22 killed in US missile strike in N Waziristan

[roadrunner]

This is what we get for helping Pakistan protect itself for fifty+ years from the hammer of India on the right and the anvil of Soviet communism on the left? Plus gobs and gobs of economic aid?

I don't think the U.S. "looks down" at Pakistan. People like you, however, might be seen as ignorant ingrates. Without America, Pakistan would have been swallowed whole years ago. After all, who, other than the U.S., cares whether Pakistan survives or not?

LOL. What a load of hysterical mumbo jumbo nonsense boasting about one's self importance!

WHAT has America done for Pakistan, except slap sanctions on it, try and regress its military might, ask it to kill its own people, blame it for not killing enough people, etc etc.

Look, America goes where its interests are. If those interests coincide with Pakistan's, then you can't tell me that America does it "for the benefit of the Pakistani people". Many a time the American interest has gone against the Pakistani one, and the Pakistani interest has been put second.

So don't expect one goddam piece of gratitude from me, you mouthy charlatan.

Get it through your skull. America does things IN ITS INTERESTS, not for the sake of Pakistan.

When America does things in Pakistan's interest while sacrificing some of its own interests, then that is something to be grateful for.

 

[belarusian]

I read an article which puts the question exactly right:

What rights do weak states have when they are infested with terrorists who seek to attack the United States?
...

68% said U.S. troops in Afghanistan pose a “critical threat” to their national security – a higher percentage than is worried about the threat to Pakistan from Al Qaeda or even from its traditional enemy, India. Moreover, there is overwhelming opposition to allowing U.S. troops into Pakistan for any reason. In the survey of urban adults by WorldPublicOpinion.org and the United States Institute of Peace, only 5% of Pakistanis thought their government should allow foreign troops into Pakistan to capture Al Qaeda fighters, and only 9% thought it should permit foreigners to pursue Taliban insurgents who have crossed over from Afghanistan.

Finally, the pollsters asked the question that the Democratic candidates have tussled over: If Pakistan learned that Osama bin Laden was in the tribal areas and found his exact location, should it attempt his capture? An astounding 39% of those surveyed said no. Only 24% wanted their own troops to try to capture him.

The Pakistan problem - Los Angeles Times

 

[Omar1984]

I read an article which puts the question exactly right:

What rights do weak states have when they are infested with terrorists who seek to attack the United States?
...

68% said U.S. troops in Afghanistan pose a “critical threat” to their national security – a higher percentage than is worried about the threat to Pakistan from Al Qaeda or even from its traditional enemy, India. Moreover, there is overwhelming opposition to allowing U.S. troops into Pakistan for any reason. In the survey of urban adults by WorldPublicOpinion.org and the United States Institute of Peace, only 5% of Pakistanis thought their government should allow foreign troops into Pakistan to capture Al Qaeda fighters, and only 9% thought it should permit foreigners to pursue Taliban insurgents who have crossed over from Afghanistan.

Finally, the pollsters asked the question that the Democratic candidates have tussled over: If Pakistan learned that Osama bin Laden was in the tribal areas and found his exact location, should it attempt his capture? An astounding 39% of those surveyed said no. Only 24% wanted their own troops to try to capture him.

The Pakistan problem - Los Angeles Times

And many people in Pakistan cant read or write, especially in english, so I dont know how these polls were conducted.

 

[Energon]

LOL. What a load of hysterical mumbo jumbo nonsense boasting about one's self importance!

WHAT has America done for Pakistan, except slap sanctions on it, try and regress its military might, ask it to kill its own people, blame it for not killing enough people, etc etc.

Look, America goes where its interests are. If those interests coincide with Pakistan's, then you can't tell me that America does it "for the benefit of the Pakistani people". Many a time the American interest has gone against the Pakistani one, and the Pakistani interest has been put second.

So don't expect one goddam piece of gratitude from me, you mouthy charlatan.

Get it through your skull. America does things IN ITS INTERESTS, not for the sake of Pakistan.

When America does things in Pakistan's interest while sacrificing some of its own interests, then that is something to be grateful for.

In that case you might as well talk to a tree.

Interests, economics and power projection are the underlying mantra of foreign policy. The deafening silence at the "friends of Pakistan" meetings is very popular these days for a reason... because the supposed "friends" are first and foremost interested in their own gains. This is all the more so when you have a client-patron arrangement, which is exactly what the US-Pak relationship has always been (I know many posters here disagree with me, but the facts just speak for themselves).

The US tax payer has been a benefactor of Pakistan for many years and the cold war stance also enabled Pakistan to get away with critical things it wouldn't have otherwise been able to, particularly the Nuclear tech acquisition (Adrian Levy and Catherine Scott-Clark: "Deception: Pakistan, the United States, and the Secret Trade in Nuclear Weapons"). I don't think anyone can deny the disastrous results from the clandestine US-Pak relationship of the past decades and the long line of errors that the US has made in order to perpetuate the said client patron relationship, but it is also evident that Pakistan has grossly mismanaged US funds which could have been used more wisely to build an economically stable and successful state.

 

[qsaark]

In that case you might as well talk to a tree.

Interests, economics and power projection are the underlying mantra of foreign policy. The deafening silence at the "friends of Pakistan" meetings is very popular these days for a reason... because the supposed "friends" are first and foremost interested in their own gains. This is all the more so when you have a client-patron arrangement, which is exactly what the US-Pak relationship has always been (I know many posters here disagree with me, but the facts just speak for themselves).

The US tax payer has been a benefactor of Pakistan for many years and the cold war stance also enabled Pakistan to get away with critical things it wouldn't have otherwise been able to, particularly the Nuclear tech acquisition (Adrian Levy and Catherine Scott-Clark: "Deception: Pakistan, the United States, and the Secret Trade in Nuclear Weapons"). I don't think anyone can deny the disastrous results from the clandestine US-Pak relationship of the past decades and the long line of errors that the US has made in order to perpetuate the said client patron relationship, but it is also evident that Pakistan has grossly mismanaged US funds which could have been used more wisely to build an economically stable and successful state.

I cant disagree with even a single sentence in your post.

 

[roadrunner]

In that case you might as well talk to a tree.

Interests, economics and power projection are the underlying mantra of foreign policy.

Not disagreeing. I have nothing to thank the US for, in other words, since you do everything in your own interests.

The deafening silence at the "friends of Pakistan" meetings is very popular these days for a reason... because the supposed "friends" are first and foremost interested in their own gains. This is all the more so when you have a client-patron arrangement, which is exactly what the US-Pak relationship has always been (I know many posters here disagree with me, but the facts just speak for themselves).

I'd disagree with that.

The US Pakistani relationship has been always about interests rather than economics. Economics have been important, but most importantly the US saw the Indians lurch for the Soviet Union early on. Had the Indians extended its branch to the US, they'd have taken it, leaving Pakistan for the Soviet Union.

In that case, it would have been India with all thw F-16s and Pakistan with the MiG-29s. The client-patron relationship is as a result of these political interests.

The US tax payer has been a benefactor of Pakistan for many years and the cold war stance also enabled Pakistan to get away with critical things it wouldn't have otherwise been able to, particularly the Nuclear tech acquisition (Adrian Levy and Catherine Scott-Clark: "Deception: Pakistan, the United States, and the Secret Trade in Nuclear Weapons").

Bull. Pakistan was sanctioned by the US upon demonstrating atomic power. That is not the mark of someone allowing the other to get away with something. The Canadians provided Pakistan's first atomic reactor, but this was not anything like ToT.

You're also overestimating the contribution of the US taxpayer. Let me give you an example.

Between 2000 and 2007, the US taxpayer coughed up perhaps 10 billion in military/economic aid (to be honest, it was just a an IoU, so the taxpayer may not have even contributed).

Between the same period, Pakistan's economy grew by 100 billion. So, 10 percent of the wealth created over that period was perhaps from the US taxpayer. That is not a lot relative to the wealth created in Pakistan. Add to this that Pakistan was participating in the WoT at great expense to itself, and the billions are significantly reduced. I would say pittance was given to Pakistan, when you see how much the US needs to spend fighting the war in Afghanistan (circa tens of billions a year), you gave Pakistan 10 billion for 8 years of war. Pakistan is losing out in this situation.

I don't think anyone can deny the disastrous results from the clandestine US-Pak relationship of the past decades and the long line of errors that the US has made in order to perpetuate the said client patron relationship, but it is also evident that Pakistan has grossly mismanaged US funds which could have been used more wisely to build an economically stable and successful state.

The US phucked up the tribal areas, and areas in the west of Pakistan imo. Creating lots of madrassas in the eighties to find your stupid war against the commies was, imo, a mistake for Pakistan. It led to a radicalization of people over a decade's period. This is what we are seeing now. Is any price worth this? Not in my book. If I could give back all the money the US had sent Pakistan in history to reverse the radicalization the US indulged in the West of Pakistan with its madrassas, that would be a deal worth taking.

 

[S-2]

"Creating lots of madrassas in the eighties to find your stupid war against the commies was, imo, a mistake for Pakistan."

And this is traced to America?

Saudi Arabia might have been an incisive choice here. Certainly Zia's desire to perpetuate the beginnings of an islamist vision of Pakistan might have fit in here as well. Maybe both together...but no, you had somebody else in mind here-America.

Fascinating but really a tough sell. That's out of our league altogether and will need a bit more than your certitude here. We sold the war as a nationalist insurgency. I'd suggest that was you guys who sold it as an international jihadist calling and built the infrastructure to sustain it.

Further, it's not like you abandoned the notion (or infrastructure) upon our departure. Nope. Seems that this islamic struggle thingy was illuminating in it's possibilities.

You're really reaching here.

 

[roadrunner]

"Creating lots of madrassas in the eighties to find your stupid war against the commies was, imo, a mistake for Pakistan."

And this is traced to America?

Saudi Arabia might have been an incisive choice here. Certainly Zia's desire to perpetuate the beginnings of an islamist vision of Pakistan might have fit in here as well. Maybe both together...but no, you had somebody else in mind here-America.

Fascinating but really a tough sell. That's out of our league altogether and will need a bit more than your certitude here. We sold the war as a nationalist insurgency. I'd suggest that was you guys who sold it as an international jihadist calling and built the infrastructure to sustain it.

Further, it's not like you abandoned the notion upon our departure. Nope. Seems that this islamic struggle thingy was illuminating in it's possibilities.

You're really reaching here.

Who backed Zia to take over from the democratically elected government of ZA Bhutto? (imo ZA Bhutto was a decent leader, much better than Zia and the PPP which followed).

If you think those madrassas would have been built without the US's blessing, you're the one who is reaching greatly.

The US was in Afghanistan with Christian fellas chanting "Allah-hu-Akbar" with the Mujahideen to stir them up.

 

[S-2]

We thought we were backing a general, not a mullah.

Our bad. Since when is a uniform mufti for a higher calling?

 

[roadrunner]

We thought we were backing a general, not a mullah.

Our bad. Since when is a uniform mufti for a higher calling?

Everyone knows Zia was a tool. He came to power at the precise time the Godless Soviets invaded Afghanistan. When he wasn't needed, he was disposed of.

He was a tool.

 

[qsaark]

And this is traced to America?

Let me refresh your memory.

 

[S-2]

Talking about Zia, remember.

Photos. I've got lots of photos. I remember a photo with Reagan and the Little Lebowski Urban Achievers too. That doesn't look like it though.

 

[qsaark]

Talking about Zia, remember.

Not really. Following is the post and your reply to the post.

"Creating lots of madrassas in the eighties to find your stupid war against the commies was, imo, a mistake for Pakistan."

And this is traced to America?

YES, America and Regan regime is SQUARELY responsible for the establishment of Madrassas and recruiting and training of Afghan orphans initially, and later, so called mujahideen from the rest of the Islamic world as their gun fodder.

I also hold Zia equally respsonsible in this crime.

 

[S-2]

"YES, America and Regan regime is SQUARELY responsible for the establishment of Madrassas"

Did we insist that they follow the Nizami Deoband curriculum? We're big on a solid and well-rounded education. I hope those unfortunates received both al-ulum an-naqliya and al-ulum al aqliya. Heaven forbid that it not be IAW these caveats.

Did we buy the land? How about construction? Was there a preferred architectural design? Was the official White House interior designer consulted for the interior finishings?

Maybe we contributed to zakat? That occurred around 1980 or so, didn't it?

Squarely, eh? Don't think so-by far.

Maybe your educated friends can reaffirm some of these more critical points with you before replying.

 

[roadrunner]

"YES, America and Regan regime is SQUARELY responsible for the establishment of Madrassas"

Did we insist that they follow the Nizami Deoband curriculum? We're big on a solid and well-rounded education. I hope those unfortunates received both al-ulum an-naqliya and al-ulum al aqliya. Heaven forbid that it not be IAW these caveats.

Did we buy the land? How about construction? Was there a preferred architectural design? Was the official White House interior designer consulted for the interior finishings?

Maybe we contributed to zakat? That occurred around 1980 or so, didn't it?

Squarely, eh? Don't think so-by far.

Maybe your educated friends can reaffirm some of these more critical points with you before replying.

America and Saudi provided financing for these madrassas.

The Americans then used these madrassas to brainwash Afghani kids into believeing the Godless Soviets wanted a war on Islam. Weapons training was given to them.

The Pakistani government of Zia was complicit in this.

You are in denial.