22 killed in US missile strike in N Waziristan

[roadrunner]

1. "But Pakistan is 8 times bigger than Afghanistan. "

- Surely not population wise, or area wise.

Population Afghanistan - 30 million
Population Pakistan - 180 million.

I think Afghanistan's population is exagerrated. Most are abroad anyway.

I'd say 25 million is more accurrate, perhaps 20 million.

2. "So either way, all this Saudi and US inspired religious spread of Islamist teaching hasn't helped Afghanistan one bit. "

- I'm glad to know that Pakistan had no hand in this.

The Zia government which was propped up by the US provided logistics.

 

[Vinod2070]

Wow.

When it comes time to take credit for defeating the USSR, it is Pakistan all the way!

 

[roadrunner]

I'll answer it in bits.

Yes, but in that bargain Pakistan benefited as well, which wouldn't have been possible otherwise, so there's certainly that to be thankful for. There was after all a reason why the Pakistani leaders were clamoring for US patronage after independence.

No..

I'll acknowledge some Pakistanis are foolhardy sycophantic people where colonization is a means of progression.

This does not apply to the majority of Pakistanis. The majority of Pakistanis do not want the deal where the US helps Pakistan in one relatively minor way, then wants a much bigger thing in return.

If i may use someone elses example. You expect someone to be grateful for giving them glasses to see, despite cutting off their limbs and making them deaf.

You don't get this very SIMPLE point. This is it.

The US spread Islamic fanatiscm in the western regions of Pakistan and Afghanistan. That was a deal not worth the price that Pakistan has had to pay. Your money of 10 billion is pittance (musharraf said this even recently). Your Starfighters were all paid for, as were your F-16s. It was a business deal. If India would have bought them, you'd have taken that route. You even held back and never gave a set of 40 or 50 F-16s despite them having been paid for.

The list is endless. I don't think anyone cares about F-16s though. It's the spread if Islamic fundamentalism by the US, Saudi, and your propped up dictator, Zia that p!sses most people off. The western regions of Pakistan were a place of beauty, peace and tranquility not so long ago, but the US, Saudi (and Zia) managed to phuck it all up.

 

[roadrunner]

Wow.

When it comes time to take credit for defeating the USSR, it is Pakistan all the way!

Don't you have a call centre to attend to. Quit sticking your nose in here. You don't have the intelligence to make a good point anywhere.

 

[Omar1984]

U.S. won the hearts and minds of Pakistanis and Afghans during Soviet War to defeat the Soviets, there was a passion in Pakistanis and Afghans to get rid of Soviets and they were successful.

U.S. cant win the hearts and minds of Pakistanis and Afghans to defeat Taliban because Taliban are our own people, who helped defeat the Soviets, and U.S. cant win the minds and hearts of Pakistanis and Afghans to defeat Al Queda because they need solid proof that Al Queda was involved in 9/11. Thats why this war is unwinable, the people in Pakistan and Afghanistan see the US as the enemy, because they see US as invaders of Afghanistan just like the Soviets were.

 

[Vinod2070]

See who is talking of intelligence.

 

[S-2]

Brilliant post here.

Elegant and accurate.

Thank you.

 

[roadrunner]

U.S. won the hearts and minds of Pakistanis and Afghans during Soviet War to defeat the Soviets, there was a passion in Pakistanis and Afghans to get rid of Soviets and they were successful.

U.S. cant win the hearts and minds of Pakistanis and Afghans to defeat Taliban because Taliban are our own people, who helped defeat the Soviets, and U.S. cant win the minds and hearts of Pakistanis and Afghans to defeat Al Queda because they need solid proof that Al Queda was involved in 9/11. Thats why this war is unwinable, the people in Pakistan and Afghanistan see the US as the enemy, because they see US as invaders of Afghanistan just like the Soviets were.

During the 80s, the US were seen as the good guys. That image was misplaced, given what has happened since. If you had told an Afghan, you have two choices. You can either live under the Soviets, you'll get a Soviet education, socialism, you'll not be well off, but your family will be fed, or you could kick the soviets out at the expense of 4 million people, destroy your infrastructure so there's only rocks, get invaded by Arab and Uzbek extremists, endless warfare, destruction of your schools, social fabric, have famines resulting in loss to all families, and huge corruption, insecurity, the Afghans would have given the Soviets a chance to see what rule would be like under them. Instead,due to impatience, they were radicalized

 

[Omar1984]

During the 80s, the US were seen as the good guys. That image was misplaced, given what has happened since. If you had told an Afghan, you have two choices. You can either live under the Soviets, you'll get a Soviet education, socialism, you'll not be well off, but your family will be fed, or you could kick the soviets out at the expense of 4 million people, destroy your infrastructure so there's only rocks, get invaded by Arab and Uzbek extremists, endless warfare, destruction of your schools, social fabric, have famines resulting in loss to all families, and huge corruption, insecurity, the Afghans would have given the Soviets a chance to see what rule would be like under them. Instead,due to impatience, they were radicalized

Well having the Soviets next door wouldn't be in Pakistan's best interst either.

Afghans, however, I think regret now taking the US's side over Soviets in the Soviet War.

 

[roadrunner]

Well having the Soviets next door wouldn't be in Pakistan's best interst either.

Afghans, however, I think regret now taking the US's side over Soviets in the Soviet War.

I'd agree if Pakistan was an ally of the US.

Had Pakistan allied with the Soviets, the Soviets would have had no need to be hostile towards Pakistan. Fate is cursed.

 

[metalfalcon]

A liberal warning for Obama: Pak may prove to be Vietnam ​

As the United States has reimbursed $101 million to Pakistan for its efforts to fight al-Qaeda and Taliban militants along the
Pakistan-Afghan border, liberals have begun cautioning the Obama administration against inheriting George Bush’s war. According to these liberals, President Barack Obama could be “falling into the Lyndon Johnson Vietnam trap, of escalating a predecessor’s half-hearted war into a major quagmire” .

The liberals argue that Muslim opinion that backed the new President has turned against him after the President ordered a US Air Force drone to bomb two separate Pakistani villages. This, they said, has been angering the Pakistani civil society. As expected they argue that the way out would be to pump in substantial money for human development and not violence from the skies.

But the Obama administration seems determined to take a tough stand against terrorists in areas bordering Afghanistan. With the transfer of the amount on Friday, it is expected to seek more resolute action against terrorism.

The United States still owes about $1billion to Pakistan for the expenses incurred during the last eight months. The payments are made under a new procedure approved recently. Under the procedure, the government of Pakistan submits its claim to the Office of the US Defence Representative in Pakistan, who forwards it to the US Central Command in Tampa, Florida.

From Centcom , the claims are sent to the Pentagon which evaluates the claims and then notifies the US Congress within a 15-day mandatory period. The claims are scrutinised but not debated and are sent back to the Pentagon after approval, which releases the funds to Pakistan .

Although the Pakistan establishment has been publicly denouncing the air raids by the US, it has the tacit Pakistani government acquiescence . In September, US and Pakistani officials had reached an agreement to allow attacks without Pakistani involvement.

A liberal warning for Obama: Pak may prove to be Vietnam - Politics/Nation-News-The Economic Times

 

[metalfalcon]

WASHINGTON: US Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Tuesday the United States will "go after Al-Qaeda wherever Al-Qaeda is," and said Washington's position has been relayed to Pakistan.

"Both President (George W.) Bush and President (Barack) Obama have made clear we will go after Al-Qaeda whereever Al-Qaeda is, and we will continue to pursue that," he told lawmakers.

Asked whether that decision has been transmitted to the government of Pakistan, Gates said "Yes, sir."


US will go after Al-Qaeda wherever it is: Gates - GEO.tv

 

[Omar1984]

I'd agree if Pakistan was an ally of the US.

Had Pakistan allied with the Soviets, the Soviets would have had no need to be hostile towards Pakistan. Fate is cursed.

Well Pakistan was doing great until Bush invaded Afghanistan.
Taliban was Pakistan's friend, there was no suicide bombings going on in Pakistan, Swat was visited by people all across Pakistan, girls were going to school in every part of Pakistan, no schools were being bombed.

We Pakistanis have to think what went wrong, Taliban existed before 2001 and Pakistan were living side by side with them in peace for decades.

Really Pakistan needs to put itself first before any other country.
Pakistanis suffered enough throughout history thats why I want to see Pakistan government putting the people of Pakistan and the nation before anyone so Pakistanis can conquer their dreams.

 

[Energon]

You don't get this very SIMPLE point. This is it.

The US spread Islamic fanatiscm in the western regions of Pakistan and Afghanistan. That was a deal not worth the price that Pakistan has had to pay. Your money of 10 billion is pittance (musharraf said this even recently). Your Starfighters were all paid for, as were your F-16s. It was a business deal. If India would have bought them, you'd have taken that route. You even held back and never gave a set of 40 or 50 F-16s despite them having been paid for.

The list is endless. I don't think anyone cares about F-16s though. It's the spread if Islamic fundamentalism by the US, Saudi, and your propped up dictator, Zia that p!sses most people off. The western regions of Pakistan were a place of beauty, peace and tranquility not so long ago, but the US, Saudi (and Zia) managed to phuck it all up.

Again, you're trying to erroneously lay the blame squarely upon the US when in fact the underlying pathology is centered completely within the construct of Pakistan which then extends outward first and foremost to the neighboring Islamic world.

Zia was propped up by Bhutto because there has always been a tradition of selecting the most visually pliable general to become COAS so as to avoid a confrontation later on... which then ends up with the latter (formerly pliable now sketchy general) turning the tables in some sort of an underhanded scheme that blows the lid off the whole thing. This vicious cycle was established right after the first military coup... which again had nothing to do with USA, but rather a never ending saga of political instability within Pakistan fueled by a multitude of other vicious cycles. And I assure you this will never come to an end until Pakistan is introspective about the said baseline pathology which has been prevalent since the inception of the nation. The people of Pakistan have first and foremost themselves and their obtuse and myopic leaders to blame for the radicalization that has since consumed the nation. Remember this is a self perpetuating phenomenon based on a belief system, which is completely dependent upon... belief; which in this case isn't western in origin.

 

[roadrunner]

Again, you're trying to erroneously lay the blame squarely upon the US when in fact the underlying pathology is centered completely within the construct of Pakistan which then extends outward first and foremost to the neighboring Islamic world.

Not squarely, but majorly

Zia was propped up by Bhutto because there has always been a tradition of selecting the most visually pliable general to become COAS so as to avoid a confrontation later on... which then ends up with the latter (formerly pliable now sketchy general) turning the tables in some sort of an underhanded scheme that blows the lid off the whole thing.

No. Zia overthrew Bhutto in a coup and then faked charges against him to get him hanged.

It was the great jihad against the Soviets in Afghanistan in the 1980s that saw the U.S.-Pakistan relationship bloom into full flower. Zia-ul-Haq's 1977 U.S.-backed coup ousting Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto effectively ended a democratic interlude in Pakistan.
The U.S. and the making of Pakistan?s crisis | SocialistWorker.org



The US was still giving military aid to Zia till 1979 until it discovered a uranium enrichment facility. In fact it was in 1976 that the US started aid to Pakistan again, and Zia came to power the following year.

This vicious cycle was established right after the first military coup... which again had nothing to do with USA, but rather a never ending saga of political instability within Pakistan fueled by a multitude of other vicious cycles.

I don't agree. The US was financially supporting Zia and the military after he'd staged his coup.

And I assure you this will never come to an end until Pakistan is introspective about the said baseline pathology which has been prevalent since the inception of the nation. The people of Pakistan have first and foremost themselves and their obtuse and myopic leaders to blame for the radicalization that has since consumed the nation. Remember this is a self perpetuating phenomenon based on a belief system, which is completely dependent upon... belief; which in this case isn't western in origin.

Nonsense. Myopic is a word that should be reserved for your own post here. There was no extremism in Afghanistan or the west of Pakistan prior to 1980. What happened, and you too can choose to remain in denial, was that the US/Saudi alliance came to Pakistan in 1979, and established madrassas along the border. These schools with their Saudi preachers brainwashed a generation of young men, backed by the US.

Islam is not a homogenous religion practised the same universally. Some view it rigidly, some do not. You took the tolerance out of the region and replaced it with that rigidity. That is what has led to this situation, and no "underlying pathology centred within any contrust" is going to change that.