Why hasn't Pakistan been attacked by NATO yet?

Scroll to see replies

Well if you want to believe that Operation Enduring Freedom and the invasion of Iraq was about expanding US hegemony in the region rather than purely being about the appropriation of oil, stopping nuclear weapons or the "liberation" of people then it is quite simple. Pakistan is already a key US ally in the region.

What would be the point in destabilizing that relationship and destabilizing the influence that the US has invested so much money into creating in the past 10 years just because some rogue elements of that government were friendly towards anti-US groups?

Because in a few years time those rogue elements of government will be the rogue majority of government.

Reply 61

rawkus

Original post by James82

Because in a few years time those rogue elements of government will be the rogue majority of government.

Not going to lie, it is a little annoying when people say things like this without offering any sort of justification. I could easily reply "no they wont" and leave it there.

Anyway. how do you know they will? ISI have been funding and proving help (supposedly) to the taliban and Haqqani network for over a decade. They are yet to have become the "rogue majority of government". Can you at least offer anything that mught give weight to your prediction?

Reply 62

Indo-Chinese Food

Original post by rawkus

pakistan is an ally of the US simply due to its geography. If afganistan wasnt hostile to the US,and previously the USSR, they would have little care for paksitan either way. More pertinently howver US-India relations are growing stronger by the day, who paksitan regard as an enemy ( and one of the reasons the ISI has been training islamic terrorists for years in camps)

Reply 63

Flying Cookie

Original post by James82

And when the next Hitler comes to power in a nuclear armed nation will you still hold the same views?

Our focus seems to have shifted from stopping nations from obtaining WMDs weapons to targeting all the madmen in the world, as long as the two never meet then we will be okay, but I do suspect we may regret choosing our current coure of action.

You reckon Truman dropping the bombs is a heroic act of a great nation, but anyone else doing it is bonkers?

Hitler wanted to eradicate certain people - mission impossible, as all those groups exist today, certainly mission impossible by any means, bombs or otherwise.

Nuclear weapons are a matter of principle, power and politics. In this day and age, and certainly in the future, any nation considering dropping a bomb of that magnitude would not get away with it.

For example, if France merely aiding in the blasting of Palestinian children results in a lone wolf killing kids in France, then one can only chance a bewildering guess at what would happen if France straight-up bombed Palestine. Would anyone in their right mind take that risk?

Reply 64

dental_implant

Because they don't have oil.

Reply 65

James82

Original post by Flying Cookie

I will chance a bewildering guess: Israel have been 'straight-up' bombing Palestine for years, judging by what's happened to them, not a lot.

Reply 66

cl_steele

because they have nuclear weapons and will gladly give them to terrorists if we offend them.
they're a strategic ally and without them it makes the mission in afghistan a lot more difficult
and if they invade ANOTHER muslim country there would be serious repercussions from it.

Reply 67

sparks2000

Why hasn't Pakistan been attacked yet? I believe the answer is not quite simple enough to have one answer----hello from the USA btw-----#1 The USA, while it seems as if they do not care about what other nations think, do not want to keep attacking countries on their way to the Chinese/Russian borders. The SCO, I am sure, already does not like the fact we are in Afganistan. #2 Their missles ARE a factor, I do believe. While they are not a direct threat to the US mainland they are a danger to U.S. troops in Afghanistan and other nations in the region-such as India.Do we really want to be the ones who start a nuclear war on Asia? Probably not,especially seeing that there are two other Asian nuclear powers who wouldn't appreciate nuclear fallout in their respective countries. #3 Increased tensions between the SCO and the West, and the West's lack of understanding regarding the SCO's intentions I'm sure have them offguard.That's just my 'two-cents',as it were. :wink: