22 killed in US missile strike in N Waziristan

[S-2]

"You took the tolerance out of the region and replaced it with that rigidity."

Zia.

He drove the bus.

Saudi wahabbists liked his plans for an islamic nuke to offset fears of Iran. Weren't you guys guardians of Mecca and Medina in those days. KSA held you guys up high and gave a TON of money-not all of it for Afghanistan and madrassas.

There's your rigidity.

I'm still laughing about the CIA. They'd have been totally inept here and totally professional to realize such. Not their gig.

 

[Energon]

Not squarely, but majorly.

Your attempt to majorly lay the blame is still erroneous, not to mention a complete waste of time. The rest of your post is the usual deflect and blame everyone else circus sideshow which despite an immense fan base hasn't got Pakistan anywhere, and is unlikely to do so in the future.

Pakistan was very much complicit in everything that happened; in fact, the basic premise of the US-Pak relationship during the Afghan war was that the logistics would be handled entirely by Pakistani agencies in addition to all the financial processing of course. To think that Americans went around substituting "tolerance for rigidity" is downright absurd. Zia wanted Islamization for his people and he got it, we just paid for it.

 

[roadrunner]

Your attempt to majorly lay the blame is still erroneous, not to mention a complete waste of time. The rest of your post is the usual deflect and blame everyone else circus sideshow which despite an immense fan base hasn't got Pakistan anywhere, and is unlikely to do so in the future.

Another post lacking any substance typically backed up by the high five crew that seem to think their thanks are influential.

First of all, you need to be able to read a bit more accurately.

I stated "Not squarely, but majorly"

Let me repeat, in case you missed this:

Not squarely, but majorly
Not squarely, but majorly
Not squarely, but majorly

Got it? This means the blame for what has happened re. the Taliban, the radicalization of the region of Afghanistan and perhaps parts of West Pakistan is MAJORLY attributed to the US's foolish policies it was chasing in the 80s, when it was creating, maintaining and supporting these Jihadis to attack anything they could convince them was a Godless invasion.

Clear or you still haven't quite grasped this concept?

If you ask ANYONE who is not a right wing neocon fascist supporter, they will tell you that the US was behind the mess (read radicalization, in Afghanistan).

Pakistan was very much complicit in everything that happened; in fact, the basic premise of the US-Pak relationship during the Afghan war was that the logistics would be handled entirely by Pakistani agencies in addition to all the financial processing of course. To think that Americans went around substituting "tolerance for rigidity" is downright absurd. Zia wanted Islamization for his people and he got it, we just paid for it.

The Pakistani leadership was complicit. Who was the Pakistani leadership?

That's right, it was YOUR GUY, Zia ul Haq who you propped up and supported militarily from 1976 - 1979. You can't accept facts. When the tool was finished, he was removed like the foolish imbecile he was.

Now the logistics WERE HANDLED by Pakistan. Where did I deny this? The madrassas were built by Pakistan, and the Saudis sent their Mullahs and Maulanas over to carry out the teaching. This was all with the blessing of the US, who helped fund both militarily and economically this training to create trained radical killers out of these orphans. This plan would never have taken place had the US not been heavily involved.

And Zia wanted Islamization, but who was he? Yes, he was YOUR dictator, not elected by anyone in Pakistan, broke all the rules of the judiciary to pass his laws, and who YOU did militarily and economically support with open arms.

Your attempts at trying to deflect blame are pathetic. Everyone, perhaps outside of the US, knows this story. You're living in your own cocoon.

 

[belarusian]

I think roadrunner is right.

the same thing happened in el salvador and nicaragua.

It was called rollback.

but the only lesson from this is that war brings new depths of degradation to the naive and exploited.

my advice is to embrace the guilt.

 

[roadrunner]

^^ I don't mean that thanks for the saying I'm right bit.

It's genuinely a solemn appraisal of the situation.

Good form, as opposed to your American comrades on this board, who I think aren't a reflection of most Americans.

 

[zhero]

heh, heh....seems to be a catch-22 situation (at least in roadrunner's mind):

If the U.S helps Pakistan (aid, F-16s, support to all GoPs etc.), then roadrunner screams 'You're supporting a dictator/Mr Ten percent/Mr Incompetent and interfering in our affairs'.

If the U.S leaves Pakistan alone (e.g. after Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan), then roadrunner screams 'You've abandoned us!'.

make up your mind.....!!

 

[RedBaron]

...
If you ask ANYONE who is not a right wing neocon fascist supporter, they will tell you that the US was behind the mess (read radicalization, in Afghanistan).
...

There is some truth in this....but IMHO their "sins" are those of omission rather than commission....and they suited Pakistan's interests perfectly up until the 2001 invasion.

One could argue that the seeds of radicalization in Afghanistan were sown before the Taliban took power in 1996. It started after the Soviet withdrawal when US gov't left the field open to the noveau-rich ISI and their fundamentalist protege, Hekmatyar (the CIA poster-boy due to his Soviet-killer credentials). Ghost Wars provides some excellent analysis of events that transpired in this period.

Consider this scenario: If Bush Sr and later Clinton had stayed put and put their full weight behind the Rabbani gov't (which in my opinion was more inclusive than the Karzai regime), a moderate Islamic gov't in Afghanistan would emerge given time. USSR was already dead and Yeltsin had already been won over. There would be no Taliban and more importantly no safe haven for OBL and Co. to plan 9/11. So the US is to blame to a certain extent.

Instead, the nouveau-rich ISI was free to promote the radical Hekmatyar which killed all hopes of a stable coalition. In the hope of restoring some semblance of order, the ISI then created the Taliban, the AQ host. So the ISI shares some blame too.

I'm surprised KSA has not received its fair share of blame on this thread. As is well known, the Taliban, initially ambivalent about OBL, asked KSA whether they want him shipped back to them. And they declined, allowing OBL to win the Taliban over later. So KSA shares some blame.

I must confess that Pakistan's agenda has been consistent with respect to Afghanistan: install a friendly Islamic regime to maintain strategic depth. The US agenda fluctuated from being a committed partner to complete disengagement to forcing the former partner to do a volte-face after 9/11. Realpolitik at its best (or worst)...

 

[haviZsultan]

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

- Surely not population wise, or area wise.

Wrong! If not 8 times the population we have about 6 times the population of Afghanistan!!!

You are distorting facts by taking them completely out of context. Ofcourse there are more infant mortality deaths in pakistan due to the population. If you went through CIA's population statistics u'd know this:

Pakistan: 172,800,048 (July 2008 est.)
Afghanistan: 32,738,376 (July 2008 est.)

Now in light of this compare:
Pakistan:
1. annual under-5 infant deaths ~423,000
2. post-invasion under-5 infant deaths 2.62 million (90% avoidable).
3. post-invasion avoidable under-5 infant deaths 2.4 million

F4 each 1000 that is:
total: 66.94 deaths/1,000 live births
male: 67.04 deaths/1,000 live births
female: 66.84 deaths/1,000 live births (2008 est.)

Afghanistan (Occupied land <A Victim of Alliance of American-Taliban Genocide ):
1. annual under-5 infant deaths 370,000.
2. post-invasion under-5 infant deaths 2.3 million (90% avoidable).
3. post-invasion avoidable under-5 infant deaths 2.1 million."

In each 1000 this is:
total: 154.67 deaths/1,000 live births
male: 158.88 deaths/1,000 live births
female: 150.24 deaths/1,000 live births (2008 est.)

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

He never said Pakistan under Zia did not have a hand in it. He said the biggest hand of it is American. Those who are their friends one day can become their enemies the other day and the same is happening with Pakistan and the way they are bullying us and trying to make us do things that we know will hurt Pakistan. Ever heard "Todays heroes are tommarows villains" I challenge u to look at any american news telecast from the time of the soviet afghan war and u will see the words "liberated", "drove away", "heroically fought against" for the taliban by american media. Yesterday soviets were the enemies and these same bloodthirsty taliban heroes. They were left to radicalize the population of afghanistan for years. They ruled whole afghanistan f4 five years but they were in control of southern parts even before. We all know this. Even now they are in control of atleast70% of afghanistan. Other surveys conclude NATO only controls the cities but 90% of afghanistan is under their de facto control.

- As you said in your post above: "I haven't checked your links or dimension's.". Please familiarize yourself with the statistics, the methodology, and their interpretations before weighing in on this. Also, I think you have got your time-lines mixed up....

Ofcourse...

Do go back to the statistics posted and try to understand what is being said and compare the statistics in terms of population instead of just pulling off larger numbers for satisfaction. It proves nothing when we have 6 times the population.

It seems to suggest that you've made up your mind before looking at the figures.

I cant believe u started too... now the americans and taliban are enough for us. US policies are hurting the war on terror and fueling terrorism. That was what i was trying to say. But hey lets all join in and unite against "Evil Pakistan". I think the US media has fed u this and i am sad that an african brother is trying to put the entire blame on us.

US uses the World for its own gains and then abandons them and the result is Afghans or Pakistanis are taking the bullets meant for them. I would say US and taliban are on the same side. They both need each other to continue murdering civilians and creating havoc. If one side goes they cant justify their petty little war. This is my conclusion.

I admit my countries mistake but america should admits its own and reverse its policies. We dont want to be the victims and we cannot and will not pay such a heavy price on the war on terror. Our children our people and our mitti is sacred to us. We hold it above all else. Remember if we are victims today u cud be tomorrow. Don't support every cheap USA's act just because ppl think its cool to do so.

 

[haviZsultan]

I think roadrunner is right.

the same thing happened in el salvador and nicaragua.

It was called rollback.

but the only lesson from this is that war brings new depths of degradation to the naive and exploited.

my advice is to embrace the guilt.

I agree.. I was'nt even talking about genocide when this talk began. Americans have to understand the issues they have created in this region accept them and be willing to accept the thoughts of others and stop treating the world as some sort of their fathers property. Somethings cannot be done. We live in Pakistan and we know the situation and we know what action will accumulate to what. Every civilian killed in a US airstrike creates 40 more taliban according to our analysis. The war on terror is failing. The taliban grow stronger by the day and we need to find new means to deal with this menace. Our own statistics suggest how their numbers have swelled from 200-1000-8000-40000 now.

There are 40000 taliban in Pakistan according to our analysis. They are being paid more and armed heavily from where we have no clue but something is wrong and anyone can see it when they hear a taliban foot soldier is paid 170-300$ and each suicide bombers family members is paid $20000! They are recieving massive support as many common men flock to them. The reason is i would say much is American policies, Pakistans own weak policies (corruption and supporting criminal warlords, injustice, unemployment <basically means pakistani government is not doing what it is supposed to do> all have contributed to the rise of the taliban in the common mans eyes.

Yet American policies do nothing but are fueling the flame and making it much harder to win the battle for hearts and minds. That is the real battle. Taliban ranks will keep swelling the way things are going and the situation USA will face will be vietnam situation. In Afghanistan itself people want US to leave. Over 88&#37; of the population wants them to leave. And honestly i think this might make things easier for us.

If u check out the movie charlie wilsons war (though they r careful not to mention that US once called the same taliban heroes and supported them during the war with soviets and show shah massouds group being supported) u'd notice the problem in the end is that US left afghanistan for all these ppl who had once fought the soviets to fight amongst themselves and kill each other. They did not develop schools and healthcare in the region leaving the radicalized population to fight amongst themselves and soon enough the Taliban came in power. There was basically no one for the local afghans than the taliban to turn to. US used the afghans for its interests and then left them and ignored them. The US parliament refused to fund educational programs in the country saying the war with the soviets is over! If US had not been so ignorant then perhaps 9/11 could be avoided.

I think people should give RR credit because Afghanistan's issues are mainly because of US policies and today the same issues threaten to trickle into our country as well and already have. What RR says makes complete sense and hes a brilliant debator... i tend to get carried away with errrr.... entertainment.

In any case we cannot make our point stronger. If people want to continue with their defending cheap policies then please do so. There is no one to stop them and the results of their stupidity will one day be felt in their own backyard. US must stop treating the world as its fathers property and thinking that whatever it wants will happen and instead take others into confidence and trust them. US has caused more damage to the region than done good. An american can go anywhere in the world and his countries policies will never be admired. Even in Europe this is the case let alone Asia Africa and Latin America.

 

[zhero]

1. I'm glad that there is a 50-50 partnership between the PA and the GoP now.....

....so that in 10 years time, some board members will not come back and say 'There was a dictator in power', or that 'The US coerced us'...!

If you don't want to do something, don't agree to do it (true for any country). Period. It was true during Zia's time, and it is true today.


2. I would like to hear your opinion on why the PA/GoP appears to have tacitly agreed to the drone strikes? (Don't get me wrong, I can understand why these are not popular, but why do you think PA has agreed to them?)


3. Please, please, please, don't quote 'Charlie Wilson's War' as a source for your 'facts'/'statistics'......


4. For a moment, forget the U.S (it may leave again tomorrow!).... I'd just like to ask you what Pakistan and KSA have done for Afghanistan from 1990-2008?


5. Regarding the infant mortality figures, I think you may have missed the point. The point is this: If you claim (based on these 'figures'), that the U.S has committed genocide (11 million 'killed'!) in Iraq/Afghanistan, then by the same methodology/calculations/token you will have to admit that GoP has committed genocide in Pakistan (True, it will only be 5 million people 'killed' by GoP in Pakistan, but that is still genocide, right?).

 

[roadrunner]

heh, heh....seems to be a catch-22 situation (at least in roadrunner's mind):

If the U.S helps Pakistan (aid, F-16s, support to all GoPs etc.), then roadrunner screams 'You're supporting a dictator/Mr Ten percent/Mr Incompetent and interfering in our affairs'.

If the U.S leaves Pakistan alone (e.g. after Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan), then roadrunner screams 'You've abandoned us!'.

make up your mind.....!!

I never screamed anything. That's just your media screaming fantasies in your head.

Read carefully. This is what I think.

I'd like the US to leave Pakistan well alone.
I'd like the US to leave Pakistan well alone.
I'd like the US to leave Pakistan well alone.
I'd like the US to leave Pakistan well alone.

Why do I want this, you ask?

Reason: the US is not an ally of Pakistan. It operates in its interests. Sometimes the US's interests are not in Pakistan's interests, and we find this out. Just one of many examples being, the phuck up you made in the west of Pakistan.

As for the aid I've been very consistent (as has Musharaf). US aid is pittance. I'd like to see Pakistan shove the US's aid and tell them to get lost. I've mentioned this before on thread, you missed it. Pakistan does not need US aid. US aid over the last 8 years was 10% of GDP GROWTH. That is minimilistic as best. Plus it was military aid mainly, not economic. Even this was aid due to Pakistan's help in the WoT. Incidentally that aid is pittance that doesn't reimburse Pakistan.

As for F-16s, again, if you would read some of the other threads I've posted on, I've said about 4 times I remember at least, Pakistan should not buy F-16s. Go to China now, it's on the rise, it'll catch up with the US, accept a slight intermittent drop in performance, but build the solid relationship up.

The US did not even hand over 40 F-16s to Pakistan at one time that were paid for. That's some ally.. It simply wasted Pakistan's money.

Like I said, no amount of money, let alone 10 billion over 8 years was worth the radicalization on the wester border that the US created.

 

[roadrunner]

5. Regarding the infant mortality figures, I think you may have missed the point. The point is this: If you claim (based on these 'figures'), that the U.S has committed genocide (11 million 'killed'!) in Iraq/Afghanistan, then by the same methodology/calculations/token you will have to admit that GoP has committed genocide in Pakistan (True, it will only be 5 million people 'killed' by GoP in Pakistan, but that is still genocide, right?).

This could be an issue of brightness, but anyhow I'll explain this to you.

Pakistan is the baseline. It is the yardstick with which to compare Afghanistan to. It is an accurate yardtstick because Afghanistan and Pakistan were well matched up in the 70s, before any warfare.

If you now use current stats, and compare Pakistan and Afghanistan, with Pakistan as the baseline, you can see that the mortality differential is around 11 million - 5 million = 6 million people. IF no radicalization had happened, those 6 million would have been alive today. A genocide because of this radicalization, I would say so.

Or perhaps you don't understand the concept of a yardstick

 

[Vics]

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

What has Pakistan reduced it self to....killing own people and getting reimbursed for that from USA.On top of it haggling like we killed more and are under paid.

How can you guys go to sleep every night with so much blood on your hands.Still happy counting all the toys that you have brought for exchange of blood of your own people.

Coming generations will hold you accountable.

 

[zhero]

1. roadrunner, let me explain it in simple words:

No-one uses child mortality statistics (and 'avoidable deaths') to decide on 'genocide'.


2. "Pakistan does not need US aid": Of course, direct aid is one part of it. Another part is loans from IMF, World Bank etc. (the US has 'major' voting rights in those institutions).


3. Every country looks after (or tries to) it's own interests, including the Chinese. Don't count on them to give you free lunches. In fact, didn't Zardari ask the Chinese for a loan of $5 billion before he went to the IMF? How much did he get from them?


4. But one of the greatest payoffs (IMHO) was not taking 'action' against Pakistan for the Nuclear proliferation ('Wal-Mart') being operated by Dr Khan. Had it been some other country (e.g. Iran/Libya/Syria) those would have been grounds for some serious sanctions.


5. I see that my question: "I'd just like to ask you what Pakistan and KSA have done for Afghanistan from 1990-2008?" still remains unanswered....

 

[Vinod2070]

This could be an issue of brightness, but anyhow I'll explain this to you.

Pakistan is the baseline. It is the yardstick with which to compare Afghanistan to. It is an accurate yardtstick because Afghanistan and Pakistan were well matched up in the 70s, before any warfare.

If you now use current stats, and compare Pakistan and Afghanistan, with Pakistan as the baseline, you can see that the mortality differential is around 11 million - 5 million = 6 million people. IF no radicalization had happened, those 6 million would have been alive today. A genocide because of this radicalization, I would say so.

Or perhaps you don't understand the concept of a yardstick

This is seriously funky maths!

You forgot the difference in the the populations of the countries for a start. The much bigger population of Pakistan would mean that it is much ahead of Afghanistan in child mortality rates. So your genocide figure should be close to 10 million if we go by your logic.

Second, any data around the role of Taliban in this. Did their rule, that was free from all external interference (except by your own country!) take the country forward on these indices? If yes, can you share the child mortality rates before and at the end of Taliban period?

I would think that it would have likely worsened given Taliban's aversion to the fair sex even receiving medical treatment (better let them die than God forbid be treated by a male Doctor and corrupting his mind!).

I know it is not really fair to you to expect any kind of objectivity but to use common sense! Is that also unfair?