military operations in Libya. A full on war? Yeah no.

Also my friend says random detaining and bullying is nothing new in the espionage world.

edited 15th Jun '11 7:43:42 PM by Thorn14

@Tom and co.: Cut off aid to Pakistan? That sounds like a pragmatic solution; we're not going to do it.

We have literally no reason not to.

We've already started cutting funding for Pakistan, and I'm sure these arrest are going to prompt further cuts.

The problem is, as has been noted, Pakistan is a nuclear power that's about one crisis away from failing altogether. Their economic condition is not very good, they could well fail altogether without our aid. And before you think that that isn't our concern, remember that any launch is pretty much a full launch-military planners don't talk about local nuclear exchanges for a reason. One goes, it's almost guaranteed the rest go.

Then you have the much more likely scenario of nuclear material and other weapons going "missing" during any civil war/collapse-their stuff is even less secure than Russian material.

There's just too many damn sides to Pakistan for any easy solution-the ISI is almost a separate entity to the military, which sorta kinda rules with the fairly incompetent civilian government, sometimes, except when it doesn't feel like it, there's a large faction of Islamic extremists, who the ISI have been trying to use/helping but nobody wants to say anything because they want Pakistan's help/to help Pakistan, and the people themselves, needless to say, aren't living in the best of conditions.

So please, before you advocate something stupid like invading, consider what that would entail (hint hint a massive clusterfuck of problems and probably a nuclear exchange)

edited 15th Jun '11 7:59:56 PM by deathjavu

If you cut off the aid, all the American companies getting graft from it will be upset.

So, no, it's not going to happen, even if it would do any good. Which it wouldn't. You'd just lose whatever chance you'd have of having any friends, and give the enemies support, because then they'd be able to point and say that America was faithless. You need to find somebody to buy, anybody, or you'll end up with no friends.

It's a losing scenario to do nothing.

edited 15th Jun '11 8:01:13 PM by blueharp

^^ In all honesty that kinda sounds like a step up from the backstabbing relationship Pakistan is giving us lately.

^ We lose either way politically regarding Pakistan, so just cut the crap and do it.

edited 15th Jun '11 8:02:10 PM by MajorTom

We've already cut the aid by 75% (and I'm betting that was a factor in the arrests, unless my timing is off), and a little known fact about the aid: the figures given are just what are PROMISED to Pakistan...they haven't actually gotten all of it apparently, which is why the Pakistanis think the US is full of shit when it comes to the "Do more because we pay you" thing.

In other words, the removal of the carrot doesn't do us much good..we already played that card.

As for war, I can think of so many reasons why we shouldn't. What we really need are actual imaginative solutions.

Like assisting the Balochi nationalist movement. Or something.

Just leave and let India and Pakistan have that fight they`ve been prepping for.

US needs India as a hedge on China. India is also no small piece of the global economy. So letting that happen is not good.

That would draw us in either way, we're in the region ya know. (Then again we'd probably work with the Indians and give the big You Have Failed Me schtick to Pakistan in that case.)

A nuclear exchange/missing nuclear material is a step up from non-cooperation, assisting the Taliban and arresting our informants?

There's just no talking to you, Tom.

There's a lot of good stuff in This NPR story. I knew there were other things that Pakistan did recently that were basically cutting ties with the US, but I couldn't remember what-they kicked out some of our diplomatic personnel as well as trainers we had there; the funny part being that kicking out our trainers is bad for them as well.

Let India and Pakistan go at it? Really?

We did mention those are both nuclear powers, right? And that nuclear exchanges probably wouldn't stay local? And that even in a non-nuclear war, China could well get involved? And then we're involved whether we like it or not.

edited 15th Jun '11 8:10:37 PM by deathjavu

x31

Sure, why not? It won't accomplish anything, but hey, if it makes you feel better, go for it.

edited 15th Jun '11 8:08:44 PM by blueharp

Okay, so we stop writing them checks to screw us over with.

Then we sit back and wait to see what that actually does, before doing more.

RE: India and Pakistani war - tough situation, as yeah, both are nuclear-armed. I could see that spilling all over the place if they went hot again, and complicating our mission in Afghanistan a hell of a lot.

edited 15th Jun '11 8:13:50 PM by pvtnum11

The checks were never going to be all that effective in getting their help anyways-they know we won't be around in Afghanistan forever, but they'll always share a border with em.

The aid could almost be viewed as more of an excuse to prop up their government/economy than anything.

edited 15th Jun '11 8:14:37 PM by deathjavu

It's coming a head either way, I'd rather India lose men then us.

edited 15th Jun '11 8:14:54 PM by thatguythere47

...it's not a question of "who's losing men." That's an overly simplistic view of warfare and international relations.

A better question, rather than "who would be in (a conflict between India and Pakistan)", but rather who would be lucky enough to be out. *

Also, nothing is inevitable-sometimes it looks that way in hindsight in history, but it's just not the case. I challenge your assertion that it's "coming to a head anyways", unless you have a functioning crystal ball.

edited 15th Jun '11 8:19:38 PM by deathjavu

^^ That's a rather cold-hearted view to take, but the pragmatic inside me agrees with it.

Which kind of disturbs me; I'm not all keen on the "Lets you and him fight" mentality.

Still, we really can't afford to get involved in yet another war.

edited 15th Jun '11 8:19:25 PM by pvtnum11

It's not a matter of getting involved in the war, it's trying desperately to make sure one doesn't happen.

Yes, and I'm curious if our aid money is acting to prevent them from going totally off the deep end.

I think Major Tom might, rather, be a Sociopathic Soldier, he sees the citizens of any country rather hostile toward us as "Them", and that they aren't even human to him.

Thus, cutting off aid to human beings who probably need it would be no great crime to him.

And since our country is currently lead by "Bleeding Heart" Liberals, though, we are not going to attack them or do anything so barbaric to people living in poverty and constantly afraid of someone attacking them.

Because we liberals have a thing called appreciation of Not-United States or Allied Life.

^^^ I'm pretty sure that ship has already sailed and we can do nothing more to prevent the slide into war.

Just like has already happened over North Korea and Iran.

^ Some people are plain and simply put, Not Worth Saving.

edited 15th Jun '11 8:26:23 PM by MajorTom

"...it's not a question of "who's losing men." That's an overly simplistic view of warfare and international relations."

It doesn't need to be complicated. Pakistan/India have been getting ready for an all out brawl for quite some time. A cold war, if you will. I'd rather just sit back and either let Pakistan collapse/India wipe them out. Much more cost efficient then storming the mountains and losing our lives when someone else is willing to do it.

edited 15th Jun '11 8:32:41 PM by thatguythere47

History isn't inevitable, and your assessment isn't infallible. Either provide proof that you can see the near future or rephrase that statement.

Unless of course you mean those regions will be at war at some unspecified point in the future, which is pretty much a valueless statement. But I'm pretty sure you meant the near future, which is un-provable.

Not to mention that such prophecies are often self-fulfilling. You keep treating a country like it's going to go to war with you, and guess what: eventually, it'll probably go to war with you over that shitty treatment.

edited 15th Jun '11 8:36:28 PM by deathjavu

Oh how I wish I could remember that Jesus sockpuppet's password...

It's speculation guy, we make predictions based off of what we know. We know two countries that have a history of hating each other are getting ready for war. It's not unreasonable to assume that the outcome of such planning is war/total collapse.

We know that we cannot afford another war and we don't want one so the simplest solution is to let everybody do their thang and then sell them resources at a jacked price. It got us out of one depression right?

edited 15th Jun '11 8:40:17 PM by thatguythere47

Or... just a bunch of angry rhetoric, saber-rattling and chilled relations for the forseeable future.

Better than a shooting war, anyway.