Re: WHY WOULD MUSHARRAF SAY THAT
Yes, it makes for hilarious reading. I know fact is stranger than fiction but his fiction is stranger than the fact.
You will also get the feeling of reading a superman memoirs, saving the world and pakistan etc... apart from his imagined victory on Planet Kargil.
Re: WHY WOULD MUSHARRAF SAY THAT
Munnay...where do you think 150K US soldiers located these days and where is the Centcom regional offices...where are the oil fields located and where is India and Israel...outside of M.E.?????
Also, why isn't US attacking N.K.???
Finally, we all know US would slaughter Pakistan...nobody is saying otherwise. However, before US would initiate that slaughter it would have to consider the price it would have to pay in the process....Meanwhile, only the diehard mushie supporters are getting their panties in the twist at the mere suggestion that he should have sat down as the americans asked him to instead of laying down on his stomach...
Re: WHY WOULD MUSHARRAF SAY THAT
Also, why isn't US attacking N.K.???
Finally, we all know US would slaughter Pakistan...nobody is saying otherwise. However, before US would initiate that slaughter it would have to consider the price it would have to pay in the process....Meanwhile, only the diehard mushie supporters are getting their panties in the twist at the mere suggestion that he should have sat down as the americans asked him to instead of laying down on his stomach...
This is again not correct. The US would not get involved in a ground war with Pakistan. They would get involved in an air war, and there is nothing Pakistan could do in 2001 against hundreds of Block 52+ F-16s guided in by AWACS and Trident missiles. Why would the US need to have a land war in Pakistan? It would just bomb it from the air, drop some tanks and heavy artillery at Gwadar, make their way up to the border and invade Afghanistan anyway as well as come in from the North through Uzebekistan. Whatever Pakistan did was pretty irrelevant, the US was coming through Pakistan anyway, and even if it didn't, it would have gone in through Uzbekistan. So why not save the lives of as many Pakistani soldiers as possible, which is what Musharraf did as I saw it.
Re: WHY WOULD MUSHARRAF SAY THAT
all you need for us ships/positions 2001-6 are supersonic missiles. the patriot defence system has its limits. althought that wouldnt be the end of it!
the shaheen ll is capable of hitting israel.
do we have a shaheen lll??? any anouncement of this would not go down well with washington
a US war with pakistan would be too much. it wouldnt be worth it. theres too much for US to lose.
as far as the comment regarding stone age goes, this will have had pakistan adopting a potential strategy. so now they will be stronger against US then they were 2001. building an understanding and trust with extreme caution perhaps the best way to go although theres no subsitute for mutual respect.
Re: WHY WOULD MUSHARRAF SAY THAT
the shaheen ll is capable of hitting israel. do we have a shaheen lll??? any anouncement of this would not go down well with washington
a US war with pakistan would be too much. it wouldnt be worth it. theres too much for US to lose.
as far as the comment regarding stone age goes, this will have had pakistan adopting a potential strategy. so now they will be stronger against US then they were 2001. building an understanding and trust with extreme caution perhaps the best way to go although theres no subsitute for mutual respect.
I know this is difficult to follow, but an elementary knowledge of geography will show that Israel is located in the Middle East, and America is located within a seperate continent. Also, Shaheen II had not been tested by 2001. The longest range missile at the time could not hit Israel, and it is irrelevant as mentioned above. Pakistan would have more to lose than America on this. In such a scenario, Pakistan attacks America, America bombs Pakistan to rubble, Pakistan launches missiles at Israel, America nukes Pakistan. That could only be victory to a cyber Jihadi like you living far far away from Pakistan when this hypothetical happens.
Re: WHY WOULD MUSHARRAF SAY THAT
Umm…what would you tell a 12 yr old about his book? should a 12 yr old read it?
Re: WHY WOULD MUSHARRAF SAY THAT
Really, and those block "52+" F-16s -- (I don't know where you get the "+" from, cause the latest block operational in USAF in '01 and to this day is block 52), lets not count UAE's block 60s and Israeli F-16I's (on par with block 60) in USAF -- would have flown all the way from the US bases in Europe and North America, or would they have staged them somewhere in the M.E???
Infact you are factually wrong and betray a lack of rudimentary knowledge of military and strategic matters cause F-15s (the mud-movers) and F-117's based in regional/local theater, not f-16's (mostly used in air superiority and SEAD roles), coupled with long range bombing runs by B2's and B-1B's based in North American, UK and Diego Garcia in Indian Ocean (a big glaring target for Pakistani tactical nuclear strike) form the spearhead of US Air Offences...
However, before the big boys can move in, the USAF has to establish complete air superiority and for that to happen it has to use assets located in forward bases in areas located close to the target country...In Pakistan's case it would have to been bases provided by either India, Uzbekistan, M.E. countries, Diego Garcia, and/or US carrier battlegroup, loitering off the coast of Pakistan...and guess what all juicy target for Pakistan's tactical nuclear weapons launched from the many operational mobile (by nature almost impossible to track/detect even by the most sophisticated of reconnaissance/or satellite surveilence) launchers, such as Ghauri or M-11 (Shaheen I) pakistan possessed at the time...
The bottom line is for US to have carried out a strike against Pakistan, it could not have done so by either exposing its own assets/arsenal in the region or those of its enablers/supporters/allies...a tactical nuclear strike against those targets and beyond was not and never will be the price US would have been ready and still not ready to pay...
Mushie had no care in the world of saving Pakistan at the time, let alone the "lives of Paki soldiers", he only had one objective to undo the isolation of his regime and its pariah status in global politics/affair...
Re: WHY WOULD MUSHARRAF SAY THAT
koolkomal,
dont listen to what these guys are arguing over, that’s not for a 12 yr old.
But the book sure should be read by all, lot of stuff will be of no interest to you right now, but i still think if you are even slightly interested, you should read it, it’s simple and straightforward plus you will learn alot abt Pakistan, it’s past and present.
I hope all who havent read it and are arguing against it , would dare to read it. 
Re: WHY WOULD MUSHARRAF SAY THAT
I’m not getting involved in a discussion with someone who cant accept the US has a stronger army than the Pakistani Army based on more sophisticated technology.
If you dont know that a US missiles fired from the USA can reach Pakistan with a nuke on the end of it, then there’s really no point in discussing it. Even a Trident missile fired from the South Pole from a submarine could reach Pakistan.
As for the last part, indeed, why would Musharraf be trying to save Pakistani lives. He could not be so good to actually want to save the lives of his countrymen and Army, could he? :halo:
Re: WHY WOULD MUSHARRAF SAY THAT
listen to what che has to say, its not good trying to knock him or anyone else down by using personal attacks. indeed you start nearly every post with a personal attack. grow up. the rest of your viewpoint is okay
nobody is saying pakistan would be victorious, but rarely would a superpower take so much punishment as pak would dish out. its too much for anyone to willingly to take on, no matter who on this planet. remember pak were under sanctions at the time. dont be suprised if they had their own strategies in place and ready with venom!
Re: WHY WOULD MUSHARRAF SAY THAT
Do you know what a personal attack is? That is a statement of fact, I'm not wasting time talking to someone who thinks Pakistan can emerge victorious from a conflict with the USA. You've said things like this, and as you might have noticed on other threads I stopped wasting my time when i saw that clearly this was going to be a waste of time.
[QUOTE]
nobody is saying pakistan would be victorious, but rarely would a superpower take so much punishment as pak would dish out. its too much for anyone to willingly to take on, no matter who on this planet. remember pak were under sanctions at the time. dont be suprised if they had their own strategies in place and ready with venom!
[/quote]
How can 1000 Trident miissiles fired from subs in the South Pole be stopped by any Pak defence system from 2001. How can the counter be launched to inflict ANY damage when these subs are guarded by the 6th fleet. The only way to inflict damage is through a land war, and a land war is not required. All that is needed is to reduce country to rubble using Tridents, move in guarded by a thousand F-16 Block 52s with AWACS and advanced BVR. Launch invasion from the Eastern border of Afghanistan, and get out of rubbled Pakistan. As I've said a thousand times, no need for a land war.
Re: WHY WOULD MUSHARRAF SAY THAT
^if your viewpoints are that intelligent and clear how come everyone else fails to notice?
youve got issues
dont reply to me
Re: WHY WOULD MUSHARRAF SAY THAT
**what is it basicly about?
**