Ah memories! :D

[VCheng]

Bilalbhai you arnt that far from cheng. Go and check him out afce to face. lol

I'd love to meet him, I appreciate him for his (differing) views, I really do. I've really learnt a lot from him, he is an intelligent guy, a revered member. I appreciate his opinions, I really do. So I'd like to meet him someday.

I will try and set something up with AM, Abu and you, however practically achievable, even if it means my taking a few road trips. I mean it.

---------- Post added at 06:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:09 PM ----------

Have not read the entire thread yet, so I do not know if this has already been responded to.

We entrusted the TT to come up with a set of guidelines and rules - they did.

The TT all have the right/option to suggest other members, enact changes through majority vote, elect new leadership etc.

The Admins and mods chose to deny ourselves voting rights in order to prevent allegations of the mod team becoming a powerful 'bloc' and affecting TT decisions.

Blaming one individual is patently unfair - no one stopped the TT members from campaigning to win support for new leadership and/or changes in the guidelines.

Giving up after just one attempt could be argued to be a failure/lack of patience and motivation on the part of those wanting to enact changes.

I am a relative new comer, I do not know the history of the TT. I have no desire to upset any processes in place, or to seek any changes in rules. I intend to comply with them as best as I can.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I have already agreed that direct military intervention is not something I agree with. Intelligence intervention has always been, is, and always be a reality, not just form USA, but many countries. It would simply be unacceptably naive to say that such operations will cease. Everybody does that, including Pakistan.

Pakistan's intelligence interventions are not, by any stretch of the imagination, directed or driven by an intention to 'attack the US, take out its nukes etc.'

US intelligence interventions, along with other things, are done with the above in mind, and as a Pakistani I therefore cannot support or condone them - whatever the 'reality' of the 'reasons behind them'.

---------- Post added at 06:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:13 PM ----------

I will try and set something up with AM, Abu and you, however practically achievable, even if it means my taking a few road trips. I mean it.

Would be a pleasure to meet, regardless of our policy differences. If anything, that is what makes conversation interesting.

I am a relative new comer, I do not know the history of the TT. I have no desire to upset any processes in place, or to seek any changes in rules. I intend to comply with them as best as I can.

We have nothing against changes, provided they are brought about with consensus or majority approval at the least - my comment was directed more at MK.

 

[VCheng]

Pakistan's intelligence interventions are not, by any stretch of the imagination, directed or driven by an intention to 'attack the US, take out its nukes etc.'

US intelligence interventions, along with other things, are done with the above in mind, and as a Pakistani I therefore cannot support or condone them - whatever the 'reality' of the 'reasons behind them'.

To play the devil's advocate, at great risk once again, and with the intent only to prove the fallacy in your logic:

Pakistan's intelligence interventions are to proceed its national interests.

Similarly, US intelligence interventions are to further its national interests.

Both are realities, and equally justified, but one side is simply more resourceful than the other.

When there are clashes in the interest is EXACTLY the situation where politics and negotiations and discussions and arrangements come into play.

Where have I said anything else?

 

[lem34]

Have not read the entire thread yet, so I do not know if this has already been responded to.

We entrusted the TT to come up with a set of guidelines and rules - they did.

The TT all have the right/option to suggest other members, enact changes through majority vote, elect new leadership etc.

The Admins and mods chose to deny ourselves voting rights in order to prevent allegations of the mod team becoming a powerful 'bloc' and affecting TT decisions.

Blaming one individual is patently unfair - no one stopped the TT members from campaigning to win support for new leadership and/or changes in the guidelines.

Giving up after just one attempt could be argued to be a failure/lack of patience and motivation on the part of those wanting to enact changes.

But is mastankhan right when he says I would like to see one post---an original article----from either the Chairman or the Vice Chairman on this board have they not done any articles themselves. I mean even I can cut and paste after a couple of month lol. I think its also important that if someone has a desire like cheng clearly does we should give him a chance. Listen we can all vote him off launch a coup if he trolls lol

 

[53fd]

To play the devil's advocate, at great risk once again, and with the intent only to prove the fallacy in your logic:

Pakistan's intelligence interventions are to proceed its national interests.

Similarly, US intelligence interventions are to further its national interests.

Both are realities, and equally justified, but one side is simply more resourceful than the other.

When there are clashes in the interest is EXACTLY the situation where politics and negotiations and discussions and arrangements come into play.

Where have I said anything else?

But what really are these clashes in interest? I feel there are mutual interests between Pakistan & the US, but the distrust that the US has about Pakistan clouds it.

 

[VCheng]

But what really are these clashes in interest? I feel there are mutual interests between Pakistan & the US, but the distrust that the US has about Pakistan clouds it.

All the more reason to work together to improve trust and clear up misconceptions, right?

 

[53fd]

All the more reason to work together to improve trust and clear up misconceptions, right?

You sound exactly like Hina Rabbani Khar

But statements such as "Haqqani Network is a veritable arm of the ISI", "ISI was responsible for Rabbani's murder", "Saleem Shahzad was murdered by the Pakistan government", "Pakistan was responsible for the NATO truck bomb" or trusting Wikileaks/BBC documentaries about Pakistan do not show a willingness to work together to improve trust, or clear the misconceptions.

---------- Post added at 03:32 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:31 AM ----------

All the more reason to work together to improve trust and clear up misconceptions, right?

What do you think the US end game for Afghanistan is? What does it want to achieve in Afghanistan post 2014?

 

[VCheng]

You sound exactly like Hina Rabbani Khar

But statements such as "Haqqani Network is a veritable arm of the ISI", "ISI was responsible for Rabbani's murder", "Saleem Shahzad was murdered by the Pakistan government", "Pakistan was responsible for the NATO truck bomb" or trusting Wikileaks/BBC documentaries about Pakistan do not show a willingness to work together to improve trust, or clear the misconceptions.

I will take that as a compliment, but she is far younger, richer and better looking than I am!

Those statements are merely public posturing. The real action happens behind the scenes, as always.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

But is mastankhan right when he says I would like to see one post---an original article----from either the Chairman or the Vice Chairman on this board have they not done any articles themselves. I mean even I can cut and paste after a couple of month lol. I think its also important that if someone has a desire like cheng clearly does we should give him a chance. Listen we can all vote him off launch a coup if he trolls lol

I will not get into what the TT Chair and Vice-Chair have done or not done - my point is simply that we entrusted the TT members, all of them, to come up with rules/guidelines and processes, and they did.

Now the rules/guidelines/processes they themselves came up with establish how the TT Chair and Vice Chair were created, and how people get elected to them and for how long. No one forced that on the TT members, and no one is stopping the TT from arriving at a majority consensus and amending the rules/guidelines/processes and changing the leadership.

The fact of the matter is that there was simple no support for the changes MK was/is talking about, or if there was, MK was unable to unify that support and make it 'count' so to speak. So why blame one individual for that?

This is akin to supporting a process, and then dissing the very same process when it does not deliver the results you want or expected. Even that is fine (not liking the process after supporting it) but now work within the rules to change the process or change the outcomes of the process.

 

[lem34]

^^^^^^^ I think that sometimes Cheng likes a bit of intellectual masterbation. I mean initially I crossed swords with him when i came on but i did get the feeling he takes a position sometimes more to see what the other person responds rather than what he thinks. But hey I may be way of the mark lol

 

[VCheng]

^^^^^^^ I think that sometimes Cheng likes a bit of intellectual masterbation. I mean initially I crossed swords with him when i came on but i did get the feeling he takes a position sometimes more to see what the other person responds rather than what he thinks. But hey I may be way of the mark lol

You are WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY off the mark!

 

[lem34]

You are WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY off the mark!

testing testing lol maybe i was being a bit provocative there could have been a let out lol

 

[53fd]

I will take that as a compliment, but she is far younger, richer and better looking than I am!

Those statements are merely public posturing. The real action happens behind the scenes, as always.

True that. But I wanted your perspective on this. What do you think the US end game for Afghanistan is? What does it want to achieve in Afghanistan post 2014?

 

[VCheng]

testing testing lol maybe i was being a bit provocative there could have been a let out lol

I realize that, it is okay.

I am serious in this thread, contrary to what some might think.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Pakistan's intelligence interventions are to proceed its national interests.

Similarly, US intelligence interventions are to further its national interests.

Both are realities, and equally justified, but one side is simply more resourceful than the other.

The two 'national interests' are not pursued in the same manner - the US is willing to use overt and covert military intervention against Pakistan to support its national interests, Pakistan is not. The US is pursuing its national interests next door to Pakistan, Pakistan is not doing so in Mexico or Canada.

The impact of decisions made in the region will be felt most by Pakistan and the people of Pakistan, not the US, and therefore Pakistani interests take precedence.

When there are clashes in the interest is EXACTLY the situation where politics and negotiations and discussions and arrangements come into play.

Clashes in interests are fine, the resort to military intervention in Pakistan and/or attempts to destabilize Pakistan by the US to achieve its interests are not.

Regionally, Pakistani interests take precedence, since we will deal with the repercussions more than anyone - as a Pakistani that has to be accepted.

If this was Mexico or Canada we were talking about, I would side with US interests over Pakistan's.