Imran Khan
PDF VETERAN
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2007
- Messages
- 68,815
- Reaction score
- 5
- Country
- Location
it will never stop by talking or mercy its need balls to show but sorry we don't have .even we have few balls these are given by mighty USA .so chill .
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Hmm, Blair didn't criticize drones' tactical effectiveness, only their strategic ineffectiveness. Yet how can any anti-terror policy can be strategically effective unless Pakistan and the U.S. share the same strategic goals? For now, they don't: Pakistan sees Afghanistan as "strategic depth" - near-anarchy to be dominated by its sponsored terror proxies - whereas the U.S. seeks an Afghanistan that is a functioning state. So like Panetta says, right now the drones are the only game in town.
And you are just as idiot as your government.
Hmm, Blair didn't criticize drones' tactical effectiveness, only their strategic ineffectiveness. Yet how can any anti-terror policy can be strategically effective unless Pakistan and the U.S. share the same strategic goals? For now, they don't: Pakistan sees Afghanistan as "strategic depth" - near-anarchy to be dominated by its sponsored terror proxies - whereas the U.S. seeks an Afghanistan that is a functioning state. So like Panetta says, right now the drones are the only game in town.
Point taken - and I do find your metaphor apt. Yet it is an open secret that it is the GoP that insists on this approach.Why don't you handcuff and gag me before you rape me, so that my screams don't cause any inconvenience to you.
Hmm, Blair didn't criticize drones' tactical effectiveness, only their strategic ineffectiveness.
That would be a complete lie and distortion of Pakistan's position, but then, little else is expected of the likes of you.Yet how can any anti-terror policy can be strategically effective unless Pakistan and the U.S. share the same strategic goals? For now, they don't: Pakistan sees Afghanistan as "strategic depth" - near-anarchy to be dominated by its sponsored terror proxies - whereas the U.S. seeks an Afghanistan that is a functioning state. So like Panetta says, right now the drones are the only game in town.
Sure it does. Aren't we writing in English?"The drone attacks take out some mid-level terrorists"
The statement by Blair above does not support the argument that the drones offer any significant 'tactical effectiveness'.
How is that, exactly?That would be a complete lie and distortion of Pakistan's position -Yet how can any anti-terror policy can be strategically effective unless Pakistan and the U.S. share the same strategic goals? For now, they don't: Pakistan sees Afghanistan as "strategic depth" - near-anarchy to be dominated by its sponsored terror proxies - whereas the U.S. seeks an Afghanistan that is a functioning state. So like Panetta says, right now the drones are the only game in town.
There is really no need to make this personal. Look at this article from the left-leaning online journal Huffington Post, pretty close to the current Administration, and you'll see that my perception is widely shared, which concludes:- little else is expected of the likes of you.
Point taken - and I do find your metaphor apt. Yet it is an open secret that it is the GoP that insists on this approach.
Why is that? I perceive a constant in the conduct of Pakistani officials from 1971 to present: moral cowardice. That's why the GoP won't acknowledge involvement in the drone strikes; that's why so few officials stand against terror and crime; that's why so many Pakistanis who know better won't speak up for Israel.
These so-called leaders that lack moral cowardice have been selected by the US in order to meet their own goals, that's how the US misuses democracy, installing puppets like Karzai, Zardari and that idiot in Iraq and then signing the laurels of democracy and liberty, Its all hogwash. If the GoP is amenable to the drones, then the US role in destabilizing the whole region in the name of stabilizing and the farce WOT must also be brought into light. The US is the last country that should barf about Moral Cowardice.
Of course, I might be exaggerating matters. Maybe it's just race hatred, as drove West Pakistanis to murder their eastern brethren in 1971. But that, too, was evil, and failing to oppose it was an act of cowardice, is that not so?
it will never stop by talking or mercy its need balls to show but sorry we don't have .even we have few balls these are given by mighty USA .so chill .
No it doesn't, as I already explained.Sure it does. Aren't we writing in English?
I fail to see any support for your allegation that Pakistan wants 'terrorist proxies' to control Afghanistan.How is that, exactly?
There is really no need to make this personal. Look at this article from the left-leaning online journal Huffington Post, pretty close to the current Administration, and you'll see that my perception is widely shared, which concludes:
...Waiting another year before beginning to leave Afghanistan is also another year spent dumping billions of dollars and sophisticated military technology into the hands of Pakistan's military and intelligence services, those most responsible for the stoking the civil war and terrorism with their "strategic depth." The US must engage with and empower the democratically elected civilian government. It is they who must be strengthened in the battle against extremism, not the Army and ISI...
Most Govt officials become wise after they quit.
Where were such thoughts when he was in the chair and under pressure to perform & deliver ?
It doesn't matter what I think. What I'm trying to communicate to you is the operative political reality in D.C. Fair or not, substantiated or not, this is what policymakers are basing their decisions upon....the NYT is considered 'left wing' as well, yet is has clearly shown itself to be nothing but a US Establishment propaganda mouthpiece when it comes to covering/commenting on foreign affairs...the only thing the excerpt above does is offer yet another biased and unsubstantiated 'smear piece'...