So you discount the contention that the limited quantities of F-16's provided are for continuing operations against the Talaban and Al-Queda forces hidden in the mountains? (which, by the way, have been very effective at pin-point accurate attacks.) Or that the assumption that these aircraft would be deployed against India would require the Pac's to be suicidal? If both sides have nukes, and the means of delivering them already, how do aircraft make this situation more deadly?
I'm just asking the question. I believe the Administration is trying to develop a new strategy in the region that incorporates all who share the same interests. I think it's more productive for India and Pakistan to join in the common defense rather than either side expecting the U.S. to favor one over the other. Wouldn't you agree?
I would think the interest for India would be to help Pakistan and Musarrif(sp) shed the radicalism of the past and continue to democratize as India has shown so well. Just my opinion.
F16s won't be used for that purpose. Tell me when you see them doing so.
As for Pakistan's current delivery means, they are vulnerable to an Indian pre-emptive strike. Not so with large numbers of F16s.
"So you discount the contention that the limited quantities of F-16's provided are for continuing operations against the Talaban and Al-Queda forces hidden in the mountains?"
---Completely! Tell me how AMRAAMS can be used against the Talaban and Al-Queda forces? Those guys have an airforce?
"Or that the assumption that these aircraft would be deployed against India would require the Pac's to be suicidal? "
---So you dont think those F-16s will be used against us? Buddy, we cant be so stupid as not to see that those F-16s have only one target and that is INDIA. F-16s make a much more effective delivery system for nuclear weapons.
"I'm just asking the question. I believe the Administration is trying to develop a new strategy in the region that incorporates all who share the same interests. I think it's more productive for India and Pakistan to join in the common defense rather than either side expecting the U.S. to favor one over the other. Wouldn't you agree?"
---Cant agree until we agree on one thing and that is : Pakistan is still a terrorist state. Only due to a strong American presence they have so far kept a lid but thats not gonna be permanent. And if your administration chooses to incorporate them, then we are on different sides (although we are fighting the same enemy).
"I would think the interest for India would be to help Pakistan and Musarrif(sp) shed the radicalism of the past and continue to democratize as India has shown so well. Just my opinion."
--Yes but to do that, I wont give them F-16s. F-16 will not help shed radicalism or put them on the path to democratization. BTW your administration has actually strengthened the military regime rather than democratizing them.
Pakistan is getting over 100 multi-role light fighters from China,equipped with Italian avionics,in addition to these F-16s.Those are just as capable of delivering LGBs & TV guided munitions as an F-16 & can be modified to become even better.& Why do you need an advanced fighter to take on a bunch of skinny terrorists??They don't have Patriot missiles or S-300s & would be lucky if they have a few Strela missiles.If the US really want's to help Pakistan take on terrorists,sell them either the Apaches or the AH-1s,along with Hellfires & a few Blackhawks as well.That will not only keep the choppers safe but will end up being efficient.If the anti-terror logic is used,why aren't the Colombians,Fillipinos & Afghans getting F-16s???
We want to reward Pakistan for help against terrorisim? Drop trade barriers - help them with business loans, etc.