Pakistan Is Not Happy

[Guest Manny]

And It is simplistic of you to assume that having the Bomb is the answer to everything!

Pakistan could sit on its Bomb while America froze its bank accounts, cut off ALL trade and pressured its allies into doing the same.

Or is it your contention that instead of knuckling under Pakistan could have simply tossed a nuke at Uncle Sam?

Then that is the way they would do it, hands off, sanctions, politicial pressure. Because the bomb makes them worry. No like Afghanistan what so ever.

It is my contention, they would blow up someone else like Israel, or other allies of the US. Anyone starts a war and uses an atomic bomb, would be a disaster of the greatest kind ever. That certainly will give the US reason to pause. Lesson = having the bomb gives you more respect.

[GostHacked]

And It is simplistic of you to assume that having the Bomb is the answer to everything!

Pakistan could sit on its Bomb while America froze its bank accounts, cut off ALL trade and pressured its allies into doing the same.

Did that work for North Korea?

Remember that Pakistan is a poor country. What little money it had was spent on developing their nuclear weapons and their military, NOT feeding their people! They depend on foreign aid for much of that, aid that could be drastically cut by an angry America.

North Korea?

[Army Guy]

The American civil war was and will always be the largest conflict that BNA/Canada has ever and will ever be involved in!

Not sure i'm following the math here, Just so i'm clear you mentioned that 55,000 Canadian citizens served in the American civil war, Canada's population at the time was over 3 Mil Signals.cpl did the math and and 1.5 % of the population was effected....

While the WAR of 1812 14,000 Colonial regulars and militia out of a population of roughly 150,000-200,000 people.That’s anywhere between 7% and 9% of the total population, and that’s just a rough estimate. ( using Signals.cpl numbers. That would mean in regards to % of population involved it would be the largest...

If it was based on Numbers alone i'd have to give it to WWII hands down.

Another problem i'm having is you said 55,000 served, does that mean over the entire conflict, or does that mean at one time...big difference in % of population effected....

It either directly influenced/impacted or indirectly every agriculture and industry in BNA.

Had the WAR of 1812 been drawn out as the american civil war was it to would have had a massive effect on everything, Also had the war gone bad for the dominion it would have had massive effects...

Understanding Canadas role in the American civil war is extremely important in begining to understand the conflict in the middle east and around Asia.

Not sure where your going here

However Canadas independance was never really physically threatened like the American civil war or 1812.And I am sorry to say man but Canadian independance and freedom is the greatest treasure we have!When that is threatened by instability and an aggresive neighbour then yes then would be the the greatest strugles this country has ever faced!

Correct me if i'm wrong but the WAR of 1812 was a dircet attack from the US on BNA, while the American civil war was just that pretty much contained to the US...Although BNA was threatened by instabilty of the region...

[DogOnPorch]

Pretty hard to understand Canada's role in the US Civil War when there was no Canada yet. But, a Union victory in 1865 sure got the ball rolling as the US Army looked to new frontiers to expand on. Use it or lose it...so to speak.

[DogOnPorch]

Did that work for North Korea?

North Korea?

We're still not fully sure NK can light one of those big firecrackers anytime it wants. Their test blast(s) left quite a bit to be desired in the yield department. That aside, one has a difficult time buying a toothbrush in NK. Not the proletariat paradise some of our more left leaning types around here would have us believe.

[Signals.Cpl]

We're still not fully sure NK can light one of those big firecrackers anytime it wants. Their test blast(s) left quite a bit to be desired in the yield department. That aside, one has a difficult time buying a toothbrush in NK. Not the proletariat paradise some of our more left leaning types around here would have us believe.

I would be worried about North Korea blowing up North Korea then anything else.

[DogOnPorch]

I would be worried about North Korea blowing up North Korea then anything else.

Agreement. They are far more likely to poison their own environment.

[xul]

True if bin Laden was American it would be different, it would be an internal problem, but he was not American, and he did these acts for "religious" reasons.

So one Palestinian life, is worth more then 200 or 300 lives in other nations because they just happened to be citizens of the nation killing them?

Emotion is one of the features by which a man is distinguished from a machine like a robot. For example, years ago, there was a thread about spanking. I remember some memebers of this forum insisted that spanking was a positive way for parents to educate their kids. However, I guess nobody would like others(teachers, policemen, neighbours..for instance) spanking his kid to educate them.

What exactly is your point for the British?

What other allies (like Canada and the U.K.) are doing to the U.S. is just what the U.S. did to beleaguered British Empire before WW2, so Americans should not complain others too much.

Edited December 3, 2011 by xul

[Signals.Cpl]

What other allies (like Canada and the U.K.) are doing to the U.S. is just what the U.S. did to beleaguered British Empire before WW2, so Americans should not complain others too much.

Im still at a loss as to what they were doing

[xul]

Perhaps you are too young to remember. When the invasion of Afghanistan to oust the Taliban first was being organized, Pakistan was basically a Taliban state themselves! They certainly had been no friend of the USA. Bush needed Pakistan on side to close off that border so he basically told the Pakistan government that they had to decide - they could be an ally or they would be treated as an enemy, the same as the Taliban in Afghanistan!

He also sweetened the deal with a lot of money, of course! Pakistan essentially had no choice but they were never a committed ally. That is why there have been such grievous problems with security, to the point where finally Pakistan was cut out of the intelligence loop. Too many times the Taliban fighters were tipped off and/or sheltered.

So Pakistan is a special case. The west would be fools to treat that country as a committed ally.

I was young when Brezhnev invaded Afghanistan, but was already old enough to remember everything.

I agree with the most of what you said. If you notice the context, you will find I was just reminding Americans the same thing ---- Pakistan isn't an ally of the U.S., so Americans should not expect too much from Pakistanis.

As for "Pakistan was basically a Taliban state themselves", I disagree with you. Most developing countries are multitriblism countries. In the backward parts of these countries, people used to be loyal to their tribal leaders more than their countries. The fact is that those tribes bordered Afghanistan are the same tribes carried Taliban. That's the problem of Pakistan. If you were the national leader of Pakistan, would you fully cooperate with the U.S. on anything to risk a civil war?

Two Indian PMs were killed by their tribal-loyal countrymen because they intervened the tribal affairs in their country. The events show that the situation of ruling a developing country is far different from of ruling a developed country.

Edited December 3, 2011 by xul

[xul]

Im still at a loss as to what they were doing

Uncle Sam did nothing-- --exactly almost nothing for helping British to stop Hitler.

In fact, as the last resort, British had to go for Stalin to defend Poland and aviod the war.

[Wilber]

In fact, as the last resort, British had to go for Stalin to defend Poland and aviod the war.

Ah, Stalin signed a non agression pact with Hitler and invaded Poland along with him. Britain and Russia only became allies after Hitler invaded Russia.

Edited December 3, 2011 by Wilber

[xul]

Ah, Stalin signed a non agression pact with Hitler and invaded Poland along with him. Britain and Russia only became allies after Hitler invaded Russia.

Britain, France and Soviet began to negotiate a military treaty in March, earlier than Stalin decided to dance with Hitler in May.

If the U.S. joined with British, France to defend Poland, even if it was just a gesture, Stalin would not turn to Hitler and Hitler would not dare to start the war.

Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact

On 31 March 1939, in response to Nazi Germany's defiance of the Munich Agreement and occupation of Czechoslovakia,[31] the United Kingdom pledged the support of itself and France to guarantee the independence of Poland, Belgium, Romania, Greece, and Turkey.[32] On 6 April Poland and the UK agreed to formalize the guarantee as a military alliance, pending negotiations.[33] On 28 April, Hitler denounced the 1934 German–Polish Non-Aggression Pact and the 1935 Anglo-German Naval Agreement.[34]

Starting in mid-March 1939, the Soviet Union, Britain and France traded a flurry of suggestions and counterplans regarding a potential political and military agreement.[35] Although informal consultations commenced in April, the main negotiations began only in May.[35] At the same time, throughout the early 1939,Germany and the Soviet Union had discussed a possibility of an economic deal involving industrial equipment and armament for the USSR in exchange for raw materials needed for German war production.[36] German war planners had estimated massive raw materials shortfalls if Germany entered a war without Soviet supply.[37] For months, Germany had secretly hinted to Soviet diplomats that it could offer better terms for a political agreement than Britain and France.

From April–July, Soviet and German officials made statements regarding the potential for the beginning of political negotiations, while no actual negotiations took place during that time period.[50] The ensuing discussion of a potential political deal between Germany and the Soviet Union had to be channeled into the framework of economic negotiations between the two countries, because close military and diplomatic connections, as was the case before mid-1930s, had afterward been largely severed.[51] In May, Stalin replaced his Foreign Minister Maxim Litvinov, who was regarded as pro-western and who was also Jewish, with Vyacheslav Molotov, allowing the Soviet Union more latitude in discussions with more parties, not only with Britain and France.[52]

In late July and early August 1939, Soviet and German officials agreed on most of the details for a planned economic agreement,[53] and specifically addressed a potential political agreement,[54][55][56][57] which the Soviets stated could only come after an economic agreement.[58]

Edited December 4, 2011 by xul

[Wilber]

Britain, France and Soviet began to negotiate a military treaty in March, earlier than Stalin decided to dance with Hitler in May.

Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact

So, what has this to do with the US?

[xul]

So, what has this to do with the US?

Britain knew that the U.S wouldn't help. This is why Britain and France went soviet for help.

Neville Chamberlain wasn't a naive fool as many historians commented in their books. He knew if Britain and France went into war, they would have to fight alone and would be financially bankrupt even if Britain eventually managed to win the war, so it also be the end of British Empire because America was waiting to replace it.

As the successor of British, American also should know that it can't stop other countries hitchhiking its victory or protection meanwhile paying for it as less as possible because Leadership has its cost

Edited December 4, 2011 by xul

[Wilber]

How did the US become responsible for Poland's security in 1939?

[xul]

How did the US become responsible for Poland's security in 1939?

Why don't you ask: How does the U.S. become responsible for Poland's security nowadays?

And how would other countries be responsible for the U.S. revenges for its two skyscrapers which were knocked down by some Islanmic jihadists?

Because in 1939, the U.S. knew other countries like Britain and French had to be responsible for Poland's security---and nowadays, other countries know Uncle Sam has to fight jihadists regardless whether they would offer assistance or not, so what is the harm to have some rest like what Uncle Sam did in 1939?

Or maybe just tell the U.S. "Do you need some help from us? Please pay for it..." like what the U.S told Britain after 1939

[Wilber]

Why don't you ask: How does the U.S. become responsible for Poland's security nowadays?

NATO. Now that Poland is a member, the other NATO members are also responsible for its security.

[xul]

NATO. Now that Poland is a member, the other NATO members are also responsible for its security.

If you calculate the ratio of military-expense/GDP or military-expense/population, you will find American bears far more responsibility than other NATO members.

In other words, if the US seceded from NATO, NATO would no longer exist. But if any other country droped out, you would even hardly see any difference.

Edited December 4, 2011 by xul

[Wilber]

If you calculate the ratio of military-expense/GDP or military-expense/population, you will find American bears far more responsibility than other NATO members.

In other words, if the US seceded from NATO, NATO would no longer exist. But if any other country droped out, you would even hardly see any difference.

There are always stronger and weaker partners in any alliance, that's why countries make them. Strong countries try to prevent conflicts by guarantying the security of smaller ones to discourage other strong countries from attacking them. It doesn't always work but that is the idea.

That NATO would not exist if the US seceded is far from certain. NATO has a much more varied membership now and a healthy NATO is in the best interests of the US and the West in general.

[jbg]

No the war of 1812 is not and was not the largest war we have been involved in. With around 8% of the total population directly involved in one way or another with the war in Europe during World War 1 and roughly 3% of the population or 39% of the Expeditionary forces becoming casualties, I think that World War 1 ranks right up there, and that’s not even bringing up financial cost.

I would argue that the existential risk posed by the War of 1812 makes that and the American Revolutionary War the most significant ones. It's one thing to be involved in an off-territory war; quite another to be fighting on your own soil.

[jbg]

In the 1860's the US possesed a well trained and experianced army, but at the same time their navy was still outgunned by the Royal Navy and the fact of the matter is that the US would have lost out on their lucrative foreighn trade if they went to war, just like what happened to them in 1812-1814 where their foreighn trade went from 100,000,000 dollars(Not adjusted for inflation) to just 7,000,000 dollars a year. This single issue almost led to New England separating from the rest of the United States in 1813/1814 because most of the Foreighn trade by the US was from that region. There might have been alot of huffing and puffing, but the real danger of war was minimal at worst and non existant at best.

I would argue that the reason for Britain's magnaminity in more or less forcing independence on you was the risk to it that Canada's involvement in trading with the Confederacy posed. Canada had become a lightening rod. Even though the U.S. Civil War ended in April 1865 no one knew t hat it would end and the plans for Canadian independence were well underway.

[jbg]

Pretty hard to understand Canada's role in the US Civil War when there was no Canada yet. But, a Union victory in 1865 sure got the ball rolling as the US Army looked to new frontiers to expand on. Use it or lose it...so to speak.

I do agree that the U.S. was a threat to Canada then and Britain wanted to offload it. I don't think though that the war-weary armies were that eager for another adventure, especially since the South was being occupied for a good six or so years after the surrender at Appomatox.

[xul]

There are always stronger and weaker partners in any alliance, that's why countries make them. Strong countries try to prevent conflicts by guarantying the security of smaller ones to discourage other strong countries from attacking them. It doesn't always work but that is the idea.

The U.S and Canada for example:

No doubt the U.S. is the stronger and Canada is the weaker in this partnership. Howerver nowadays which country is so formidable that Canada needs America to protect from it?

Today's NATO is not more than an African preditor club. The lion, which is the biggest and strongest, hunts down its preys like a cape buffalo or a Zebra and tears the most profitable piece of flesh from the prey, than others like hyenas and vultures will come forth finishing the rest of the prey.

The lion doesn't need the club. The only reason that it still keeps in the club is because the club makes it isn't the only predator so it can feel better and less guilty when it is killing.

The others want in the club, not only because they are so small but also because of their hypocritical moral criterion. When they are eatting the remains of the lion's prey, they comfort themselves: we are moral customers, we are not predator, we are not killing. Look! it's already dead...

That NATO would not exist if the US seceded is far from certain. NATO has a much more varied membership now and a healthy NATO is in the best interests of the US and the West in general.

If I speaks for Americans, I will say today NATO isn't heathy at all. Half a century ago, there were many preys and a few predators. But today there are too many hyenas behind the lion and less weaker preys, so there will be some ecological balance issues.

Edited December 7, 2011 by xul

[Signals.Cpl]

I would argue that the reason for Britain's magnaminity in more or less forcing independence on you was the risk to it that Canada's involvement in trading with the Confederacy posed. Canada had become a lightening rod. Even though the U.S. Civil War ended in April 1865 no one knew t hat it would end and the plans for Canadian independence were well underway.

Weather Canada was a colony or an independant nation, the fact remains that with the population difference and the fact that the US at that point had a very powerful army with combat experiance meant that independant or not, England would fight if the US invaded. And the US did not invade in part because the Royal Navy was still the most powerfull in the world.