U.S. airstrikes in Pakistan called very effective

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by KGB_resident, May 19, 2009.

  1. They are not effective - too few bombs

  2. Highly effective

  3. Effective only from military point of view

  4. Yes, effective but political damage prevails

  5. Rather ineffective

  6. Absolutely ineffective


Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/18/cia.pakistan.airstrikes/index.html

    Do you think that the US airstikes in Pakistan are effective from military, diplomatical, political points of view?

    Maybe the experts and decision makers in the CIA and the Pentagon don't understand these arguments? Unlikely. But for them international image of the USA is not an issue at all. Apparently the CIA hasn't other means at own disposal and the strikes are a confession that the CIA hasn't a net of local agents in respective areas of Pakistan.
  2. More effective than your lot just blatting away in Chechnya, Gospodin.
  3. The strikes in Chechnya were accompanied with ground operations. The result is rather positive. The situation is Chechya is much better now.

    As for Pakistan then unlikely the American armed forces would start any ground operations deep inside Pakistan anytime soon. So the purpose of the strikes is unclear... Though it is quite clear. The producers of missiles wish to sell new and new expensive 'toys'.

    So the strikes are very effective from financial point of view for some businessmen and some corrupted officials in Washington.

    Pushtun villagers in remote mountaneous areas of Pakistan die because some crooks wish to pump taxpayers money in own pockets.
  4. I would imagine that the Pakistanies do not have that many 'smart' bombs, so they leave that bit to the Yanks.

    On the topic of Chechnya, the locals welcome your mob with red carpets did they? No bombs or bullets miss there target at all?
    I assume thats why most of Chechnya looks like a bad day in Dresden?
  5. By the way Pakistan protests against the bombings. So the USA bomb a terriroty of independent state without permission.

    At least Chechnya is a part of Russia.
  6. msr

    msr LE

  7. Pity the Chechen's dont see it that way!
  8. Which in someways makes it even worse, bit like the UK carpet bombing the Isle of White.
    I'll wager your little spat has killed more than 700 civiliains?
  9. Naturally Sergei will see the Chechnya episode as being sponsored by Taylor Wimpy; its all a plot to build new houses.
  10. So the villagers in Pakistan may ask: why don't you bomb Taxas but bomb us? What have we did wrong?

    Chechnya was a big problem for Russia. It is sufficient to mention terror acts.
  11. And AQ training camps are based where? I think its a country that starts with P and is next to India.
  12. Reportedly the camps were based in Afghanistan not in Pakistan. So namely Afganistan was invaded in 2001.
  13. Sergey, why do you hate America so much? You seem unnaturally obsessed by it.
  14. Read your own link, they(US), are after AQ.

    A few years ago a few swarthy looking chaps, nicked some planes and crashed them. They were part of the AQ club, and IIRC some held Pakistani passports.
    This p1ssed the yanks off for some reason, and if Pakistan wont sort it out itself, then the yanks will do it for them.

    I dont see that the Russians would react any differently?

    And I am no big fan of the septics, but they dont tend to make empty threats.
  15. First of all I don't hate the USA. My feelings are deep respect to the Americans. On a personal level there are no problems. We dislike the same things: corruption, brutality, violation of human rights, killings of innocent.

    I express my point in this thread. The airstrikes in Pakistan are being made to make huge profits for weapon manufactures and allegedly big bribes are being paid.