With Pakistan to descend into obvious chaos now and the Taliban moving closer and closer towards Islamabad in the coming years with their evil indoctrination spreading like wildfire and eventually getting their hands close to the nukes do you think we should bomb them first or carry on with the plan to obliterate Iran then get the Pakistani`s.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Pakistan or Iraq
- Thread starter Questions
- Start date
I take it by WE, you mean The USA.
If that is the case, the only question you need to ask is:-
Is there any oil underneath Pakistan?.
As I think the answer is NO, we can fairly safely assume Pakistan will be left to sort itself out. God help us all.
If that is the case, the only question you need to ask is:-
Is there any oil underneath Pakistan?.
As I think the answer is NO, we can fairly safely assume Pakistan will be left to sort itself out. God help us all.
Pavilionaire
Well-known member
- Jul 7, 2003
- 31,388
This thread makes The James Whale Show look like Question Time...
dougdeep
New member
Gloomy day outside, might go for a walk later though.
Theres a bit of both oil and gas, but nothing significant compared to say Iraq. There has been quite a bit of activity offshore in the past year or so, but has proven to be pretty much dry, much to the governments dispair!
I reckon the Indians may sort out Pakistan before anyone else .. not much love lost there!
Remember speaking to a somehat bigoted and pissed Indian at a conference in Delhi who reckon when push comes to shove, India could invade and win a war with Pakistan within 3 days!!! Clearly wasn't banking on any nuclear weapons usage there though!!!!
Scoffers
Well-known member
Everyone knows the master plan is to nuke the whole of Iran, Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan then re-collonise these areas with the prisoners in our jails. It's known as Plan B I believe
Barrel of Fun
Abort, retry, fail
Whilst I don't think oil is a major factor, it does play a part. Where there are terrorists, there is money and where there is money, there is oil.
Yes but at that time, there WAS a cold war going on. The same reason why the Ruskies were in Afghanistan...
I thought this was another "winter sun" thread 
NMH
Banned
Not that it says anything much about both huge wealthy empires, but always notable that they both lost their wars in those small countries.
For the money (not to mention lives) spent on war, either could have probably coaxed whatever they needed from each country with good old-fashioned money and trading agreements.
G.Bush wanted to look closer at oil mining in Alaska and the American public kicked off about environmental disaster and global warming - while still buying gas-guzzling 8 cylinder coaches just to pop down the shops to buy a newspaper with 17 sections weighing 12lbs and 6inches thick, that they will only read a couple of pages of at best.
So why do you think the US are still in iraq.
It can't be Sadam, he's gone.
It can't be Al Qeeda (sp), as they only arrived after America.
It can't be Sept 11th, as that was down to Saudi Arabia.
Iraq was left crippled after the 1st war, left alone through Clinton's reign, but Bush was always going to follow pappa & get his hands on the oil.
Which he has now successfully done.
Anyone who thinkings that the Iraq people/government are controlling/profitting from their oil, is mistaken and welcome to come round and buy some magic beans.