Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
RE: Pakistan
You know, even people who acknowledge the true extent of the mess that was the Iraq invasion, still claim that the War in Afghanistan is defensible due to the fact that the Taliban were a bunch of inhuman theocratic dictators who sponsored terrorism and provided sanctuary to the perpetrators of 9/11. I can understand that logic and the support it gets.
However, at the same time, Pakistan has been acting as an ever bigger backer to those very terror groups the West is fighting against, is only marginally less ghastly than Taliban Afghanistan used to be in terms of repression and even hosted Osama fucking Bin Laden for the last years of his life.
So, using the same logic, why hasn't that country suffered repercussions as well, yet?
It is sometimes an appropriate response to reality to go insane.Because Pakistan actually has got WM Ds.
Seriously, support for Pakistan basically boils down to nobody wanting the Pakistani nukes to go walkabout.
edited 19th Sep '16 11:02:55 AM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran![]()
Because they have nukes. Also we need them to resupply our forces in Afghanistan. That and they have worked with us sometimes, they gave us Kallied Shiekh Mohamed, and have launched offensives in the Tribal areas. The true extent of Pakistan's backing for Islamists has only become apparent during the Obama administration, and relations have suffered since.
edited 19th Sep '16 11:04:14 AM by JackOLantern1337
I Bring Doom,and a bit of gloom, but mostly gloom.India also has nukes. It can, too, supply Allied troops in Afghanistan through Kashmir, has a much larger economic clout than Pakistan, has a developed civil society and is actually a democracy (if a corrupt and disfucntional one).
It'd not only be a much better trade partner and anti-terrorism ally than Pakistan is, but it'd also make a very good regional ally against Chinese influence. And yet, for some reason, the way it's been treated the past few decades ranges from cold to outright hostile.
edited 19th Sep '16 11:16:30 AM by LogoP
It is sometimes an appropriate response to reality to go insane.![]()
And according to our page called The Moscow Criterion, the criteria for Pakistan's use of Nuclear Weapons are completely unknownnote .
edited 19th Sep '16 11:17:48 AM by Greenmantle
Keep Rolling On![]()
I wouldn't say India's been treated coldly except when it comes to public backlash against outsourcing.
On the other hand though, the even more dicey issue with India and Pakistan is keeping them from launching nukes at each other. Presumably this is easier to do with Pakistan willing to talk with the West than otherwise.
Also, Pakistan is a parliamentary republic, more or less the same way India is.
edited 19th Sep '16 11:26:44 AM by Elle
Pakistan is also somewhat schizophrenic. Various factions within their government (and outside it, as well) are various levels of hostile to us, friendly with us, and don't particularly like us but are willing to work with us. This is why Osama bin Laden was able to live there for so long — one group was hiding him, until another group told us about him (or at least unofficially approved the strike against him — we'll probably never know exactly how much of an inside job that whole intelligence operation was).
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.And people wonder why everyone wants those. There's hardly a bigger "FUCK OFF" sign available. It is arguably because of nukes that Pakistan and India are merely at each other's throats rather than actively indulging in regional conflict.
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.Russia and China aren't at risk of collapsing and having their nukes go walkabout if the US pulls support, not even North Korea is as unstable.
It's not just that they have nukes, they have nukes and are unstable enough that if not supported said nukes could end up in the hands of people willing to use them against the US.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranAgreed with those saying why we support Pakistan. However, there is a good point that the way we are supporting them does not help in the long term, since it perpetuates the very instability that makes us fear the walkabout scenario.
Speaking of them and India, 17 Indian soldiers recently died on the Line of Control due to infiltration from Pakistan. Lot of debate over there about retaliation, so the situation between those two isn't exactly peachy at the moment.
It might have been a good idea, when we were thinking of invading Iraq, to think about invading Pakistan instead out of pure desire to take the nukes out of their hands.
I mean, "unstable nuclear power" is the definition of an existential threat to humankind. If we can't fight a war against that, who can we fight a war against? (Oh, right: someone with oil.)
Most recently? Do I talk about how Trump blamed Clinton for the Birther movement, the infamous Clinton email server, the whole thing about something being medically wrong with Clinton before we actually knew she had pnuemonia, or do I just say Benghazi? Feel free to take your pick of Clinton controversies that the Republicans have been trying to stick to the Clintons since Bill was President!
edited 19th Sep '16 12:38:28 PM by GameGuruGG
Wizard Needs Food BadlyGranted, in 2003, Pakistan's missile tech wasn't quite as good as it is now. Even now, it's not like they have ICB Ms like India and China do.
![]()
Yes in the sense that in the time it takes American forces to secure the area AQ or the Taliban will have probably made off with at least one nuke and start trying to ship it to the US on a container ship.
Pakistani missiles might not reach but terrorist groups with a Pakistani nuke might be able to walk the nuke. Plus Pakistani missiles could almost certain reach US bases in Afghanistan and probably the Gulf.
edited 19th Sep '16 12:58:17 PM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran

1) That America was propping up Muslim dictators.
2) That America had bases on their land.
3) That they were opressing the Palestinians.
I honestly believe that if these problems were adressed people in the Muslim world would be less willing to attack us.
edited 19th Sep '16 10:57:35 AM by 940131