What's new

America : Ally or Enemy ?

Is America an ally or enemy in the ongoing conflict ?


  • Total voters
    65
An Ally better than those who we gave shelter , provided moral ,logostical support are now back stabbing us ... Americans has helped a lot in floods , AID , ARMS and what not ! more importantly pakistan choose sides with them in WOT , Its us who are confused about friend and foes not them lets stop the double game and choose sides really
 
An Ally better than those who we gave shelter , provided moral ,logostical support are now back stabbing us ... Americans has helped a lot in floods , AID , ARMS and what not ! more importantly pakistan choose sides with them in WOT , Its us who are confused about friend and foes not them lets stop the double game and choose sides really

Did you read my previous post? US image has suffered in the Muslim word by adopting dual policy. At one hand it wants to introduce democracy among Muslims to counter extremism and on the other hand it supports autocratic rulers like General Musharraf to gain support for fight against terrorism. This approach encourages extremist elements to blame the declining social conditions on US duality and offer salvation by returning to conservatism. If democracy is good for Iraq then it should also be good for Pakistan. US should support establishment of democracy by forcing the General to give up his military uniform and conduct fair elections in the country allowing participation from all leading parties.

US should also understand that social reforms can not be achieved through weapons. It requires patience, negotiations and understanding. West should also realize that almost 70% of the Muslim population is 30 years olds as compared to an average age of 45 in the western world. There is no way a 45 years old can win a fight from a 30 something youth

After 911, General Musharraf provided unconditional support to US largely to protect his own rule in the disguise of the national interest. Looking at the history of our relations with US it is important that we take a long term view of the situation instead of complying with short term directives. Pakistan's foreign policy should be driven by due considerations given to its geopolitical situations
 
US is only allied with $. Whenever they see their interests they pursue them, though nothing wrong with it. Pakistan should also pursue its interest.

Pakistan knows the allies it has, so it is no use debating. We know that in every war Pakistan was in the US put an arms embargo on us. Time has also come to stop wasting money on US equipment procurement.
 
US has a simple rule "if you are in their interest you are a friend else enemy". If Pakistan can keep their interest alive Pakistan is a friend.
Pakistan needs US aid and for that they have to keep the business of WOT alive to keep US interest in them but now US has cash constraints and WOT business is getting hard on Pakistan as with out being totally honest to US they will pay more.

The day US will cut its aid will be the last day of Mr10% in house (the end of WOT business for him) and he will move to his palace in France.
 
An Ally better than those who we gave shelter , provided moral ,logostical support are now back stabbing us ... Americans has helped a lot in floods , AID , ARMS and what not ! more importantly pakistan choose sides with them in WOT , Its us who are confused about friend and foes not them lets stop the double game and choose sides really

I don't know what you're talking about. The US has used Islamic extremist groups all over the world to achieve its geopolitical objectives, along with the fact that they install puppet rulers, & then later dispose them off when they're not happy with them. This kind of attitude will not win them friends.
 
I voted "Ally". Really, the primary problem with the USA-Pakistan relationship is that the USA does not agree with Pakistan's policy toward India and Pakistan does not agree with the USA's policy towards Israel. If we could follow each other's lead on these two third-party relationships, then we could be best of friends. Unfortunately, neither one of us can adopt the other's policies towards India and Israel. So we are stuck with being "wartime allies," but not friends. China, on the other hand, can align it's policies on India with Pakistan, which is the most important thing for Pakistan. On the other hand, China also pursues its national interest above all else. So, China will exploit Pakistan's natural resources but will not help Pakistan develop a world class manufacturing base or otherwise help Pakistan to become a democratic nation with a strong middle class. On the bright side, this USA-Pakistan relationship problem will not last much longer. The USA does not have sufficient national interest in Afghanistan to stay more than another five years, maximum. Probably much less time than that. Once the USA decides to leave Afghanistan, it no longer needs a "wartime" alliance with Pakistan. Then, the USA will tilt strongly to India in direct proportion to China's movement into Pakistan. Then the wish of those here that the USA be Pakistan's "enemy" will be fulfilled.
 
I voted "Ally". Really, the primary problem with the USA-Pakistan relationship is that the USA does not agree with Pakistan's policy toward India and Pakistan does not agree with the USA's policy towards Israel. If we could follow each other's lead on these two third-party relationships, then we could be best of friends. Unfortunately, neither one of us can adopt the other's policies towards India and Israel. So we are stuck with being "wartime allies," but not friends. China, on the other hand, can align it's policies on India with Pakistan, which is the most important thing for Pakistan. On the other hand, China also pursues its national interest above all else. So, China will exploit Pakistan's natural resources but will not help Pakistan develop a world class manufacturing base or otherwise help Pakistan to become a democratic nation with a strong middle class. On the bright side, this USA-Pakistan relationship problem will not last much longer. The USA does not have sufficient national interest in Afghanistan to stay more than another five years, maximum. Probably much less time than that. Once the USA decides to leave Afghanistan, it no longer needs a "wartime" alliance with Pakistan. Then, the USA will tilt strongly to India in direct proportion to China's movement into Pakistan. Then the wish of those here that the USA be Pakistan's "enemy" will be fulfilled.

You did make some good points. Pakistan also wants peace in Afghanistan along with the exit of ISAF. We were growing economically at 7% until 2007 until the war was pushed into Pakistan. I grew during the USSR invasion of Afghanistan and lived through it as a child and this WOT will pass too. Pakistan will come out of this war with a victory over the terrorists. Regrading the drama of this US AID AID AID AID $$$$, we do not need it because it is costing us more than the AID. The Super Highway that runs from Karachi to Khyber is broken in many places because of this huge load of NATO trucks daily, just to rebuild the Super Highway and to repair the bridges is a $ 3.5-4.5 billion project, so there goes the AID $$$$$$.

Regarding China it has helped Pakistan setup manufacturing units to create thousands of jobs and has also tarnsferred technology in many spheres. Regarding US moving closer to India or Israel or Cuba is for something for the US to plan according to their goals and objectives.

The US-Pakistan have been wartime allies when Pakistan Army disarmed the Khemer Rouge, or in Somalia, or Desert Shiled, Desert Storm, or deploying to Bosnia when US was bombing Serbia or First USSR invasion of Afghnistan, but I think this may be the last wartime alliance between US and Pakistan.
 
I don't know what you're talking about. The US unfortunately has used Islamic extremism all over the world to achieve its geopolitical objectives, along with the fact that they install puppet rulers, & then later dispose them off when they're not happy with them. This kind of attitude will not win them friends.

Stalin once said back in 1920s: ''Enter Asia with the door of religion."

Which tells us how much the religion has been corrupted to achieve their sinister objectives.
 
Pakistan needs to shape up


In the longer run, as the United States scales back its military presence in Afghanistan, it will need the Pakistani military less and less to supply its troops in theatre.

Fareed Zakaria

The killing of Osama bin Laden has produced new waves of commentary on the problem of Pakistan. We could all discuss again its selective policy toward terrorists, its complicated relationship with the United States and its mounting dysfunctions.
But there is more to this opportunity than an opening for analysis. This is a time for action, to finally push the country toward moderation and genuine democracy.
So far, Pakistan's military has approached this crisis as it has every one in the past, using its old tricks and hoping to ride out the storm. It is leaking stories to favoured journalists, unleashing activists and politicians, all with the aim of stoking anti-Americanism. Having been caught in a situation that suggests either complicity with Al Qaeda or gross incompetence - and the reality is probably a bit of both - it is furiously trying to change the subject. Senior generals angrily denounce America for entering the country.
This strategy has worked in the past. In 2009, the Obama administration joined forces with Senators Richard Lugar and John Kerry to triple American aid to Pakistan's civilian government and civil society - to $7.5 billion over five years - but with measures designed to strengthen democracy and civilian control over the military. The military reacted by unleashing an anti-American campaign, using its proxies in the media and parliament to denounce "violations of Pakistan's sovereignty" - the same phrase that's being hurled around now. The result was that the United States backed off and has conceded that, in practice, none of the strictures in the Lugar-Kerry bill will be implemented.
The military has also, once again, been able to cow the civilian government. According to Pakistani sources, the speech that Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani gave at a recent news conference was drafted by the military. President Asif Ali Zardari continues to appease the military rather than confront the generals. Having come to power hoping to clip the military's wings, Pakistan's democratically elected government has been reduced to mouthing talking points written for it by the intelligence services.
There have been almost no marches to protest Bin Laden's death or the American operation, although one 500-person march in Lahore was replayed endlessly on television. The fundamental issue for Pakistan is surely not how America entered the country. The United States has been involved in counter-terrorism operations in Pakistan for years, using drones and people. Rather, the fundamental question is: How was it that the world's leading terrorist was living in Pakistan? How is it that every major Al Qaeda official who has been captured since 2002 has been comfortably ensconced in a Pakistani city?
Washington has given in to the Pakistani military time and again, on the theory that we need the generals badly and that they could go elsewhere for support - to the Chinese, for instance. In fact, the United States has considerable leverage with Islamabad.The Pakistanis need American aid, arms and training to sustain their army. If they are going to receive those benefits, they must become part of Pakistan's solution and not its problem. With some urgency, Washington should:
· Demand a major national commission in Pakistan - headed by a Supreme Court justice, not an army apparatchik - to investigate whether bin Laden and other Al Qaeda leaders have been supported and sustained by elements of the Pakistani state.
· Demand that the provisions of the Lugar-Kerry bill on civilian control of the military be strictly followed or aid will be withheld.
· Develop a plan to go after the major untouched terror networks in Pakistan, such as the Haqqani faction, the Quetta Shura and Lashkar-i-Taiba.
In the longer run, as the United States scales back its military presence in Afghanistan, it will need the Pakistani military less and less to supply its troops in theatre.
Pakistan's civilian government, business class and intellectuals have an ever-larger role in this struggle. They should not get distracted by empty anti-American slogans or hyper-nationalism. This is Pakistan's moment of truth, its chance to break with its dysfunctions and become a normal, modern country. The opportunity might not come again.



Fareed Zakaria is a noted foreign affairs analyst
 
Pakistan needs to shape up


In the longer run, as the United States scales back its military presence in Afghanistan, it will need the Pakistani military less and less to supply its troops in theatre.

Fareed Zakaria

The killing of Osama bin Laden has produced new waves of commentary on the problem of Pakistan. We could all discuss again its selective policy toward terrorists, its complicated relationship with the United States and its mounting dysfunctions.
But there is more to this opportunity than an opening for analysis. This is a time for action, to finally push the country toward moderation and genuine democracy.
So far, Pakistan's military has approached this crisis as it has every one in the past, using its old tricks and hoping to ride out the storm. It is leaking stories to favoured journalists, unleashing activists and politicians, all with the aim of stoking anti-Americanism. Having been caught in a situation that suggests either complicity with Al Qaeda or gross incompetence - and the reality is probably a bit of both - it is furiously trying to change the subject. Senior generals angrily denounce America for entering the country.
This strategy has worked in the past. In 2009, the Obama administration joined forces with Senators Richard Lugar and John Kerry to triple American aid to Pakistan's civilian government and civil society - to $7.5 billion over five years - but with measures designed to strengthen democracy and civilian control over the military. The military reacted by unleashing an anti-American campaign, using its proxies in the media and parliament to denounce "violations of Pakistan's sovereignty" - the same phrase that's being hurled around now. The result was that the United States backed off and has conceded that, in practice, none of the strictures in the Lugar-Kerry bill will be implemented.
The military has also, once again, been able to cow the civilian government. According to Pakistani sources, the speech that Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani gave at a recent news conference was drafted by the military. President Asif Ali Zardari continues to appease the military rather than confront the generals. Having come to power hoping to clip the military's wings, Pakistan's democratically elected government has been reduced to mouthing talking points written for it by the intelligence services.
There have been almost no marches to protest Bin Laden's death or the American operation, although one 500-person march in Lahore was replayed endlessly on television. The fundamental issue for Pakistan is surely not how America entered the country. The United States has been involved in counter-terrorism operations in Pakistan for years, using drones and people. Rather, the fundamental question is: How was it that the world's leading terrorist was living in Pakistan? How is it that every major Al Qaeda official who has been captured since 2002 has been comfortably ensconced in a Pakistani city?
Washington has given in to the Pakistani military time and again, on the theory that we need the generals badly and that they could go elsewhere for support - to the Chinese, for instance. In fact, the United States has considerable leverage with Islamabad.The Pakistanis need American aid, arms and training to sustain their army. If they are going to receive those benefits, they must become part of Pakistan's solution and not its problem. With some urgency, Washington should:
· Demand a major national commission in Pakistan - headed by a Supreme Court justice, not an army apparatchik - to investigate whether bin Laden and other Al Qaeda leaders have been supported and sustained by elements of the Pakistani state.
· Demand that the provisions of the Lugar-Kerry bill on civilian control of the military be strictly followed or aid will be withheld.
· Develop a plan to go after the major untouched terror networks in Pakistan, such as the Haqqani faction, the Quetta Shura and Lashkar-i-Taiba.
In the longer run, as the United States scales back its military presence in Afghanistan, it will need the Pakistani military less and less to supply its troops in theatre.
Pakistan's civilian government, business class and intellectuals have an ever-larger role in this struggle. They should not get distracted by empty anti-American slogans or hyper-nationalism. This is Pakistan's moment of truth, its chance to break with its dysfunctions and become a normal, modern country. The opportunity might not come again.



Fareed Zakaria is a noted foreign affairs analyst

Can we keep the Indian Fareed Zakaria out of this please? This thread is about Pakistan & the US.
 
enemy enemy enemyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy..............................................................................................:butcher:
 
Fareed Zakaria and you, in New Jersey, are both US citizens. Both of you have every right to wish for better democratic outcomes inside Pakistan. Blindly ignoring the mess in Pakistan, now and historically, is unwise to keep it polite here.
 
Fareed Zakaria and you, in New Jersey, are both US citizens. Both of you have every right to wish for better democratic outcomes inside Pakistan. Blindly ignoring the mess in Pakistan, now and historically, is unwise to keep it polite here.

I wouldn't quote myself to prove a point of what "Americans" think about something, as I'm a "naturalized" American, & a Muslim with Pakistani roots as well. Rather, I'd use a more "neutral" source, such as a white Christian American, born & bred in the US, or some other Western media outlet, to prove a point. Fareed Zakaria's biases, along with outright fabrications against Pakistan are well-documented.
 
US violated Pakistani air space - but they did not attacked a Pakistani they were going after a Wanted international Criminal head of a fictional organization

The problem is violation of air space , so US should compensate for things - but it was not an attack on Pakistan.

But , as a nation we need to protect our Air space it was gross negligence on part of our Airforce and Military - to allow violation of airspace
 
Back
Top Bottom