We heard a great deal of the big offensive planned for Kandahar in Afghanistan but so far it has failed to materialise. Was this a strategy to have the Taliban concentrate their forces and has it failed?

Perhaps it is that with change in command there has been change in strategy even though it was denied at the time, or has the Afghanistan administration decided it cannot afford the fallout such a campaign would create?

These and other questions should be asked because we don't like been led on and have military leaders string us a line of bull. Better to say nothing than to promote a campaign that never happens.

While it's still all speculation, this might've been related to the unplanned withdrawal of Dutch forces in the Afghan area. They made up a fair deal of the total military force in the region in amount and expertise, and their departure has left some holes that have priority in filling first.
Additionally, a change in strategy and a psychological "cry wolf" effect might be the case as well: announce a few largescale offensives that don't take off, and eventually announce -and- launch one that could theoretically catch the Taliban somewhat off-guard.

But, as stated: all speculation in this area.

While it's still all speculation, this might've been related to the unplanned withdrawal of Dutch forces in the Afghan area. They made up a fair deal of the total military force in the region in amount and expertise, and their departure has left some holes that have priority in filling first.
Additionally, a change in strategy and a psychological "cry wolf" effect might be the case as well: announce a few largescale offensives that don't take off, and eventually announce -and- launch one that could theoretically catch the Taliban somewhat off-guard.

But, as stated: all speculation in this area.

Yes it is speculation but I don't think withdrawal of the dutch would have made that much difference, they would have been replaced by maybe two thousand US troops, admittedly green regarding the locality. If you want to take the Taliban off guard you don't announce your plans to the world. I think we might find the Karzai factor has got in the way, big offensive, no talks. The Afghan government has a different approach and different objectives.

The commander in the field who wanted to fight to win was relieved by the "Commander in Chief"for allowing his staff to call Joe Biden "VP Bite me".

We cannot go too hard in Kandahar because we might disrupt Mahmoud Karzai's various enterprises.

We announced a date certain for retreat. The Taliban knows any bluster we have left is smoke and mirror . President Karzai has already summoned the Taliban to ask them what their terms of his surrender will be. He hopes to live and cut and run with some loot. The press is running cover for it ,calling it "settlement negotiations "(or something like that) .
We made a huge mistake validating the election he stole. And as I keep on saying ,we made a fatal error giving an iron clad retreat date.
The enemy will pick off enough coalition troops between now and then to make the claim they kicked us out.

The commander in the field who wanted to fight to win was relieved by the "Commander in Chief"for allowing his staff to call Joe Biden "VP Bite me".Hello tom:

There ain't no winning in Afghanistan... You're smoking the right wing stuff.

excon

We cannot go too hard in Kandahar because we might disrupt Mahmoud Karzai's various enterprises.
.

Now you've got it, how come we can see this and the smarta$$ in the White House can't. Does he know something we don't? Afghanistan might be the price of a stable Pakistan.

You can see, Tom, that there have been many mistakes, too many to say that anyone thought it could be won from the beginning

I'll believe we are making a serious effort when the B-52s are dropping ordinance 24-7 .

I'll believe we are making a serious effort when the B-52s are dropping ordinance 24-7 .Hello again, tom:

Me too. I was FOR winning at one time. We could have too. But, SINCE we decided NOT to win, I was FOR leaving. There ain't no in between.

excon

I'll believe we are making a serious effort when the B-52s are dropping ordinance 24-7 .

Yes but once you had got on the ground and had installed a government of your choosing, things sort of settled down and the Taliban were allowed to regroup, same failed philosophy as the Gulf War where Saddam was allowed to exist for years without being dealt with, Sanctions may have contained Saddam but the Taliban laughed and went back to poppy growing.

And so here we are, nine years later! And are we talking about victory, no! We are talking about withdrawal and defeat, it might not be Bush's fault but was it Rumsfeld's fault?

Democrat Politicians have never learned "measured response" is a synonym of "wasteing your time".

They (either party) never learned their mistakes in Vietnam... and they are using the very same tactics again here.

You go in to win... you don't screw around. And you NEVER tie one hand behind you back to be fair to the other side. That didn't work in Vietnam... and it has never worked anyplace else... WHY they think it will work here is beyond understanding.

We have the ability to win, IF our troops were allowed to win... but these stupid Rules of engagement make it impossible to do what they need to kick butt.

We have the ability to win, IF our troops were allowed to win....but these stupid Rules of engagement make it impossible to do what they need to kick butt.

You mean shoot whatever moves? After all Afghans are expendiable. The rules of engagement are look out for civilians and protect them. In war the rules are usually shoot back and ask questions later, so what we have here isn't a war, it's a police action, using people who aren't trained for policing.

When will americans learn that they don't own that country just because they set foot in it, they are "quests", there for a short time and when they develop the attitudes that go with that they may have more success

You mean shoot whatever moves? Afterall Afghans are expendiable. The rules of engagement are look out for civilians and protect them. In war the rules are usually shoot back and ask questions later, so what we have here isn't a war, it's a police action, using people who arn't trained for policing.

When will americans learn that they don't own that country just because they set foot in it, they are "quests", there for a short time and when they develop the attitudes that go with that they may have more successIf it has a gun... was seen with a gun... or was next to someone with a gun... its a fair target. Or it should be.

The rules of engagement aren't designed to protect civilians... its to prevent the fight from appearing lopsided to please the wussies on the left that don't know HOW to win a fight.

Many of the "Civilians" aren't civilians at all. But terrorists and Taliban that when cornered throw down their ewapons and PRETEND to be civilians.

And some of the combattants are women... and some of them are children. To freaking bad, look like a target , then you die.

THAT is another lesson some people refuse to learn from Vietnam... they use women and children as weapon delivery systems. I know Vietnam vets that had people in their patrol killed by bombs hidden in a baby cariage with a real baby in it pushed by a woman who detinated it... I know Vietnam vets that had a child less than 2 years old walk up and toss a hand grenade at them the way a 2 year old would. He was only alive because the kid was too young to learn and remember you had to pull the pin first or nothing happened.

He saw women with Machine guns kill men in his patrol.


But then the lefts answer was no way, you can't kill women or children even IF they are trying to kill you.


And personally... I had and have far more respect for the VC than I have for the terrorists who hide behind skirts and some dress AS women. So our tropps won't shoot at them. You won't hear that half wit Katie Kurric talk about THAT on the news... but it happens... I have family member who ARE veterans of both Iraq and Afghanistan that saw that with their own eyes.

But its not politically correct to report on that so the left wing media ignores it under orders from the White house and DNC.

If it has a gun...was seen with a gun...or was next to someone with a gun....its a fair target. Or it should be.

The rules of engagement aren't designed to protect civilians...its to prevent the fight from appearing lopsided to please the wussies on the left that don't know HOW to win a fight.

.

The rules of engagement in Afghanistan are designed to protect civilians, at the start they weren't but the Afghans got fed up with the US "if it moves shoot it" policy. It is their country and if you can't fight the war the way you would like to, then leave, pick up your bat and ball and go home. Guns are a fact of life in Afghanistan just as they are in the US, everyone has one. You talk about maintaining your own liberty but you would deny it to the Afghans

People are entitled to fight for their country and that means women and children can fight too, it's inconvenient and now and again they might be successful against heavily armed, armored, troops but you have to live with the fact they see you as an invader, even though you freed them from a tyrannical regime of religious fanatics and terrorists, but they are their religious fanatics.

The US outstayed its welcome in Vietnam and it has outstayed its welcome in Afghanistan. Was Vietnam ultimately better off after you left, yes, a generation later they are, it will be so in Afghanistan too. A generation from now, when people have been free of war for years, things will be better. Now we know when you leave some people are going to die, so take them with you, not do what you did in Vietnam and save your own worthless hides.

Was Vietnam ultimately better off after you left, yes, a generation later they are,

You're joking right ?
Tell that to the Montagnard hill tribes who are pretty much the victim of complete genocide . Buddhists and Christians are routinely persecuted . Millions of people were put in concentration camps... oops I mean “re-education camps”.. for over 20 years after the war. Estimates are that over 165,000 people died there.

Evita was there this summer and was very critical of their human rights record. The West has been conned by a combination of propaganda about their embrace of a market economy ,and a large dose of false guilt for trying to keep the country free.

Vietnam: Repression Intensifies Prior to Party Congress | Human Rights Watch (http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2010/01/21/vietnam-repression-intensifies-prior-party-congress)

the rules of engagement in Afghanistan are designed to protect civilians, at the start they weren't but the Afghans got fed up with the US "if it moves shoot it" policy. It is their country and if you can't fight the war the way you would like to, then leave, pick up your bat and ball and go home. Guns are a fact of life in Afghanistan just as they are in the US, everyone has one. You talk about maintaining your own liberty but you would deny it to the Afghans

people are entitled to fight for their country and that means women and children can fight too, it's inconvenient and now and again they might be successful against heavily armed, armored, troops but you have to live with the fact they see you as an invader, even though you freed them from a tyrannical regime of religious fanatics and terrorists, but they are their religious fanatics.

The US outstayed its welcome in Vietnam and it has outstayed its welcome in Afghanistan. Was Vietnam ultimately better off after you left, yes, a generation later they are, it will be so in Afghanistan too. A generation from now, when people have been free of war for years, things will be better. Now we know when you leave some people are going to die, so take them with you, not do what you did in Vietnam and save your own worthless hides.

Anyone... and I mean ANYONE... who picks up a weapon, is a fair target.

Was Vietnam better off after we left? Are you serious... how many Vietnamese do you know, do you have any concept of what happened in Vietnam after we left? I know at least 20 that barely got out alive... most had familys that did not. The Communits targeted ANYONE that fought against them for assassination. The rest were punish very harshly for decades but the communists. How you can consider that better of shows you really view that war through some very prejudiced tunnel vision. Most of the people I knew didn't get out before Saigon fell, they didn't get airlifted out... they got out on foot through Thailand.

I also know Afghans, 5 complete families I can call friends, I've ate dinner at their homes many times, they have been to mine... and every single one of them are glad we are there, and don't want us to leave as long as the taliban lunatics are still around.

In case you aren't aware of it... since whatever passes for journalism where you live won't tell you, a majority of the people causing the trouble in Afghanistan aren't afghans... and in Iraq aren't Iragi's. What right do any of them have to be there much less taking up arms there. The answer to that is NONE AT ALL.

I suppose Iran has ANY business funding terrorists... sending weapons, sending people?

And contrary to what YOU may believe. Taliban are not the legitimate leaders of that country. The Only people that think they are support them, and that isn't most of the people there.


Pick up a gun, get shot... help a fighter... get shot. anyone that doesn't like it... gets shot. Too damn bad... I really don't give a damn what terrorist supporters think. Terrorists themselves can kiss my white a55.

I doubt you even know any Afghans... after all you consider Taliban control freedom... nobody that has a clue wha the taliban actually did there would call that freedom. You have a bunch of illiterate idiots with guns forcing their perverted views on people who they will kill in a heartbeat, usually in a horrible way.

But then... certain groups have some dellusion the Taliban are really nice people who treated Afghans splendedly well before we went over there to stop them , and horrors kill the terrorist SOB's.

Well to damn bad Terrorists don't HAVE rights... Terrorists don't deserve to live.

And Terrorists and terrorists supporters are the same... none deserve to be alive. AND all of them should be killed, along with their families and children... eleminate that blight on the human gene pool once and for all.

My team had one rule in Nam.
If it wasn't with us and had a gun kill...
Are motto was kill them all and let GOD sort them out.I know a lot of people say that's terrible , but most of them wasn't born yet , and the rest wasn't beside me in the mud and blood...
That's all I have to say about it.

I also know Afghans, 5 complete families I can call friends, I've ate dinner at their homes many times, they have been to mine..Hello again, smoothy:

In one post, Muslims are, how did you describe them, an "infestation". Now, we're to believe that you're dinner buddies?? Dude!

excon

my team had one rule in Nam.
if it wasn't with us and had a gun kill...
are motto was kill them all and let GOD sort them out.I know a lot of people say thats terrible , but most of them wasn't born yet , and the rest wasn't beside me in the mud and blood...
Thats all I have to say about it.

The comments I made earlier about women and kids with explosives happened to my best friend... he wasn't the kind to make up stuff.

IF I was in your shoes... if it was either me or them... I was going to be the one to make it to the next day. And the stories I heard from a cousin who did frequent low altitude jumps at night and his last mission almost resulted in losing his leg from running a punji stick through his sole to his knee, as you know were crap covered.

I've heard stories from relatives from Omaha Beach D-Day landings.. the first americans in Peenemünde, The Corrigador Death march, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq (much of that first hand), Afghanistan... (back to when the Russians were there).

I have nothing but respect for OUR armed forces and disgusted by the lack of genuine support like they had during WW2. Instead of playing political games like they have done since.

Hello again, smoothy:

In one post, Muslims are, how did you describe them, an "infestation". Now, we're to believe that you're dinner buddies???? Dude!

excon They are an infestation... most of them are.

Islam is a blight... it is far more than a religon.. but its politically incorrect to consider it what it is... and it's a political mindset. After all Christians or Jewish organizations would lose their tax exempt status if they did 1/2 what Muslims get away with and still keep theirs.

In fact.. I refuse to associate with Muslims that wear the stupid scarf or worse.

There is NO passage in the Quaran demanding that... and that is per the muslim friends I have. Of those I know here, None of the Iranians wear that crap... none of the Afghans wear that crap. Oh I know more that I consider festering A-holes, that are NOT among those I consider friends.


Islam and freedom are two incompatible concepts.


How you as a Jew you claimed ot be earlier today... can defend a religion dedicated at doing what Adolf Hitler failed to do to you people of you rown faith is beyond comprehension. Assuming that was the truth and not a BS story.

They came damn close to killing me on 9/11, I have a major legitimate gripe with them. I have a legitimate reason to be personally offended to the extent I really hope nothing they build near ground Zero is allowed to stand.

It is a slap in the face to every person who was close enough on 9/11 to the event or victims of it.

And if I offend every muslim on the planet... too damn bad. THEY are the ones who need to show respect to us before they deserve any in return. I hope that Imam dies of rectal cancer... and I will celibrate when I read of his demise. Nope... no sypathy will be forthcoming here... his terrorist buddies almost killed me... and the SOB wants to rub 9/11 in the faces of every breathing American buy building a Victory Mosque at ground zero to remind us every day it was Muslims that attacked us.

Yeah, on the west coast all you did was see something on TV... you weren't there, it wasn't even near you, many of you didn't even know people that were there much less died there. So how can you grasp the reality of what 9/11 was really about and why a Mosque THERE grates at nearly every living soul around here so deeply we hope every individual involved on that project die a horrible death for even attempting to a disrespectful, rude and completely inconsiderate action meant to insult Americans who remember that even like yesterday.

Yeah, I have a major issue with Any person that thinks that terrorist memorial should be built... any individual that thinks its fine to burn Bibles but heaven forbid anyone offend a muslim... but not give a damn how offended 9/11 victims are about it all. And we are far more numerous than just the immediate families of the people that died that day.

I wasn't in Manhattan, but I was in the section of the pentagon hit... I by all rights should have still been there when it happened if not for an overwhelming urg eto leave that morning. My life still revolved around nothing but fixing what happened in manhattan for the next month... all day long.

Sorry, my sympathy reserve ran dry that day. I relish in hearing of terrorists and any and all of their supporters that get killed... man woman or child. And its goes towards repaying the HUGE debt Islam owes us for what was done in their name with support from most of their followers... and yeah, most of them are guilty because without their support and money, the terrorists would not be able to continue like they have thus far.

There are some Muslims helping the fight (those who ARE helping have my respect, not the rest)... but obviously not nearly enough are helping US... far too many help THEM..

[QUOTE=smoothy;2520359]The comments I made earlier about women and kids with explosives happened to my best friend... he wasn't the kind to make up stuff.

IF I was in your shoes... if it was either me or them... I was going to be the one to make it to the next day. And the stories I heard from a cousin who did frequent low altitude jumps at night and his last mission almost resulted in losing his leg from running a punji stick through his sole to his knee, as you know were crap covered.

I've heard stories from relatives from Omaha Beach D-Day landings.. the first americans in Peenemünde, The Corrigador Death march, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq (much of that first hand), Afghanistan... (back to when the Russians were there).




We where dropped in for months at a time,I left a lot of friends over there,
And I really get upset when people say we shouldn't have been there,out of all the people I met over there I don't think any of us wanted to be there,we where called to go and we went.
We where proud to serve, I still keep in touch with some my team,most are gone now , And I agree with you if people don't like it THEY CAN KISS MY WHITE *** ,Thanks Man

You're joking right ?
Tell that to the Montagnard hill tribes who are pretty much the victim of complete genocide . Buddhists and Christians are routinely persecuted . Millions of people were put in concentration camps ....oops I mean “re-education camps” ..for over 20 years after the war. Estimates are that over 165,000 people died there.

Evita was there this summer and was very critical of their human rights record. The West has been conned by a combination of propaganda about their embrace of a market economy ,and a large dose of false guilt for trying to keep the country free.

Vietnam: Repression Intensifies Prior to Party Congress | Human Rights Watch (http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2010/01/21/vietnam-repression-intensifies-prior-party-congress)

Tom you guys left those people behind knowing that they would be persecuted just as anyone in the South who had sided with you would be persecuted and "reeducated". The price of losing a war is someone pays but you guys just went home and from the safety of your backyard you can be critical. How much concern was shown for all those who would be killed because they trusted the US, what did you do to prevent it? It will be the same in Afghanistan, when you leave as you inevitiably must, there will be those who pay for backing you

Yeah ,you got that right .Our shame was their abandonment .

But a rewrite of the history is not helpful. To say they were better off after we left is to say people who's permanent existence is under the jack boot of oppression's lives are good.
While our troops fought for their freedom against communist oppression they had hope.

Duplicate post

Yeah ,you got that right .Our shame was their abandonment .

But a rewrite of the history is not helpful. To say they were better off after we left is to say people who's permanent existance is under the jack boot of oppression's lives are good.
While our troops fought for their freedom against communist oppression they had hope.

Tom they are better off today than when their country was been torn apart and defoliated, that they have less freedom than you or they may have desired is relative, probably 2 billion people could not be described as free but they don't live in poverty, while another 2 billion live in abject poverty and cannot exercise what freedoms they might have. Our shame today is our inability to help those who need it even though we have the means

Afghanistan is like Vietnam, it is being torn apart for the sake of ideology, and when it ends there will be a lot of victims and very few who will be better off for some time. Do the Afghans have hope, I wonder what form it takes

Yeah ,you got that right .Our shame was their abandonment Hello again, tom:

Actually, our shame was not WINNING the war in the first place. Then we wouldn't have had to abandon anybody. But, we don't learn much.

Like Iraq and Afghanistan, we LOST the war in Vietnam LONG before we actually left. That happened when we decided NOT to win it - somewhere around 1967... We decided NOT to win in Afghanistan when we took our eyes off the ball and invaded Iraq. We decided NOT to win in Iraq when we went in under FALSE pretenses and with a "small footprint". Plus we had NO plans (that's NONE) for the Iraqi occupation an insurgency that followed.

Yes, there WILL be more killing fields in Iraq and Afghanistan when we leave. What? You think it's different this time? You think we learned how to fight a war?? Nahhh. We didn't.

excon

excon... losing had nothing ot do with Iraq. It was all about measured responses. When you do that you limit yourself to the capacity of you opponent.

You will never win like that... you go in, kick but with Overwhelming force... you kill anything in the area where opposition erupts... and it won't take long before people allow these scum to hide behind their skirts and children when they know their butt is on the line as well.

That's what won WW2. Think Measured response would have worked with Germany? Nope. THing Measured response would have worked with Japan? Nope.

Overwhelming force, damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead is what won the war, not some pantywastes idea of Measured response.

I really don't know WHO was responsible for that stupid concept nor do I care... but he was as big a pantywaste and anyone that used it thinking it was a good idea was too.

You will never win like that....you go in, kick but with OVERWELMING force...you kill anything in the area where opposition erupts...and it won't take long before people allow these scum to hide behind their skirts and children when they know their butt is on the line as well.

.

You quote WWII but the enemy wore uniforms and were identifiable and your overwhelming force philosopy led to soviet paranoia and the years of the cold war, which we have only recently recovered from in most parts of the world. What happens if you apply your philosophy to Afghanistan? A jackbooted occupation? You can't identify the enemy in Afghanistan without using methods which run contrary to your own philosopy. How do you identify the enemy in Afghanistan? Do you shoot every man who wears a chemise and pork pie hat? Or do you shoot every man who carries a gun? I suggest you test that idea in your own cities. Your idea of overwhelming force is out of place, your kill everything philosophy is the same idea your nation has had for centuries and we see the outcome in your own native Americans. You have to stop seeing the world through eighteenth century eyes

You will never win like that....you go in, kick but with OVERWELMING force...you kill anything in the area where opposition erupts...and it won't take long before people allow these scum to hide behind their skirts and children when they know their butt is on the line as well.

A more recent example was Mogadishu. We went in under ROE's that said if anybody even looks like they have a weapon drop a hammer on them. Then Bubba took office, instituted this "measured response," and the bad guys got a lucky shot and played pile-on, resulting in a Time magazine cover of a naked desecrated Marine's corpse.

I agree with catsmine.
God Bless You.

you quote WWII but the enemy wore uniforms and were identifiable and your overwhelming force philosopy led to soviet paranoia and the years of the cold war, which we have only recently recovered from in most parts of the world. What happens if you apply your philosophy to Afghanistan? a jackbooted occupation? You can't identify the enemy in Afghanistan without using methods which run contrary to your own philosopy. How do you identify the enemy in Afghanistan? Do you shoot every man who wears a chemise and pork pie hat? Or do you shoot every man who carries a gun? I suggest you test that idea in your own cities. Your idea of overwhelming force is out of place, your kill everything philosophy is the same idea your nation has had for centuries and we see the outcome in your own native Americans. You have to stop seeing the world through eigtheenth century eyes

International Rules of war require Uniforms...

Cowards that doen't wear uniforms don't deserve Geneva Convention entitlements.

Terrorists are cowards that hide behind civilians and civilian clothes.

People caught fighting in other wars out of uniform were never granted nor deserved Geneva Convention protection.

Anyone caught with a gun, or With someone with a gun should be shot and killed. I don't care , Man woman or child... kill all of them if even one has or was seen with a gun. A three year old girl can kill an American just as dead as a 20 year old man.

Muslims don't give a damn who they kill, why should we if you want to beat them... and To beat degenerates, you have ot play their game by their rules...


I survived 9/11 by luck. Call me a cold hearted bast*** if you want... because, like I said elsewhere, they tried to kill me so this is really personal. I am OWED retribution for their actions. THe last SOB that tried to kick my butt spent a month in the hospital and months in casts. He would have gotten a cemetery plot if I wasn't stopped from finishing him off by friends of mine.

WHen someone threatens my life I AM a cold hearted SOB ( and proud of it). AND I have been for a LOT of years, and I'm not stopping any time soon.

A more recent example was Mogadishu. We went in under ROE's that said if anybody even looks like they have a weapon drop a hammer on them. Then Bubba took office, instituted this "measured response," and the bad guys got a lucky shot and played pile-on, resulting in a Time magazine cover of a naked desecrated Marine's corpse.Exactly... how many times will it take before these idiots learn it NEVER works.

It will never end.

it will never end.

Of course it will end BO has decreed it

Of course it will end BO has decreed it

Yes... look how well extending the hand of friendship has worked with IRAN so far...

All the bad guys ever wanted was to be friends... NOT!

This from Bob Woodward's new book on the AfPakia war :


The current strategy in Afghanistan is to turn up the pressure on the Taliban through the surge, while exploring the possibility of a settlement with the insurgents, shorn of their al-Qaida affiliates.

This strategy was sold to Obama, and he sold it in turn to his supporters, on the grounds that the surge would shorten the war. The strategy falls down if the Taliban leadership in the Quetta Shura – and its Afghan and Pakistani allies – become convinced that the presidential resolve is hollow and that they do not have long to wait before the foreigners leave.
One official involved in tentative contacts with the insurgents told me today: “They will say: If the Americans are that anxious to leave, why should we talk?”

Hello again,

I agree. Bush lost the war. I know, I know... You want to forget. You want to pretend. But, I ain't going to letcha.

excon

This from Bob Woodward's new book on the AfPakia war :

Oh I can hear the Democrats HOWLING over this book... considering he was their golden boy over what got revealed about Nixon and Watergate. How dare he blaspheme the Messiah.

I may have to buy it to read.

This from Bob Woodward's new book on the AfPakia war :

We hear a lot about US strategy but in reality the Taliban would appear to have the same strategy putting more pressure on the foreign forces, I'm still waiting for the fabled offensive, the summer is gone, but I expect the delay can now be blamed on the floods in Pakistan and everyone will understand