Taliban and Pakistan Nukes

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Actually, the vast majority of them are mainly interested in leading a comfortable life. Pissing off the rest of the world so they lose power isn't exactly helping them achieve that.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090505/ap_on_re_as/[WORD TOO LONG]

Pakistan expects 500,000 to flee Taliban fighting


MINGORA, Pakistan – Black-turbaned militants roamed city streets and seized buildings in a northwestern Pakistan valley Tuesday as thousands of people fled fighting between the Taliban and troops that the government said could lead to an exodus of half a million people. The Taliban declared the end of their peace deal with the government.

Buses carrying the residents of Mingora, the region's main town, were crammed inside and out: Refugees clambered onto the roofs after seats and floors filled up. Children and adults alike carried their belongings on their heads and backs — all of them fleeing fighting they fear is about to consume the region.

...

Originally posted by zeeblebot
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090505/ap_on_re_as/[WORD TOO LONG]

Pakistan expects 500,000 to flee Taliban fighting


MINGORA, Pakistan – Black-turbaned militants roamed city streets and seized buil ...[text shortened]... heads and backs — all of them fleeing fighting they fear is about to consume the region.

...

i guess it's ok. they're probably all collaborators.

Originally posted by zeeblebot
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090505/ap_on_re_as/[WORD TOO LONG]

Pakistan expects 500,000 to flee Taliban fighting


MINGORA, Pakistan – Black-turbaned militants roamed city streets and seized buil ...[text shortened]... heads and backs — all of them fleeing fighting they fear is about to consume the region.

...

"While an army offensive would be welcomed abroad, it was far from certain the government would be able to dislodge the militants, who have had three months under the peace deal to rest and reinforce their positions.

Pakistan has waged several offensives in the border region in recent years that have often ended inconclusively amid public anger at civilian casualties. The country's army, trained to fight conventional battles against rival India, is not used to guerrilla warfare.

Washington has called for tougher action, and U.S. officials said Obama would seek assurances from President Asif Ali Zardari that his country's nuclear arsenal was safe and that the military intended to face down extremists in coordination with Afghanistan and the United States.

Although the administration thinks Pakistan's nuclear weapons are secure for now, concern that militants might try to seize one or several of them is acute. The anxieties have heightened amid the Taliban's recent advances, the officials said.

Pakistan is struggling to thwart an increasingly overlapping spectrum of extremist groups, some of whom have enjoyed official support. Few extremist leaders are ever brought to justice.
"

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
What's illegal about the war in Afghanistan?

Well for starters.....why are the US in Afganistan?

If they are in due to 911, where is the proof that the Taliban did this ?

If the US are in Afganistan due to O Bin Laden, then where is the proof ?

You can't go around and destroy a whole country just looking for one man...it just does not make sense

The Afgan people have been in a war like state for over 30 years, they have nothing....

Originally posted by RSMA1234
Well for starters.....why are the US in Afganistan?

If they are in due to 911, where is the proof that the Taliban did this ?

If the US are in Afganistan due to O Bin Laden, then where is the proof ?

You can't go around and destroy a whole country just looking for one man...it just does not make sense

The Afgan people have been in a war like state for over 30 years, they have nothing....

What law did the US break?

Originally posted by FMF
Whatever you say. Tell that to NATO, the US military, and to all those following the story closely.

The bit after "but" in your post seems to indicate that the U.S. didn't trounce anyone, after all - despite your assertion. Trounced people remain trounced. It is in the nature of trouncing.

Not necessarily. The Russians were trounced in the Russo-Japanese War, and they came back. Germany and Japan were trounced only to come back with one of the largest economies...etc.

Originally posted by FMF
I thought you were concerned about the fate of women in Islamic societies. Seems, for you, making a 'joke' about Afghan women trumped looking RAWA up.

I seriously thought that was whom you referring....OK, I looked up RAWA, and it has a snowball's chance in hell if the Taliban take over Afghanistan...

Originally posted by RSMA1234
Well for starters.....why are the US in Afganistan?

If they are in due to 911, where is the proof that the Taliban did this ?

If the US are in Afganistan due to O Bin Laden, then where is the proof ?

You can't go around and destroy a whole country just looking for one man...it just does not make sense

The Afgan people have been in a war like state for over 30 years, they have nothing....

The US didn't destroy anything in Afghanistan except some caves and camps harboring 7th-century cretins who admitted as much their part in 9-11. Now, women can go to school (if they aren't blinded by some well-intentioned fanatical Muslim).

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Possibly. But this is true for any nation with nuclear arms. George W. was a religious lunatic as well, but even he didn't throw any around.

1) He's not a zealot like these people are zealots.
2) The US doesn't have to use nukes to cause massive damage.
3) The President cannot use nukes without anyone else's support. It takes two people to launch any nuke in the US.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
1) He's not a zealot like these people are zealots.
2) The US doesn't have to use nukes to cause massive damage.
3) The President cannot use nukes without anyone else's support. It takes two people to launch any nuke in the US.

They won't be able to fathom this knowledge, but I must say "nice try"....

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
2) The US doesn't have to use nukes to cause massive damage.

Then why have them at all? When US is trying to make other countries
get rid of their nukes, why not start at home? I would like a nuke free
world.

The danger of having nukes is that they are prepared to use them.
Nukes have been thrown before. Without nukes in the world it cannot
happen again.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Then why have them at all? When US is trying to make other countries
get rid of their nukes, why not start at home? I would like a nuke free
world.

The danger of having nukes is that they are prepared to use them.
Nukes have been thrown before. Without nukes in the world it cannot
happen again.

The only problem with your logic, and I don't disagree, is that every "mini-me-bin-laden" wants to get a nuke to make everybody else bow down to Islam....ain't gonna happen with me.

Originally posted by dystoniac
The only problem with your logic, and I don't disagree, is that every "mini-me-bin-laden" wants to get a nuke to make everybody else bow down to Islam....ain't gonna happen with me.

Then "mini-me-bin-laden" is a criminal, as everyone else who has
thrown nukes / will be throwing nukes. Anyone throwing nukes making
other countries bow for them are criminals.

Why isn't anyone going to take him out of business? Thriw him in a
jail and throw away the key? Is he really so hard to catch? Is he really
so clever so he can avoid that?

Originally posted by dystoniac
Not necessarily. The Russians were trounced in the Russo-Japanese War, and they came back. Germany and Japan were trounced only to come back with one of the largest economies...etc.

The Russians were not trounced in the 1905 war. They were beaten. As for Germany and Japan, they absolutely prove my point, and your comment confrirms the rightness of my point. The German and Japanese war machines were trounced and never made a comeback. Instead they grew peacetime economies. Thanks for your inadvertent help hammering home my point!

Originally posted by dystoniac
OK, I looked up RAWA, and it has a snowball's chance in hell if the Taliban take over Afghanistan...

Ouch! They didn't have a snowball's chance in hell when the U.S. took over Afghanistan. Though their plight and perspectives formed part of U.S. propaganda, they were cut loose as soon as the Taliban were temporarily evicted from Kabul and a handful of other cities.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Then why have them at all? When US is trying to make other countries
get rid of their nukes, why not start at home? I would like a nuke free
world.

The danger of having nukes is that they are prepared to use them.
Nukes have been thrown before. Without nukes in the world it cannot
happen again.

The US can't give them up unless Russia does as well, and they're Russia's biggest bargaining chip.