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

[Straight Razor]

Lolz.. You make it sound like he was selling popcorns in baluchistan. Action has been taken on the basis of Kulbushan Yadav interrogation and legal evidence would soon be provided on hearing to International court of Justice (ICJ) and i hope you do realise legal evidence is different then political motives, your reference to pakistans record has zero relevance here.

As for the U.N, we dont really care what it says. If the U.N cant give kashmiris what was promised, it is of zero relevance as well. India does not care what the U.N resolutions are on kashmir, it does not even allow U.N observers to visit their side of the kashmir territory to asses the human rights situation so it certainly cant take plea of the same U.N to bash us. We can deal with that.
As for OBL, there are various reports that he died long before of illness then this staged drama of killing OBL in pakistan where pakistan was made a scapegoat. Never was his body shown. As for your argument i do agree with it, for instance it would also be justified for Turkey to bomb US for harbouring Gulen (although the list is long).

Involuntary coerced confessions are not legal evidence and Pakistan's record does not give it benefit of doubt.

And as I pointed out, under 1373 attacks have to be on the terrorists, not the state that is accused of hosting them. Do you think the U.S. would have been justified to bomb Islamabad for OBL being sheltered in Pakistan? So you see, 1373 not only empowers member-states to pursue terrorists on another member-state's territory, it can protect that nation-state from a large conflict as well.

 

[Jackdaws]

It all boils down to Kashmir - and the strategic depth Pakistan desires in Afghanistan. As an Indian, I am so fed up of this terrorism - I don't enjoy either Indians or Pakistanis dying. I wonder if Pakistan would agree to the old plan that India offered in the 1950s or 1960s - some 2000 square miles or kms of land while India retains Jammu and Ladakh

 

[Storm Force]

India is not giving a inch

Never mind 2000km

Loc will be the border now.

Nuclear weapons has finished any war and no one is budging now

 

[Mav3rick]

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.

You have correctly identified that both countries are pursuing different agendas, but have assigned the goals incorrectly; it is Pakistan that wants a prosperous, stable and friendly Afghanistan where countries like India cannot influence terror planning for attacks on Pakistan's soil. On the other hand it is in the US's interest that the region remains destabilized and in chaos as then it has a 'justification' to remain there, right next door to China and Iran and in close proximity to Russia.

Basically, it is not in the interest of US to have peace and prosperity in regions where she is actively involved. In Afghanistan, the interests are further derived from hundreds of billions of dollars worth of drug trade and minerals worth trillions. It is therefore a fact that Pakistan seeks a stable Government in Afghanistan of which Talibaan become a political part.

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.

Matter of fact, the question you should be asking is why won't the US pursue a human policy and let people live? The US is either directly or indirectly responsible for most of the chaos in the world and is also directly or indirectly responsible for hundreds of millions of deaths. As long as US has her borders secure, she can project military power overseas and subdue the entire world to her wishes. Those who still don't bend are labelled Terrorists.

That is what UNSCR 1373 denies: it says that a member-state's sovereignty is null if another nation attacks terror groups on its territory. If the U.S. "switches" to supporting India, the Indians may be emboldened to take action against terror bases in Pakistan. Then Pakistan can either escalate the battle (without U.S. or Chinese support) or else yield to India's will. Pakistan might possibly keep the terror camps aimed at Afghanistan but will lose those it operates in support of Kashmir. Is that the outcome Pakistan really wants?

Your 'concern' is noted and appreciated. Please let us be, we will deal with all our enemies accordingly.

Your nation is one which can wine and dine a person today, compare him/her to your forefathers and then label him/her a terrorist tomorrow! You have no morals and no humanity. All you have is an endless hunger for resources of other countries.

 

[Solomon2]

Do you believe your arguments are true ?

Facts in context support my contentions, so yes. If you discover errors please share, thank you.

Pakistan is infinitely more important in the media here compared to Afghanistan, as a nuclear power. In the minds of the general public, two things hurt its image terribly: the fact that OBL was found there, and that it holds prisoner the doctor who helped catch him. It becomes easy for other allegations to stick once these two facts are repeated over and over again.

There's a third "thing" that you missed: Malala. When she was shot Hollywood woke up and noticed. Madonna dedicated a concert to her and talked about how "sick and absurd" it was - not just the Taliban but the attitude supporting them. A whole segment of American society that normally doesn't pay attention to international politics was alienated from Pakistan instantly.

 

[VCheng]

There's a third "thing" that you missed: Malala. When she was shot Hollywood woke up and noticed. Madonna dedicated a concert to her and talked about how "sick and absurd" it was - not just the Taliban but the attitude supporting them. A whole segment of American society that normally doesn't pay attention to international politics was alienated from Pakistan instantly.

Malala is a relatively small issue in comparison, in my view.

 

[Solomon2]

...Action has been taken on the basis of Kulbushan Yadav interrogation -

I admit I lost interest in the Yadav case real quick when I realized Yadav had "confessed" to many things. Many, many things. I had the impression that if Pakistani interrogators had accused Yadav of giving birth to Jesus Christ he would have confessed to that, too.

As for the U.N, we dont really care what it says.

There. You said it.

As for OBL, there are various reports that he died long before of illness then this staged drama of killing OBL in pakistan -

Now you're definitely in fantasy land.

 

[IceCold]

There's a third "thing" that you missed: Malala. When she was shot Hollywood woke up and noticed. Madonna dedicated a concert to her and talked about how "sick and absurd" it was - not just the Taliban but the attitude supporting them. A whole segment of American society that normally doesn't pay attention to international politics was alienated from Pakistan instantly.

The Pakistani public has stopped giving a **** to what the US thinks, now the GOP resonates that fact. It should be evident from how Tillerson was greeted in Pakistan.

 

[imadul]

yanks clandestinely behind attacks on Mehran base and kamra 2011 and 2012. PA knows that and still keep relationship with Pentagon. Its a very abusive marriage yet Both can I'll afford to end.

 

[Solomon2]

Basically, it is not in the interest of US to have peace and prosperity in regions where she is actively involved.

And you can support this argument by pointing to Japan, South Korea, and NATO-Europe, where the U.S. stationed troops for decades, all being in the poorhouse whereas Pakistan, America's postwar ally where its fighting troops were never stationed, is thus rich and prosperous?

 

[ziaulislam]

It all boils down to Kashmir - and the strategic depth Pakistan desires in Afghanistan. As an Indian, I am so fed up of this terrorism - I don't enjoy either Indians or Pakistanis dying. I wonder if Pakistan would agree to the old plan that India offered in the 1950s or 1960s - some 2000 square miles or kms of land while India retains Jammu and Ladakh

Its not that simple...things got very complicated when india forced a another partition in 1971..making pakistan are more Muslim majority single culture country

 

[Jackdaws]

Its not that simple...things got very complicated when india forced a another partition in 1971..making pakistan are more Muslim majority single culture country

Can't wholly blame India for that.

 

[Solomon2]

Its not that simple...things got very complicated when india forced a another partition in 1971..making pakistan are more Muslim majority single culture country

Since the P.A. was busy slaying East Pakistanis until rudely interrupted by India and the M-B clearly the result you cite - making Pakistan a "more Muslim majority single culture country" - would be the same even if the Indians hadn't intervened.

 

[Mrc]

Since the P.A. was busy slaying East Pakistanis until rudely interrupted by India and the M-B clearly the result you cite - making Pakistan a "more Muslim majority single culture country" - would be the same even if the Indians hadn't intervened.

I guess India deserved a victory after nearly 1000 years of humiliation r ape and plunder...

Lets see what next 1000 years will bring

 

[war&peace]

As I have been saying even the janitor at Pentagon knows that losing Pak isn't an option!!!!!

If people in Pakistani govt realise this, they will make better deals with USA