What's new

US, Arab countries hijacking Pakistani polls: MWM

It is not a democracy when you elect a dictator. The candidate may promise, but because of separation-of-powers he must make compromises - and if their is a working level of trust, horse-trading - to push his legislation forward.

Which means one has to pay attention to the candidate's hierarchy of priorities. A candidate who vows to "bring peace to the middle east" or "solve all problems" without providing specifics whereas his health-care or land-grab plans are known or full of details has a pretty obvious hierarchy to his priorities.

I know that Obama doesn't have the Middle East in his hands. A lot of those decisions are not up to him to make. Healthcare helped some people and didnt help some. But it increased government services for dialysis victims. They pay good money for their transportation and I know this. With cutting some of these plans for the budget those business could be in risk. I don't see any decent candidate in the US. It's been a while since we really have had a trusted leader. Obama lied on many things. But so did Bush before he was elected. All of our candidates will become like that in the race and decisions would be based by corporations and congress. They don't necessarily do what is in our interest, but in looking at something in one way it may be in our interest but overall it isn't. As for the Middle East this current administration didnt make anything better for it because its not in their interest to. His comprises went so far away from progressivism and he literally became a moderate republican. Obama is still fearful and he needs to take a stronger stand when it comes to some of these comprises and he needs not to make concessions. Either way. Like you said, he can't drastically make a change. I would especially love to see a chnage with our policy in the Middle East, it has slightly changed but we need to rethink some things, who and what were supporting in Iraq for example. Our Israeli Palestinian policy is useless and meaningless, we all know eventually the US will step out of those discussions and leave it to the people there. But I feel like that was their plan all along.
 
Arabs are worried that if Pakistan gets a little cosy with Iran, Pakistan will end up sharing its nuke tech with Iran. You see, Pakistan doesn't want to be the only Muslim nuclear armed nation. There are 4 Christian countries, 2 Communist, 1 Hindu, 1 Abomination and only 1 Muslim country out of 56 per-dominantly Muslim states.


Who has ever said this on an official level??
And why would we hand over the result of our efforts to someone else while we endured the sanctions and the international blackout??
 
I doubt it, that seems like speculation right now. And it sounds unrealistic that Pakistan would try to share nuclear tech especially considering what they would lose from the USA and considering they would be affected by sanctions.

Pakistan already shared nuke tech with North Korea in the 1990s in exchange for missile technology. That was achieved when Pakistan was under American sanctions.

Pakistan will do it again if necessary.
 
Who has ever said this on an official level??
And why would we hand over the result of our efforts to someone else while we endured the sanctions and the international blackout??

For money obviously. Ever heard of a guy by the name of Abdul Qadeer Khan. Apparently he was a doctor and had a lot of chums in the military.

Do you think China would ever give the M-11 Ballistic missiles to Pakistan or the Soviet Union would consider giving more than 2,000 SCUD-B Ballistic Missiles to Afghanistan?
 
For money obviously. Ever heard of a guy by the name of Abdul Qadeer Khan. Apparently he was a doctor and had a lot of chums in the military.

Do you think China would ever give the M-11 Ballistic missiles to Pakistan or the Soviet Union would consider giving more than 2,000 SCUD-B Ballistic Missiles to Afghanistan?


Ballistic missiles are one thing and nuclear tech is another.

Your earlier statement made it sound as if Pakistan is providing others with this technology even though it's not. Your post has confirmed that Pakistan is not involved in this, it was A.Q.Khan.
Very few people have access to that technology, regardless of who his alleged "chums" are. Pakistani nukes are for Pakistan's protection only.
 
Pakistan already shared nuke tech with North Korea in the 1990s in exchange for missile technology. That was achieved when Pakistan was under American sanctions.

Pakistan will do it again if necessary.

And Pakistan would go to Iran for that? I don't see it happening anytime soon. Maybe in the future and I doubt Arabic countries would want to deal with their internal affairs. KSA will build nuclear weapons if Iran does, but I would like to see them pointed at Israel for deterrence.
 
...As for the Middle East this current administration didnt make anything better for it because its not in their interest to. His comprises went so far away from progressivism and he literally became a moderate republican. Obama is still fearful and he needs to take a stronger stand when it comes to some of these comprises and he needs not to make concessions. Either way. Like you said, he can't drastically make a change. I would especially love to see a chnage with our policy in the Middle East, it has slightly changed but we need to rethink some things, who and what were supporting in Iraq for example. Our Israeli Palestinian policy is useless and meaningless, we all know eventually the US will step out of those discussions and leave it to the people there. But I feel like that was their plan all along.
Shortly after he was elected one of Obama's top officials visited a local synagogue and explained Obama's Israel policy. In effect, it is to support Israel completely by military means but not at all by political means. This is convenient for a few - especially the Saudis - but in the long term can only inflame resentment against the Obama Administration from the Arabs, both for not supporting the ouster of their tyrants and offering no solution to the Palestinian Arab problem. His revision of this policy is even wider this term, encouraging Israelis to take to the streets for peace (Obama doesn't seem to grasp that Israel's PR system and small size reflects public opinion better than America) while writing blank checks for action against Iran (which could be unnecessary if the U.S. publicly proclaimed no nuclear weapons capability for Iran as its official position.)

Yes, the mideast is wayy down Obama's list of priorities. Then again, given the lack of details in his campaign, it's about what I expected.
 
Ballistic missiles are one thing and nuclear tech is another.

Your earlier statement made it sound as if Pakistan is providing others with this technology even though it's not. Your post has confirmed that Pakistan is not involved in this, it was A.Q.Khan.
Very few people have access to that technology, regardless of who his alleged "chums" are. Pakistani nukes are for Pakistan's protection only.

And Pakistan would go to Iran for that? I don't see it happening anytime soon. Maybe in the future and I doubt Arabic countries would want to deal with their internal affairs. KSA will build nuclear weapons if Iran does, but I would like to see them pointed at Israel for deterrence.

Iran offered Benazir $4b for nuclear tech: Beg
Sunday, May 14, 2006

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan’s former army chief says Iranian officials came to him for advice on heading off an attack on their nuclear facilities, and he in effect advised them to take a hostage – Israel.

Retired Gen Mirza Aslam Beg said he suggested their government “make it clear that if anything happens to Iran, if anyone attacks it – it doesn’t matter who it is or how it is attacked – that Iran’s answer will be to hit Israel; the only target will be Israel.”

Since Beg spoke in an interview with The Associated Press, echoes of his thinking have been heard in Iran, though whether they result directly from his advice isn’t known. Mohammad Ebrahim Dehghani, an Iranian Revolutionary Guards commander, was quoted last week as saying that if “America does make any mischief, the first place we target will be Israel.” The threat was disavowed the next day by Brig Gen Alireza Afshar, deputy to the chief of Iran’s military staff, who said it was Dehghani’s “personal view and has no validity as far as the Iranian military officials are concerned”.

And on Tuesday, Israel’s vice premier, Shimon Peres, warned that “Those who threaten to destroy are in danger of being destroyed.” In the AP interview that took place several weeks before these threats were exchanged, Beg said a delegation from the Iranian Embassy in Pakistan had come to his office in January, seeking advice as Western pressure mounted on Iran to abandon its nuclear effort. Beg said he offered lessons learned from his experience dealing with India’s nuclear threat.

He said he told the Iranians, whom he did not identify, that Pakistan had suspected India of collaborating with Israel in planning an attack on its nuclear facilities. By then, Pakistan had the bomb too. But both countries had adopted a strategy of ambiguity, he said, and Pakistan sent an emissary to India to warn that no matter who attacked it, Pakistan would retaliate against India. “We told India frankly that this is the threat we perceive and this is the action we are taking and the action we will take. It was a real deterrent,” he recalled telling the Iranians. He said he also advised them to “attempt to degrade the defence systems of Israel,” harass it through the Hamas government of the Palestinian Authority and the Hezbollah movement in Lebanon, and put second-strike nuclear weapons on submarines.

Although analysts are divided on how soon Iran might have nuclear weapons, Beg said he is sure Iran has had enough time to develop them. But he insists the Pakistani government didn’t help, even though he says former prime minister Benazir Bhutto once told him the Iranians offered more than $4 billion for the technology.

Ephraim Asculai, a former senior official with the Israel Atomic Agency Commission, said he didn’t think Beg’s remarks reflected official Pakistani policy.

Asculai said he believed Iran learned more from Iraq than from Pakistan, recalling that as soon as the 1991 Gulf War broke out, Saddam Hussein fired missiles at Israel, even though it wasn’t in the US-led coalition fighting Iraq.

Beg became army chief of staff in 1988, a year after Pakistan confirmed CIA estimates that it had nuclear weapons capability. He served until 1991 and now runs his own think tank. He speaks freely and in detail about the nuclear issue, but many critical blank spots remain and the subject remains one of great sensitivity, clouded by revelations in 2004 that AQ Khan, who pioneered Pakistan’s nuclear bomb, sold nuclear technology to Iran, Libya and North Korea.

The bigger picture has also changed radically. Pakistan is now a US ally in the war on terrorism, and Asculai said “Pakistani government officials have often suggested that they would be willing to have ties with Israel under certain conditions.”

In the AP interview, Beg detailed nearly 20 years of Iranian approaches to obtain conventional arms and then technology for nuclear weapons. He described an Iranian visit in 1990, when he was army chief of staff. “They didn’t want the technology. They asked: ‘Can we have a bomb?’ My answer was: By all means you can have it but you must make it yourself. Nobody gave it to us.” AP

www.defence.pk/forums/pakistan-stra...o-4-billion-nuclear-tech-general-rtd-beg.html
 
Okay and what does that have to do with Arabs interfering in Pakistan's politics?
 
Okay and what does that have to do with Arabs interfering in Pakistan's politics?
Once same question ask to retired Army Officer , who replied .
Pak army has been tolerating Arabs meddling in Pak affair for long time, specially Gawadar port and Central Asia pipe line . They were sending extremist element in Pakistan through Afghanistan and funding money. Few months back PA top officials went to these countries and warned them, if they not going to stop then PAKISTAN WILL POLLOUT ALL ITS FORCES FROM THESE THREE COUNTRIES. After few weeks PA seen the reaction. If we go over the news outlet since last few months ,we will notice, lot of Arabs top boys are visiting Pakistan and promising for investment. They were in Pakistan, just to cool down Pak army . Just concise the statement. And it was Zia ul Haq who really got Pakistan in trouble.
 
Once same question ask to retired Army Officer , who replied .
Pak army has been tolerating Arabs meddling in Pak affair for long time, specially Gawadar port and Central Asia pipe line . They were sending extremist element in Pakistan through Afghanistan and funding money. Few months back PA top officials went to these countries and warned them, if they not going to stop then PAKISTAN WILL POLLOUT ALL ITS FORCES FROM THESE THREE COUNTRIES. After few weeks PA seen the reaction. If we notice the news outlet since last few months we will notice, lot of Arabs top boys are visiting Pakistan and promising for investment. They were Pakistan, just to cool down Pak army . Just concise the statement. And it was Zia ul Haq who really go Pakistan in trouble.

So you're blaming Arabs for the extremists in Pakistan? C'mon man what is that? Don't blame each other. And please tell me these specific Arabic countries. I'm not for generalizing them. But I would expect better of you. Palestinains used to fight in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union and they united the Mujahideen. Do you remember Abdullah Azzam? Of course things went down hill later on and splinter groups came about. This is how the world is today. Everyone is divided into sub groups and is taught only to support theirselves. It's the state of the world that is bad. And I don't support this state.
 
So you're blaming Arabs for the extremists in Pakistan? C'mon man what is that? Don't blame each other. And please tell me these specific Arabic countries. I'm not for generalizing them. But I would expect better of you. Palestinains used to fight in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union and they united the Mujahideen. Do you remember Abdullah Azzam? Of course things went down hill later on and splinter groups came about. This is how the world is today. Everyone is divided into sub groups and is taught only to support theirselves. It's the state of the world that is bad. And I don't support this state.
When the question came, about the men power, all these arab countries empty their prison and send all extremist element as cannon fodder. Almost 15,000 men provided by King Fahad to fight soviets . Watch the Pakistani TV program posted. Khara sauch April 17th.
 
When the question came, about the men power, all these arab countries empty their prison and send all extremist element as cannon fodder. Almost 15,000 men provided by King Fahad to fight soviets . Watch the Pakistani TV program posted. Khara sauch April 17th.

I don't have Pakistani TV programs here or understand the language. I don't know what you are talking about regarding King Fahad. Please link this claim. A lot of people in Afghanistan were afghanis themselves or volunteers from the Arabic/Muslim world. Including Pakistan. What happens in Pakistan is not due to Arabs. That's partly Pakistan's problem but also the Muslim world's state and our scholars. Once mujahideen put theirselves and objectives over unity they fail. This is what happens. Of course there where many good fighters who died during the war and always believed in defending Muslims only and not attacking them. But what you're saying is nothing more than racist conspiratorial confusion. We don't need this stuff for our Ummah. And this includes all of us trying to make these claims.
 

Back
Top Bottom