Has Any Pakistani Leader Ever Received Warm Washington Welcome Like Modi?

[Trisonics]

How does it matter who was invited and how they were treated. All that matters to me as an Indian is how Modi represented/represents India abroad. I think he has done a pretty good job. His speech had good content and showed India's culture as sincere and vibrant. He will do the same even if he is in Africa or any other developing nation.

That is his job. Who came to receive him, where he visited, whose hands he shook matter only to the insecure since his job is only to improve ties and promote India. Everything else really does not matter!

 

[Jamwal's]

Modi, the butcher of Gujarat

Tell me why do you Pakistanis have different concept of " butchers " and "Terrorists" especially from seniors like you.



The other day a Pakistani was branding Dalai lama as terrorist !

There are other examples as well such as Shaikh Mujeeb who was the staunch supporter for Pakistan movement in 1940s use to ride bicycle asking for the support for Pakistan.

Now tell us why don't these people see Modi as butcher while you equate him with bunch of Taliban who are certified terrorists.

Can Talibani Mullah Omar think of having his statute in Madam tusads museum

Or at Times Square

Or at Medison Square Garden

Even your elected leaders can't think of above.

 

[ni8mare]

economic growth
pakistan 5.07%
india 6.98%

pakistan 3.1%
india 7.5%

Nice quote in the pic...of course he never said it about the Taliban. That quote was taken from something he said about the Nicaraguans during the Iran-Contra mess. But if people repeat it over and over people will believe it.

Read the first paragraph here:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/general-article/reagan-iran/

Tell me why do you Pakistanis have different concept of " butchers " and "Terrorists" especially from seniors like you.



The other day a Pakistani was branding Dalai lama as terrorist !

There are other examples as well such as Shaikh Mujeeb who was the staunch supporter for Pakistan movement in 1940s use to ride bicycle asking for the support for Pakistan.

Now tell us why don't these people see Modi as butcher while you equate him with bunch of Taliban who are certified terrorists.


View attachment 309591



Can Mullah Omar think of having his statute in Madam tusads museum


View attachment 309592

Or at Times Square

View attachment 309594


Or at Medison Square Garden


View attachment 309594


Even your elected leaders can't think of above.

Dont take panga with rouhani chacha

 

[Solomon2]

...The Pakistani President was extended the rare honor of being welcomed by the US President and the First Lady at the airport when the PIA airplane carrying him landed at Andrews Air Force Base near Washington DC. He was also given the privilege of addressing a special Joint Session of the US Congress on Capitol Hill where he received standing ovation. There was a state dinner in Ayub's honor hosted by President and Mrs. Kennedy at Mount Vernon, the historic residence of America's founding father and 2nd president Thomas Jefferson. Later, he was hosted at a dinner by New York City mayor after he rode an open top car in a ticker-tape parade through the Big Apple with tens of thousands of New Yorkers lining the parade route and cheering him on...

Yup. That's how it was.

The Pakistan of the early 1960s. Brave barrier against aggressive India and prosperous counter to Third World Soviet-oriented socialism. Striding to increase literacy of its population, improving sanitation, agriculture, family planning. Loyal ally in the struggle against Communism and home base to America's spy planes.

Then clever Z.A. Bhutto ascended to the top ranks of government and ruined it all.

Such honors and accomplishments were not enough for him. He wanted Pakistan to become an empire rather than a nation. Bhutto convinced others at the top to use American military aid to launch the 1965 war to conquer Kashmir. He justified to Americans on the grounds of Pakistani impatience. He justified it in his writings by claiming it was important for Pakistan and India to be equals, so Pakistan had to conquer a third of India. Without defying allies and betraying agreements national independence was merely a myth.

Of course once law and morality were so cruelly bent the door was wedged open for further militant extremisms. Z.A.B. plotted to violently divide the country to injure the military and rise to power. To bargain for further political support, Z.A.B. compromised with the feudals and in effect allied with the Islamists to suppress the Ahmadis. A new image of Pakistan as "pure" began to be promoted as a militant national ideology. Education aid provided by the West was diverted to other purposes, like military industries and the atomic bomb program.

It didn't matter that Z.A.B. kept the forms of elections. As civilian martial law chief no Pakistani had civil rights to stand upon. He had severely weakened democratic values. Zia's removal and execution of his boss were thus not effectively opposed by the masses.

Zia's Islamization merely followed a course Bhutto had already far advanced - one that started not with Bhutto but with the Objectives Resolution itself. As Dawn revealed a few years ago, Pakistan's clerics held that once you add "Islamic" to the description of the nation a state of war with enemies both external and secular internal is created, so whatever Western freedoms or Islamic rights individuals have are suppressed in the pursuit of greater power.

Extremism naturally spiraled upwards from there, as political contenders competed on "Islamic" grounds, while counter-voices were suppressed.

So to American presidents the idea of giving such a warm welcome to such leaders of Pakistan became anathema. As for a ticker-tape parade, how many Americans could be counted upon to cheer leaders with so much innocent blood on their hands?

 

[Rajaraja Chola]

when USA use some one for its interests. the end result ARE
1. USA suceeded
2. the allies are destroyed.
3. USA finds new allies which is mostly enemy of past ally.

Japan is prosperous. So is South Korea. So is Taiwan. So is whole of Europe after they ate on US food for nearly 20 years after world war 2.
The thing is those countries were also take care of their "interests" with respect to their US. I am sorry. The fact that Pakistanis have failed is the responsiblity of Pakistanis alone.

Pakistanis jumped at anti-USSR camp at US insistence. Remember India rejected USSR's req to deploy troops in Afghanistan. The above mentioned countries I mentioned have become less religious, people wanted to tire off unnecessary customs, helping their nations forward. But Pakistan was only concerned on religion and Islamisation of Pakistan and as a result it was more liberal in 1970's than it is now. It was Pakistanis fault that they didnt make use of US financial aids and assistance policies to its benefits. The only benefits were the weapons but not the structure of Pakistani economy nor the US education standards.

 

[RiazHaq]

Being elected by over a billion people can not wash way the blood on Modi's hands. Taliban emerged from the "Mujahideen" supported by the United States. Even Hillary Clinton admitted to it when she said the US funded the terrorists we are fighting now.

 

[Solomon2]

Even Hillary Clinton admitted to it when she said the US funded the terrorists we are fighting now.

But it was Pakistanis who decided where the money and equipment went and who to support.

 

[Humble Analyst]

After watching the Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi's welcome in Washington this week, one of my blog readers asked me the following question: "Has Any Pakistani leader ever received a warm Washington welcome like Modi"s?"

The answer is: Yes, President Ayub Khan of Pakistan received a much bigger and warmer welcome in America than India Prime Minister Narendra Modi this week. Before I describe it, let me try and put things in perspective for my readers.


President John F. Kennedy and Jackie Kennedy receiving President Ayub Khan

Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger of the United States has often been quoted as saying: “America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests.”

Let's interpret Kissinger's quote to explain the crux of the shifting alliances since the end of the US-Soviet Cold War in early 1990s. The United States needed Pakistan to counter the Soviet influence in Asia until late 1980s. Today, America needs India to check the rise of China as a great superpower which is seen as challenging the United States as the sole superpower now.

Even as the Obama administration courts Modi, the top US officials, including Secretary of State John Kerry and Treasury Secretary Jack Lew, are in Beijing for "Strategic and Economic Dialogue". It's an acknowledgment of the fact that the U.S. and China are the two largest economies in the world. American Treasury Secretary has described the US-China relationship as "the most important economic relationship in the world."

Meanwhile, Pakistan is drawing close to China to broaden its strategic relationship with stronger economic and military ties. Joint military programs like the JF-17 Thunder combat jet and the $46 billion China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) are manifestations of it.




Now, let me describe in a little more detail Pakistani President Ayub Khan's 1961 visit to the United States. The fact is Modi's reception pales in comparison to what a Pakistani leader got during the Cold War.

The Pakistani President was extended the rare honor of being welcomed by the US President and the First Lady at the airport when the PIA airplane carrying him landed at Andrews Air Force Base near Washington DC.

He was also given the privilege of addressing a special Joint Session of the US Congress on Capitol Hill where he received standing ovation.

There was a state dinner in Ayub's honor hosted by President and Mrs. Kennedy at Mount Vernon, the historic residence of America's founding father and 2nd president Thomas Jefferson.

Later, he was hosted at a dinner by New York City mayor after he rode an open top car in a ticker-tape parade through the Big Apple with tens of thousands of New Yorkers lining the parade route and cheering him on.

Then President Ayub visited The Alamo in Texas where then Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson hosted him for a Texas style barbecue. Ayub Khan addressed joint houses of Texas legislature.

On his way back, the then UN Secretary General Dag Dammarskjold of Sweden hosted a dinner in his honor before President Ayub returned to Pakistan.

The fact is Modi's reception pales in comparison with what the Pakistani leader was given during the Cold War.

Here's a video of President Ayub Khan's US visit:

Related Links:

Haq's Musings

When Ayub Met JFK

Post-Cold War Shifting Alliances

China-Pakistan Strategic Relationship

China-Pakistan Economic Corridor

Modi's Pakistan Policy

Chimerica: China-US Relations

Will Chinese Yuan Replace US Dollar as Reserve Currency?

China-Pakistan Defense Ties Irk West

Well once they need you you will be pampered.

 

[volatile]

so you know more than indian on indian armed forces and so called "growing second Opinio in Indian armed forces"

Instead of laughing like an ..... answer with some logics .I can bring many links for you if you want me to

 

[T-72M1]

Japan is prosperous. So is South Korea. So is Taiwan. So is whole of Europe after they ate on US food for nearly 20 years after world war 2.
The thing is those countries were also take care of their "interests" with respect to their US. I am sorry. The fact that Pakistanis have failed is the responsiblity of Pakistanis alone.

Pakistanis jumped at anti-USSR camp at US insistence. Remember India rejected USSR's req to deploy troops in Afghanistan. The above mentioned countries I mentioned have become less religious, people wanted to tire off unnecessary customs, helping their nations forward. But Pakistan was only concerned on religion and Islamisation of Pakistan and as a result it was more liberal in 1970's than it is now. It was Pakistanis fault that they didnt make use of US financial aids and assistance policies to its benefits. The only benefits were the weapons but not the structure of Pakistani economy nor the US education standards.

Great point, and one that I have made repeatedly here. Virtually all of these countries that the US had at one stage been at war with and literally destroyed some of them, Germany and Japan in particular, they're all doing well. Vietnam, doing good, as are other 'victims' of past US aggression in south America etc.. somehow their citizens did not take to terror and spread it all over the world, the middle east and Pakistan/Afghanistan however...

 

[C130]

interesting how Modi was a pariah not so long ago. the man who was in charge when the Gujarat riots happened. the murder and burning of innocent Muslims, but now he's some kinda messiah on the level of Obama.

think we are going all in with Modi and India

 

[Rajaraja Chola]

Great point, and one that I have made repeatedly here. Virtually all of these countries that the US had at one stage been at war with and literally destroyed some of them, Germany and Japan in particular, they're all doing well. Vietnam, doing good, as are other 'victims' of past US aggression in south America etc.. somehow their citizens did not take to terror and spread it all over the world, the middle east and Pakistan/Afghanistan however...

Just look at South Korea. So tiny yet an economy of 1.3 trillion. I forgot to add the nation of Israel to that list. They made necessary changes to their nation based on US style or whatever you call it.
The Japanese though are culturally very attached to their past customs. But what? They changed their education, industrial working style, economy borrowed from US and mixed with their own cultural values.

But Pakistan was only concerned on Weapons , Weapons and Weapons and later on religion, religion and religion due to its greed to take on India and wrestle Kashmir back. It didnt invest on any other thing. India on the other hand has a lots of interest wrt US other than "defence". And therein lies the difference between India and Pakistan.

 

[A$HU]

Being elected by over a billion people can not wash way the blood on Modi's hands. Taliban emerged from the "Mujahideen" supported by the United States. Even Hillary Clinton admitted to it when she said the US funded the terrorists we are fighting now.

What blood? He was given a clean chit by Indian supreme court and that too during congress regime. One can't even think of questioning the legitimacy of the ruling. I dont know how courts in Pakistan are running but please dont contaminate us with your BS propaganda.

 

[T-72M1]

Just look at South Korea. So tiny yet...

yes, they've prospered massively and are a stable democracy today, which was not always the case post war but they are in a great place today, Koreans aren't blowing themselves all over the world either.

Japan too, are an economic behemoth as well as being one of the most peaceful countries on earth.

Weapons and Weapons and later on religion, religion and religion due to its greed to take on India and wrestle Kashmir back. It didnt invest on any other thing. India on the other hand has a lots of interest wrt US other than "defence". And therein lies the difference between India and Pakistan.

I actually see Pakistan as the first, and perhaps the biggest victim of the Saudi ultra-orthodoxy aka wahhabism virus post the Iranian revolution.

So now they have a huuge section of their population infected with this insane ultra orthodoxy, tens of thousands have died from religious violence over the past decade, and their military establishment still continues to nurture and foster these psychotic militants to further their geostrategik interests in the region, shall we say.

the US intel guys are not stupid, they know exactly what's going on, shouldn't surprise anyone who knows anything to see this rapprochement between India and the US.

what's really interesting is that the Sauds, who are responsible for all the terror worldwide, run an immaculate operation at home, no chaos, no jihad, much money making and peace in Arabia, Pak otoh.. death and terror, a love affair with violent jihad.. crazy

 

[RiazHaq]

What blood? He was given a clean chit by Indian supreme court and that too during congress regime. One can't even think of questioning the legitimacy of the ruling. I dont know how courts in Pakistan are running but please dont contaminate us with your BS propaganda.

Indian Supreme Court lost all moral and legal legitimacy in the eyes of all fair people in the world when it upheld the hanging of Afzal Guru, an innocent man.


Afzal Guru was accused of carrying out an attack on Indian parliament in Dec, 2001. The Indian supreme court judgment acknowledged the evidence against Guru was circumstantial: "As is the case with most conspiracies, there is and could be no evidence amounting to criminal conspiracy." But then, it went on to say: "The incident, which resulted in heavy casualties, had shaken the entire nation, and the collective conscience of society will only be satisfied if capital punishment is awarded to the offender." This shameful Indian Supreme Court verdict to approve Guru's execution is a great miscarriage of justice with few precedents in legal annals.

http://www.riazhaq.com/2016/02/massive-anti-modi-student-protests.html