What's new

"Hard talk with Pakistan does not work, they just dig in deeper", observe American analysts. NYT

By your logic Pakistan have right to attack Afghanistan and India to take out terrorists support.
First, I think the way 1373 is worded is that it has to be demonstrated that such terror sanctuaries exist on a member-state's territory but that its gov't wasn't taking action to eliminate them: the U.N. operates a clearing-house mechanism for some of the relevant information-sharing, mostly financial I think, though this isn't publicized any more. Second, 1373 nulls a member-state's sovereignty in these instances: Pakistan couldn't attack India or Afghanistan but only the terrorists there. So no, 1373 doesn't give Pakistan a green light to go to make war on either India or Afghanistan.
 
.
The difficulty is that the two countries are pursuing different endgames: the U.S. wants a an independent and prosperous Afghanistan existing under rule-of-law while Pakistan seeks a satellite Afghanistan under the sway of its own pet Talibs; Pakistan remains wedded to the strategy that incubated 9/11.

Thus Pakistan opposes any reconciliation with the Taliban that leads to peace in a Afghanistan absent of Pakistani political domination. As if economic influence wasn't enough! Really, this looks like the product of a military mindset unobstructed by political moderation: dominate or be dominated, etc. Afghanistan's problems are rooted in Pakistan's issues, so the emphasis should be there. Probably the only weak lever the U.S. exercises is to cut off the flow of U.S. "aid" but it seems that Pakistan is both the arsonist and firefighter so the U.S. has been afraid to take that step.

So far.

Why would US want such an Afghanistan as you have pointed out ?

What is in it for Uncle Sam ?
 
.
Why would US want such an Afghanistan as you have pointed out ? What is in it for Uncle Sam ?
The U.S. is a strong nation but not an imperial power; it doesn't extract wealth from its allies or even its enemies for its own profit, rather they cost taxpayers money. A stable and peaceful Afghanistan = a smaller defense bill, lower taxes, and happier voters.
 
.
The US empire falls; their horrid kitchen-sink style war against Syria and its government failed despite the media war, the false allegations, the insane level of funding and recruiting for Nusra/ISIS/FSA terrorists and now their Kurd project has turned into crap too. Furthermore, a rather wonderful bloc of countries in the form of Iran-Iraq-Lebanon-Syria has been formed with their military cooperation and unity created in the face of fighting the terrorist onslaught with the latter even having received a de facto airforce of their own in the form of Israel/NATO.

I love it. The US empire crumbles, the Middle East drifts further toward the right fold. Even their long-time patsies the Saudis are really wriggling to get into the Russian camp now. Good signs all around.
 
. .
First, I think the way 1373 is worded is that it has to be demonstrated that such terror sanctuaries exist on a member-state's territory but that its gov't wasn't taking action to eliminate them: the U.N. operates a clearing-house mechanism for some of the relevant information-sharing, mostly financial I think, though this isn't publicized any more. Second, 1373 nulls a member-state's sovereignty in these instances: Pakistan couldn't attack India or Afghanistan but only the terrorists there. So no, 1373 doesn't give Pakistan a green light to go to make war on either India or Afghanistan.

Now who is going to confirm/prove with evidence that a country have those sanctuaries?? US never provided evidence of WMD and attacked Iraq, not should world punish US for it's state terrorism against a sovereign country? US supported Al-Qaida based terrorists groups in Syria openly just to get it's interest full filled who is going punish US on that crime??

There is a huge list events, which US and it's many allies are responsible and they still claim to be good guys, hypocrite of top notch.
 
.
The difficulty is that the two countries are pursuing different endgames: the U.S. wants a an independent and prosperous Afghanistan existing under rule-of-law while Pakistan seeks a satellite Afghanistan under the sway of its own pet Talibs; Pakistan remains wedded to the strategy that incubated 9/11.

Thus Pakistan opposes any reconciliation with the Taliban that leads to peace in a Afghanistan absent of Pakistani political domination. As if economic influence wasn't enough! Really, this looks like the product of a military mindset unobstructed by political moderation: dominate or be dominated, etc. Afghanistan's problems are rooted in Pakistan's issues, so the emphasis should be there. Probably the only weak lever the U.S. exercises is to cut off the flow of U.S. "aid" but it seems that Pakistan is both the arsonist and firefighter so the U.S. has been afraid to take that step.

So far.
That is not entirely true. Don't apply such altruistic aspirations to US intentions only. The US is there because it needs to maintain a foothold in the Russian and Chinese backyards. So contrary to oft-stated reason, this is not just about denying space to AQ/ISIS in Afghanistan because that is a Russian/Chinese interest as well and they too can assist Afghans in doing so without having the Americans there. Secondly, how can we make Afghanistan prosperous when a significant proportion of the population see the American presence as meddling in their affairs? The ones who die on the battlefield are Afghans themselves. No amount of Pakistani aid, support can force one to offer their lives unless they believe in what they are doing. So there is a massive issue of foreign boots on Afghan soil. No amount of aid/assistance can resolve that issue no matter what the Kabul based government says.

To the point about Pakistan, the reason Pakistan has a reason to work with Pakhtun aligned Taliban is because of the way the war was executed 2004 onwards. The power center shifted in Afghanistan with the Northern Alliance becoming ascendent. This changed a lot of things for Pakistan. Primarily a border issue which was dormant suddenly became active, putting more pressure on Pakistan to divvy up its meager resources to handle a two front threat. On top of that, Indian presence has only increased, and regardless of how beneficent and harmless it may be, it gives Indians the ability to leverage it against Pakistan. Again the issue is even if the intent to threaten Pakistan from Afghanistan may not be there, that can change overnight. So all in all, Pakistan has legitimate concerns. These are as legitimate as those of Afghans or any others involved. Pakistan would adjust its course if some solid assurances (beyond talk) were given to Pakistan that it need not worry about the threat to it from its western borders.

Keep in mind that America sets red-lines when its core interests are threatened (read existentialist threats). It is doing so with North Korea now for this reason and it has done the same with Iran and in the past with Cuba when the Soviets parked their nuclear weapons a few minutes flying time away from DC. Pakistan's issues with India are of the same nature. America cannot ignore these concerns by expecting Pakistan to sacrifice its security because they have a distant project in Afghanistan to contain China and check Russia.

Pakistan's affinity to Afghanistan and the love that we have for Afghans can never be compared to anything material that the US and India offer because under all this geo-political mess, the people of Pakistan know deep down in their hearts that the Afghans are our brothers no matter how much hatred they may display for some of our policies. We allowed the ravages of war to visit us for Afghans. We suffered through 3 decades of violence, drugs and instability because of Afghanistan. Some say Pakistan should have let the Soviets do what they wanted to, but the vast majority say "it was worth it" despite the pain that the country itself took on. So to us, even if this war lasts 50 years, Pakistanis and Afghans will come together as brothers. Deep down Afghans know that Pakistan wants the best for it. But in a transitory state, we have to watch over our security too. There is so much more that can be written here, but my point is that Pakistan is not the villain here and many of the Afghan people know this.
 
Last edited:
.
Bhai ais ko tun janta nhn hai, yeh opinion nhn deta, troll karta hai bc, opinion to indians ke bhi sun lety hum, accomodate bhi kar lety but for trolls the policy is zero tolerance....bary arsy se ais ko brdasht kar rha hun, jo bhi thread kholon udhr 2 mint men a kar apna choorun bechna shurun kar deta....aur log ais bat se bhi judge karty hen hamen ke hum damagh kitna durust karty hen humary mulk ke bary men one sided bakwaas karny walon ka.....baqi chill mar...
Khich k rakh....shabash !!!:yahoo:
 
.
The difficulty is that the two countries are pursuing different endgames: the U.S. wants a an independent and prosperous Afghanistan existing under rule-of-law while Pakistan seeks a satellite Afghanistan under the sway of its own pet Talibs; Pakistan remains wedded to the strategy that incubated 9/11.

Thus Pakistan opposes any reconciliation with the Taliban that leads to peace in a Afghanistan absent of Pakistani political domination. As if economic influence wasn't enough! Really, this looks like the product of a military mindset unobstructed by political moderation: dominate or be dominated, etc. Afghanistan's problems are rooted in Pakistan's issues, so the emphasis should be there. Probably the only weak lever the U.S. exercises is to cut off the flow of U.S. "aid" but it seems that Pakistan is both the arsonist and firefighter so the U.S. has been afraid to take that step.

So far.

1) your sentence in blue is the truth... Both seeks a satellite Afghanistan, but for obvious reasons known from everyone, their reasons are opposite. USA want Afghanistan and Paksitan being their puppet for encircling China. Problem is that Pakistan, after being backstabbed by the USA, a country that Pakistan believed as being their ally, turned toward China... Now how could Pakistan work against China ? Untill now China never backstabbed Pakistan.

2)Your sentence in red is totally wrong and a lie! Pakistan's strategy never incubated 9/11. It's USA actions who incubated 9/11. And incubation started long ago... and which backfired on 9/11 (like a side effect of a medecine). But what is strange is that we were hearing several decades about the notion of encircling China and Russia... and as a miracle they got the perfect reason to start. Like the small bottle shown by General Colin Powel at the UN as the proof that Irak is building MDW...
 
Last edited:
. .
Why won't Pakistan pursue a good-neighbor policy, like the U.S. has with Canada? Military thinking would demand each face the other armed to the teeth but the politicians control and it is their job to evaluate the key question of intent. And over 150 years ago they determined there was no need for quarreling and the relations have been friendly ever since.

American and Canadian people are same origins people from European countries... they killed most of the nativ people... so why would they fight each other ?

The U.S. is a strong nation but not an imperial power; it doesn't extract wealth from its allies or even its enemies for its own profit, rather they cost taxpayers money. A stable and peaceful Afghanistan = a smaller defense bill, lower taxes, and happier voters.


the biggest manipulation ! do you really think that the end of war and a stable afghanistan will lead to a lower defense budget and that with a lower defence budget USA will encircle Russia and China ?
 
.
sctgj.jpg


haqqani_unis_photo.jpg


Whenever I hear, read or watch Propaganda from the yanks I pay these images a visit!
 
.
Don't apply such altruistic aspirations to US intentions only.
Clearly the U.S. doesn't want more 9/11's based in Afghanistan so are you sure "altruistic" is the right word you're looking for?

The US is there because it needs to maintain a foothold in the Russian and Chinese backyards.
Didn't miss it before 9/11 so not a reason to stay.

Secondly, how can we make Afghanistan prosperous when a significant proportion of the population see the American presence as meddling in their affairs?
What makes them "significant", exactly? That they are armed and violent? Then if Pakistan stops supporting them that will go a long way, yes?

No amount of Pakistani aid, support can force one to offer their lives unless they believe in what they are doing.
The power of armed terrorists to compel the population in Afghanistan was demonstrated by the Taliban.

To the point about Pakistan, the reason Pakistan has a reason to work with Pakhtun aligned Taliban is because of the way the war was executed 2004 onwards. The power center shifted in Afghanistan with the Northern Alliance becoming ascendent. This changed a lot of things for Pakistan. Primarily a border issue which was dormant suddenly became active, putting more pressure on Pakistan to divvy up its meager resources to handle a two front threat.
Interesting, yet exaggerating the "Indian" threat invalidates the argument.

Pakistan would adjust its course if some solid assurances (beyond talk) were given to Pakistan that it need not worry about the threat to it from its western borders.
"Good fences make good neighbors."

...under all this geo-political mess, the people of Pakistan know deep down in their hearts that the Afghans are our brothers -
Unlike your ex-countrymen, the East Pakistanis?

Deep down Afghans know that Pakistan wants the best for it.
You can't judge that.

...my point is that Pakistan is not the villain here and many of the Afghan people know this.
Pakistanis always seem eager to "prove" that Pakistan is not the villain. To make it easy the government forbids many forms of criticism. So I take all such "arguments" with many grains of salt.
 
.
The U.S. is a strong nation but not an imperial power; it doesn't extract wealth from its allies or even its enemies for its own profit, rather they cost taxpayers money. A stable and peaceful Afghanistan = a smaller defense bill, lower taxes, and happier voters.

Go and pitch that idea came out of fertile brain to US and see how long it takes them to throw you under the bus. Until US accept that you are just another dime a dozen "idiot" as US policy makers would put it.
 
Last edited:
.
Go and pitch that idea came out of fertile brain to US and see how long it takes them to throw you under the bus. Until US accept that you are just another dime a dozen "idiots" as US policy makers would put it.
You are a Bangladeshi. I know what the U.S. government did in 1971. I accept your scornful attitude as deserved. :(

We can also see how the U.S. treats the Kurds today. So it's not beyond the realm of possibility that the Afghans could be dumped the same way. The difference is that U.S. troops are formally deployed, fighting, and approved of by the recognized Afghan government. There were no such troops in Pakistan in 1971 and the Kurds today are not recognized by the U.S. as a government.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom