Re: U.S. suspends $800M in Pakistan aid

[Guest guest]

So Pakistan then closes the roads sending most of the supplies to US troops in Afghanistan and closes the airfields to supply flights. The US troops quickly begin running out of supplies since everything, including water, is trucked in for them. Forced to use local supplies, intestinal illness sideline more and more of the troops. The Taliban takes advantage and pushes its attacks harder, particularly against more isolated outposts and causes lots of casualties.

Then its a question of giving the money back to Pakistan thus rewarding their hostage taking of the troops or pulling the troops out, which may mean a fight through Pakistan of a movement up into the various "stans" and flying them out of there leaving behind vast amounts of ordnance and expensive vehicles. Of course, Obama could try invading Pakistan or throwing cruise missiles at them, but that would only likely have the Pakistani military overrun all US compounds in the country and maybe move into Afghanistan to get at the troops there.

Then again, the Democrats did say they wanted to balance the budget in the Clinton way of slashing the pentagon. Leaving what, 40,000 plus troops to die in Afghanistan would accomplish that. Then those units could be written off the books. Money saved.

In a message dated 7/10/2011 1:22:40 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, no_reply writes:

U.S. suspends $800M in Pakistan aid

[Guest guest]

So Pakistan then closes the roads sending most of the supplies to US troops in Afghanistan and closes the airfields to supply flights. The US troops quickly begin running out of supplies since everything, including water, is trucked in for them. Forced to use local supplies, intestinal illness sideline more and more of the troops. The Taliban takes advantage and pushes its attacks harder, particularly against more isolated outposts and causes lots of casualties.

Then its a question of giving the money back to Pakistan thus rewarding their hostage taking of the troops or pulling the troops out, which may mean a fight through Pakistan of a movement up into the various "stans" and flying them out of there leaving behind vast amounts of ordnance and expensive vehicles. Of course, Obama could try invading Pakistan or throwing cruise missiles at them, but that would only likely have the Pakistani military overrun all US compounds in the country and maybe move into Afghanistan to get at the troops there.

Then again, the Democrats did say they wanted to balance the budget in the Clinton way of slashing the pentagon. Leaving what, 40,000 plus troops to die in Afghanistan would accomplish that. Then those units could be written off the books. Money saved.

In a message dated 7/10/2011 1:22:40 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, no_reply writes:

U.S. suspends $800M in Pakistan aid

[Guest guest]

" Of course, Obama could try invading Pakistan or throwing cruise missiles at

them, but that would only likely have the Pakistani military overrun all US

compounds in the country and maybe move into Afghanistan to get at the troops

there. "

And what is to say that isn't Obama's goal?

Administrator

[Guest guest]

That's one of my concerns. Imagine the chaos in the US if that happened, if the troops were cut off and had no easy way out. I'm sure there are those itching for such to happen so they can ram through all manner of security laws.

In a message dated 7/10/2011 3:18:19 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, no_reply writes:

And what is to say that isn't Obama's goal?Administrator