Hillary Clinton put in Hot Seat by Pakistani Media

[Developereo]

Its politics dude. Indians know politics and there are no permanent friends in international politics. GoI was never under the delusion that US is our permanent friend nor was Russia. Each has his/her own interests. Unlike Pakistan who thought US was their all weather friend

Once again, you are launching into unwarranted assumptions. Do you honestly believe that people are all that different everywhere? There were some Pakistanis who bought into the friend hype, while others maintained a more pragmatic approach. The same is true in India. There are many Indians who are gaga over the newfound US attention, while others are more realistic.

and now considers China as their all weather friend. Lets see how long China sees her interests satisfied in Pakistan. After that?

All relationships are valid only until mutual interests are satisfied. The same applies to India's relationship with the West. India will be dumped as soon as the West is convinced it doesn't need them to counter China.

Whatever you want to believe, makes you sleep at night.

It is not a matter of belief but fact. Pakistan has apprehended, or provided information leading to the elimination of, the most number of AQ operatives.

If this makes you uncomfortable and you want to live in denial, so be it.

Can you give sources for Bribes given to Ms Hillary Clinton? By Indians?

Indian American Bundlers Banking on Clinton - NAM

Like I said, bribes in a democracy go by the euphemism of "campaign contributions".

Or is it a case of sour apples when where once Pakistan was the toast of cocktail parties in the Capitol and now the whole perspective has changed?

You truly are misinformed. Pakistan has never been the darling of the Washington elite. Even in the best of times.

Lol, who said it was to win hearts and minds of Pakistanis?

Would you believe Senator Kerry, one of the authors of the bill himself?

California Chronicle | Senate Unanimously Passes Kerry-Lugar Pakistan Aid Package

the Senate has made a clear bipartisan commitment to replace an atmosphere of mutual distrust and lack of accountability with a broad-based, durable commitment to Pakistan and its people. It can empower the Pakistani people charting a path of moderation and stability,"

Its for your efforts in the fight against the taliban and aq.

Wrong. Much of the economic aid is aimed at developmental projects.

Last I heard Pakistan spent twice the amount India spent on lobbying the US congress this year! And yet this is what they have to show?

The Indian lobby was irrelevant. The bill was sabotaged by the most powerful entity in Washington, AIPAC. No other American lobby can hope to even come close to AIPAC's power, let alone a foreign country's lobby.

Indian lobbying is for India's intersts. US, NATO, UN are not stupid not to see whats happening in Pakistan and they have acted rightly so, though unexpectedly this has ben a windfall for India. India is at the right place at the right time. Period.

Wrong. India screwed up royally in Afghanistan and lost it to Pakistan, which is why the US had to step in and reinstall a pro-India government there. NATO will groom India to become a regional power, not because it gives a damn about India, but simply because it is the only reasonable counter to China. (NATO doesn't want to strenghten Russia.)

Btw, people in GoP know more than you or I about the intricacies of the bill and the reasons to accept it. Jingoistic behavior is not one of their traits. No use blaming only Zardari or any other politician you love to hate, they have an army of thinktanks, bureaucrats and civil servants who do the nitty gritty stuff and come up with statements which the politician reads!

I am not blaming the GoP for the KLB. I only blame them for not enacting tax reforms to remove reliance on foreign aid.

And thats why you took advantage of the Russian invasion to create "strategic depth"? Oh my!

Again with the "strategic depth"? Sigh.
Pakistan would be more than happy if Afghanistan were to pursue an independent foreign policy devoid on Indian meddling. However, that has never been the case with Afghanistan. Given a hegemonic bully at the front door, Pakistan cannot allow his little puppet to attack us from the back. That is why we had to neutralize Indian meddling in Afghanistan, not out of any fetish for "strategic depth".

Cant secure your own borders and enforce your laws? Thats your problem! Stop blaming all and sundry, including imaginary enemies for your problems. One gets into a mess due to ones own incompetence.

Yawn.
Falling back on cliches when arguments fail is no way to advance your point.

Economic reasons for precisely the 'free thinking' thing. Lets compare a free thinking society with that of a society stuck with a religious fundamentalist mindset! Do you see opportunities for economic development in such societies? With "free thinking" comes many opportunities and thats why we desis go there.

http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-affairs/36078-burkina-faso-djibouti-indians-everywhere.html

The largest number of NRIs are in Saudi Arabia (17 lakh) followed by the United Arab Emirates (14 lakh) and the US (9 lakh)

But why defend the barbaric practices in home country as being morally superior?

I don't see anybody doing that on this forum.

But that doesnt mean that its OK to add some of our disgusting practices into the mix. It doesn't make it right.

The deciding factor should be legality. If it is illegal, then that's that. But if something is legal and doesn't infringe on anyone else's rights, then it is really nobody else's business to tell people hwo to live their life.

Assimilation, or lack thereof, has become a codeword for racists to attack new, non-white immigrants. Some people complaion about Muslim men's long beards, but nobody had any problems with Hassidic Jews' or other people's beards and hairstyle. Similarly, Muslim headscarfs have been stigmatized into a symbol of "oppression" and "non-integration" by the same people who had no problems with nuns' habits, crosses on necklaces, or star of David pendants.

Close minded. Whats wrong with adult bookshops or nudie bars? Just keep kids younger than 18 away from them. Unless you happen to be a prude!
Seriously, sex is the celebration, cause and purpose of life. Enjoy it while you are alive and kicking! Stop being a prude.

It's not a question of prudishness, but of safety and property values. Most people, especially with small children, do not want adult bookstores, nudie bars or liquor stores in their neighborhood. This is equally true of immigrants and locals.

New land, new home, new rules. Pretty much yes!

Doesn't work that way. Just one example is the decline in support for abortion in the US, partly because the new wave of Hispanic immigrants tends to be more religious and socially conservative than whites. Immigration drives societietal evolvution.

 

[deathfromabove]

Clinton in Pakistan encounters widespread distrust of US

November 1, 2009

By Alex Rodriguez

The discontent is not just from radicals, even college students and respected journalists question Washington’s intentions in Pakistan. Some liken U.S. drone missile strikes to terrorism.

Reporting from Islamabad, Pakistan - Every time Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton tried to win over Pakistanis during her three-day charm offensive last week, they fired back a polite but firm message:

We don’t really trust your country.

No matter how hard Clinton tried to reassure audiences in Lahore and Islamabad with talk of providing economic aid where it’s needed most, Pakistanis seized on her visit as the perfect moment to lash out at a U.S. government they perceive as arrogant, domineering and insensitive to their plight.

At a televised town hall meeting in Islamabad, the capital, on Friday, a woman in a mostly female audience characterized U.S. drone missile strikes on suspected terrorist targets in northwestern Pakistan as de facto acts of terrorism. A day earlier in Lahore, a college student asked Clinton why every student who visits the U.S. is viewed as a terrorist.

The opinions Clinton heard weren’t the strident voices of radical clerics or politicians with anti-U.S. agendas. Some of the most biting criticisms came from well-mannered university students and respected, seasoned journalists, a reflection of the breadth of dissatisfaction Pakistanis have with U.S. policy toward their country.

In those voices what rang clear was a sense that Pakistan was paying a heavy price for America’s “war on terror.”

“You had one 9/11, and we are having daily 9/11s in Pakistan,” Asma Shirazi, a journalist with Geo TV, told Clinton during the Islamabad town hall meeting.

Clinton’s visit came at a time when Pakistanis’ suspicions about U.S. intentions in their country are at an all-time high.

A five-year, $7.5-billion aid package to Pakistan recently signed into law by President Obama has stoked much of the animosity. Measures in the legislation aimed at ensuring the money isn’t misspent have been perceived by Pakistanis as levers that Washington can use to exert control over their country.

Pakistanis also continue to be incensed by U.S. reliance on drone missile strikes to take out top Al Qaeda and Taliban commanders in Pakistan’s lawless tribal areas along the border with Afghanistan.

The CIA-operated drone strikes have killed at least 13 senior Al Qaeda and Taliban militants in the tribal areas in the last 18 months. But Pakistani government and military leaders say the strikes have also killed hundreds of civilians and amount to violations of Pakistan’s sovereignty.

At the Islamabad town hall meeting, a student from a university in Peshawar, a city shaken by a car bomb blast Wednesday that killed 118 people, summed up the anger over the drone attacks.

“What is actually terrorism in U.S. eyes?” the woman asked. “Is it the killing of innocent people in, let’s say, drone attacks? Or is it the killing of innocent people in different parts of Pakistan, like the bomb blast in Peshawar two days ago? Which one is terrorism, do you think?”

Pressed by the forum’s moderator whether she thought U.S. drone missile strikes were tantamount to terrorism, Clinton answered, “No, I do not.”

On the one occasion when Clinton struck her own assertive tone, the message appeared to get through. Her suggestion to Pakistani journalists in Lahore that elements within the Pakistani government were probably aware of the whereabouts of Al Qaeda leaders but were not acting on the information struck a chord on the opinion pages of major Pakistani newspapers.

“If we are honest, we cannot deny that much of what she said was true,” remarked the English-language daily the News in an editorial that appeared Saturday.

Clinton repeatedly acknowledged the mutual lack of trust that has held back the relationship, and she emphasized the Obama administration’s commitment to addressing crucial issues for Pakistanis that reach beyond terrorism, such as shoring up Pakistan’s beleaguered electricity grid and improving schools and healthcare.

Pakistanis, however, clearly remained unconvinced that Washington was as interested in improving the quality of life in Pakistan as it was in tracking down terrorists. And on several occasions during her trip, Clinton was confronted by Pakistanis who blamed the previous U.S. administration’s policies in Afghanistan for the militancy now wreaking havoc across Pakistan.

“Look, Madam Secretary, we are fighting a war that is imposed on us,” journalist Shirazi told Clinton. “It’s not our war. That was your war, and we are fighting that war.”

Assessments of Clinton’s trip in Saturday’s Pakistani newspapers were gloomy.

“One cannot help feeling that [Clinton's trip] was an abortive exercise,” remarked an editorial in the Nation, another English-language newspaper, “and she went away fully conscious of that failure.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Can you post sources for those aid figures you quoted?
500 million USD in aid to Afghanistan from Pakistan? Seriously are you sure it wasnt only to the Taliban? As for thousands of Afghan students on scholarships, I thought Madrasas offer free education. Again which universities in Pakistan boast of scholarships to Afghan students? So what scholarships are you talking about? Again weren't a majority of these very students used as cannon fodder during the Afghan civil war? Schools built in Afghanistan? Are you sure they were not Madrasas?
Maybe what I posted in above isnt true. But then isn't it ironic that inspite of providing so much aid to Afghanistan, the common Afghan is wary of Pakistani designs? Have you wondered why?

Maybe you should actually research the issue instead of shooting off your mouth about '500 million to the Taliban' and 'constructing madrassa's'.

That really was an unacceptable post, full of flames and tripe, and you'll be banned next time it occurs.

Here is your link:

http://www.defence.pk/forums/strate...n-hits-500-million.html?highlight=500+million

 

[gubbi]

The same is true in India. There are many Indians who are gaga over the newfound US attention, while others are more realistic.

All relationships are valid only until mutual interests are satisfied. The same applies to India's relationship with the West. India will be dumped as soon as the West is convinced it doesn't need them to counter China.

You wish! Do you think Indians are that desperate for US support? This US courting India is a new thing and yes Indians are interested in the opportunities that this presents. Opportunities to make more money. Lol about dumping!
Seriously, India cannot be manipulated by the NATO/weswtern countries to play ball against China.
You are bringing all those stupid cliches and wishing for India what happened/is happening to Pakistan. Duh!

It is not a matter of belief but fact. Pakistan has apprehended, or provided information leading to the elimination of, the most number of AQ operatives.

The timing of that is very interesting if you look into the history of such arrests. That definitely means there's something Pakistan knows that the NATO/UN doesn't! Fishy, eh?
So you do underestimate US/UN/NATO humint? Geez!

Indian American Bundlers Banking on Clinton - NAM

Like I said, bribes in a democracy go by the euphemism of "campaign contributions".

Bribes?
So a politician is expected to pour in his own money to run for a public seat, like it happens in Pakistan. I can understand where you are coming from, no surprises here. Btw, my friend, things are very different in "real" democratic countries. Public money finances elections.

You truly are misinformed. Pakistan has never been the darling of the Washington elite. Even in the best of times.

Ha, want to black out that part of the history now do ya? Painful eh? to see US sharing bed with a new partner? Silly boy.

Would you believe Senator Kerry, one of the authors of the bill himself?

California Chronicle | Senate Unanimously Passes Kerry-Lugar Pakistan Aid Package

the Senate has made a clear bipartisan commitment to replace an atmosphere of mutual distrust and lack of accountability with a broad-based, durable commitment to Pakistan and its people. It can empower the Pakistani people charting a path of moderation and stability,"

That's like cocoa butter on a huge-arse bitter medicine suppository!

Wrong. Much of the economic aid is aimed at developmental projects.

I stand corrected.

The Indian lobby was irrelevant. The bill was sabotaged by the most powerful entity in Washington, AIPAC. No other American lobby can hope to even come close to AIPAC's power, let alone a foreign country's lobby.

Lol, AIPAC working for India, wow! What interest does AIPAC have in Pakistan? They are more interested in Iranian nuclear activities and Palestine! Seriously Pakistan doesnt ping on their radars yet. Please dont flatter yourselves with so much importance!

Wrong. India screwed up royally in Afghanistan and lost it to Pakistan, which is why the US had to step in and reinstall a pro-India government there. NATO will groom India to become a regional power, not because it gives a damn about India, but simply because it is the only reasonable counter to China. (NATO doesn't want to strenghten Russia.)

Again a stupid baseless argument! Ha, what a delusional piece! India screwed up, NATO (which has nothing to do with India) steps in to install a India friendly regime in, of all places, Afghanistan! You seriously believe that?
They could easily have done it in Pakistan if it werent the for Iraq war.
Btw, did you forget that Afghanistan was ruled by stone age religious barbarians called Taliban - financed and trained and supported by Pakistan? (though the origins of Taliban were in Kandahar)

Again with the "strategic depth"? Sigh.
Pakistan would be more than happy if Afghanistan were to pursue an independent foreign policy devoid on Indian meddling. However, that has never been the case with Afghanistan. Given a hegemonic bully at the front door, Pakistan cannot allow his little puppet to attack us from the back. That is why we had to neutralize Indian meddling in Afghanistan, not out of any fetish for "strategic depth".

India can have friendly relations with any country it wishes. Whats your problem. That doesn't give you the right to trample upon the sovereignty of another nation. You poke your noses in others affairs, and see what you got in return!

Yawn.
Falling back on cliches when arguments fail is no way to advance your point.

Truth hurts.....Bad.
But hey, denial is your forte!

It's not a question of prudishness, but of safety and property values. Most people, especially with small children, do not want adult bookstores, nudie bars or liquor stores in their neighborhood. This is equally true of immigrants and locals.

Just keep kids out, and adults can enjoy whatever they want. Who are you to do Moral Policing?

Doesn't work that way. Just one example is the decline in support for abortion in the US, partly because the new wave of Hispanic immigrants tends to be more religious and socially conservative than whites. Immigration drives societietal evolvution.

Lol, support for anti-abortion drive is not because of the Hispanics! Where so you get your news from?
Immigration drives societal evolution, yes, but the right kind. Not like the ones who sit in foreign countries and support radicals back in their home land. Like that one dude (TTpforLife - now banned) sitting in UK and supporting TTP! Whatever moral policing you want to do, do it in your house, not on others!

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

You understand nothing. Nothing would make me happier than to see Pakistan and Afghanistan peacful and prosperous.

Great - I'll take both your and S-2's clarifications at face value for now, since it really serves no purpose to pursue that line of argument.

At the moment however, Pakistan protects large numbers of Taliban by it's claims to sovereignty over areas such as Waziristan, the NWFP and Bolichistan when no such sovereignty exists. All this does is prevent the ISAF from pursuing its enemy across all the territories it inhabits, and continues Afghanistans slow and deadly bleed.
The ISAF has bent over backward these last 8 years to respect Pakistans claims, all a blockade would mean is that the combined powers would have carte blanche to prosecute it's enemies wheresover they dwelt, and Pakistan would have declared itself to be one of those enemies.
Enter CVBG's, sub killers, SF operations, air denial and a concentrated bombing campaign and occupation of Pakistan just like Afghanistan.
Again I ask, why the hell would ABCA allow it's armies to be destroyed just to keep Pakistan happy?

Mchrystal's own assessment indicates that the Afghan insurgency remains a primarily Afghan based one, though he does argue that some of their leadership might be based in Pakistan. So by his own assessment the Afghan insurgency is based in areas where ISAF is not 'prevented from pursuing it enemy', yet the insurgency continues. The Haqqani network etc. are a part of the Afghan insurgency, but not the overriding part.

Now we have had the debate over ISAF taking the war into FATA before - and what it would do, without a complimentary 'hammer and anvil' approach from the Pak Military, is to only push the insurgency deeper into Pakistan. In addition, since such a push into FATA is unlikely to be approved by Pakistan, and will be possible only after war with Pakistan in which its military and C&C is destroyed, which leaves you with an Iraq and Afghan situation (immediately post OEF and Soviet withdrawal), except that the population, already hostile to the US and expecting just this, will leave you with absolutely no local faction of worth to support in Pakistan. Taliban, AQ and assorted extremist groups shall stand 'vindicated' and receive support from most parts of Pakistan and expand openly into most parts of Pakistan, especially absent any Pakistani institution to check them, as is being done now.

So from having one Afghanistan of 30 million people, you will go to two with a combined population of 200 million people, the majority hostile to your actions and with no local legitimacy to them. Even in Afghanistan you initially had local support for removing the oppressive Taliban - you will have none in Pakistan.

So why on earth would ABCA compound their problem by many magnitudes, by invading Pakistan and destroying it, when they could withdraw entirely from Afghanistan (if the cut-off of supply transit occurs, and I think it is unlikely) and have a fraction of the problem still compared to the one they would have following your suggested route?

Other posters have raised the issue of Pakistan charging the US higher rates on the transit of their supplies - I am not sure if that is possible, what the international precedent on it is, and whether that plays into the US enthusiasm for ensuring the Afghan Transit Trade agreement with Pakistan is approved at the earliest.

As for the growth in size and influence of the extremist groups, what the hell do you think has been happening in the region for the last 8 years?

Nothing close to what would happen in the absence of a central authority and a decimated security apparatus post war - Pakistan would descend into the chaos of post Soviet Afghanistan, perhaps with civil war, but I suspect without, since local anger will be pretty easily channeled against the 'invaders' by the Taliban, AQ, Punjabi and Kashmiri groups - Islamist and secular.

At least at the moment Pakistan is trying to eliminate/reduce the threat to itself, and has significant Pakistani political and popular support for that effort. Given the collaboration between the Afghan and Pakistani Taliban, and the complications from a Pakistani fall to extremism, even this narrowly focused effort has a significant windfall for ISAF troops.

So no, if ISAF objectives in Afghanistan and the region are as you described, then an ISAF withdrawal is far more likely than an invasion of Pakistan, unless the nukes are about to fall into Taliban/AQ hands.

 

[Seadog1]

Without going into the right or wrong of it, I would like to ask you, do you have exact figures of how many ‘innocents’ have fallen victim to the two laws you mentioned above? Having a law for political or whatever reasons is one thing and having a law imposed is a different thing.

That we can see already. This is not your fault that you are so unaware, it was the responsibility of your parents to introduce you adequately to your roots and your culture. Not taking religion serious is your personal problem; however, when you talk here, talk with proper references or stay away from for which you don’t have adequate knowledge base.

As to the first here is an article on the subject of Blasphemy

In addition to severely limiting freedom of speech and assembly, Blasphemy laws and other discriminatory laws, continue to hang like naked swords on the heads of non-Muslim people i.e. Christians, Hindus, Bheels, Maingwals, Sikhs and the indigenous people (The fourth world).

blasphemy
Prepared by:
RESEARCH & ADVOCACY CELL
CHRISTIAN LIBERATION FRONT PAKISTAN
710 Shadman-I, Lahore, Pakistan
Ph: 0092-42-7560041, Fax: 0092-42-7530204 Email: clf@isb.comsats.net.pk

and on the subject of religion after what I see in Pakistan and Afganstan and most of the rest of the world my not takeing religion all that serious seem to be more of a blessing than a problem,,, I am sure not interested in killing people over it.

 

[Seadog1]

Wow' that was really scary

you make me laugh ,
Instead of giving threats to Pakistan, think abt u'r chickens cry in Afghanistan.

US seeks Pak, Saudi support in dialogues with Afghan Taliban
Sunday, 1 Nov, 2009 5:11 pm

ISLAMABAD : The United States has decided to initiate dialogue with Afghan Taliban, and requested Pakistan and Saudi Arabia for their support in dialogue process, Aaj news reported.

Diplomatic sources told the channel that the US has decided to dialogue with Taliban in Afghanistan.

Main commander and Naib Amir Mullah Akhund from Taliban side is taking part in dialogue process with the US.

Source said Mullah Akhund has made it clear to US for not creating rift among the Taliban on the basis of money.

He also asked the US to take its forces out of Afghanistan as soon as possible so that government as per with the wishes of Afghan people could be formed.

AAJ TV : Pakistan Ki Awaz

I did not mean it as a threat just an inevitable result of what ever Pakistan decides...and its Pakistan decision to make...Extremist like the Taliban and Al Quida are not going be satisfied till they rule Pakistan and they already have a good start...I bet You get more upset about an American soldier accidentally killing a civilian than you do about a terrorist deliberately blowing up a school bus full of kids.

 

[parihaka]

The west's successes and failures are secondary to Pakistan's successes and failures. .

See here's the thing. It's difficult for me to talk about the prevailing situation in Pakistan because I'm at various times referring to two totally separate entities.

On the one hand, there's the actual people of Pakistan, the true Pakistanis, long suffering basically since the partition and now suffering constant internal attacks to rival Iraq at its worst.

On the other we have the 'ruling elite' or ’intelligentsia’ (of which I’m sure you count yourself as one) of Pakistan, imposed on the locals since the partition, with overseas bank accounts, overseas education and often living overseas while dictating where any monies should be spent.
As we all know, virtually all excess revenue goes to the Pakistan army rather than to improve living conditions, all other services maintained at bare minimum if even that. Whenever it looks as though true local rule might be established, another coup resets the balance of power. You’re probably guessing by now which category I place you and AgM in.

The Raison d'être for this of course has been the big bad bogeyman to the south, perfidious India, ruled by the former servants of the Mughal Empire, now made their own masters by the British and not wanting a bar of their former masters. Whenever a new tool is devised or comes to hand such as the Taliban which may be used to advance the aspirations of the intelligentsia, it’s utilised for that purpose irrespective of what damage it may cause to the land and people of Pakistan or it’s neighbour Afghanistan.
So to enable the continued servitude of the Pakistanis as providers to maintain the intelligentsia and their army, a constant condition of fear and oppression must be maintained.
India must be demonized and portrayed as the evil aggressors, the west must be portrayed as the same, any offers of assistance must be diverted to the southern army and if questioned the very countries that offer and give help must likewise be demonised. Above all else, the ‘intelligensia’ must never be faulted and all failures must be rationalised as the actions of the evil foreigners.

Hence we have the contradiction of the good and bad Taliban, those who attack Pakistan as bad, those who attack Afghanistan as good.
We have the PA with the very latest technology that can be donated while the Frontier Corps had to make do with whatever they could scrounge from the rubbish heap, despite the obvious dangers to the people of Pakistan.
We have ‘treaties’ ceding control of what is nominally ‘claimed’ Pakistan territory to insurgents and fundamentalists because those areas have no financial benefit to the ‘intelligentsia’ while at the same time those same ‘intelligentsia’ claiming that they still have ‘sovereignty’ over those areas and refusing permission to the ISAF to hunt down the terrorists resident in those areas.
When the terrorists attack assets within the ‘intelligentsia’s’ realm of interest we have the PA attack the areas as retribution, but no attempt to continue to hold, pacify and develop those areas.
We have outrage when accountability is asked for the funds and materials meant to help prosecute the war against those terrorists.
We have excuses that the attacks against the people of Pakistan are in fact engineered by outside forces, either RAW, or the CIA, or Blackwater, or any other agency, rather than a fundamental failure by the ‘intelligentsia’.
We have claims that any attempt to bring to heel any terrorism outside Pakistans territory are plots to undermine Pakistan itself.
We have claims that despite America and the other countries of the ISAF spending both cash and blood to make Afghanistan a better place that all of it is a failure, the failures have nothing to do with Pakistan except that Pakistan could do it soooo much better, and at end result it’s all really just a plot to undermine Pakistan itself.

Meanwhile, the actual people of Pakistan and Afghanistan continue to suffer and die in ever increasing numbers, Pakistans allies become further removed and more suspicious as the fantasist rhetoric expands to ever greater heights in an attempt to deflect criticism, and the terrorists gain ever greater hold over swathes of territory and people, all in the name of restoring the Mughal Empire, the greatest fantasy of all.

It ain’t gonna happen. Pakistan is not a cantonment for the eventual re-establishment of Muslim rule over India, it is the last refuge of the ‘intelligentsia’ and is getting smaller and weaker by the day, despite the best efforts of the rest of the world to save you.

The only thing we want to see is you guys perform against the Taliban in Afghanistan. If you can't do it, step aside.

What, and leave the Afghan people to your tender mercies? When you can’t even secure 2/3’s of the territory you currently claim? I don’t think so.
At worst, as S-2 suggests, the ISAF may withdraw: reassess, realign and come back with new priorities as to who the enemies are: not the Pakistani people, but more than likely the countries ‘rulers’.

Please go write your diatribes in the forum dedicated to "Asim Aquil". Oh wait there is none and hence please brush up your feeble debating skills, whine a little less and talk on topic.

I base my assessments of you from years of reading your anti-western truthspeak: from glorying in the deaths of Iraqi’s at the hands of your heroes as a demonstration of western evil, to making ever more fantastical claims about your own cliques capabilities and deriding those of your foes.
You on the other hand merely flame, posit strawmen and abuse whenever I can be bothered shining the light of reason on your claims.

 

[parihaka]

Here's an idea though: since you're so convinced that the PA could do sooo much better at controlling Afghanistan, how about moving some of the PA off your southern borders, ally with the ISAF and set about hunting the Talibunies and AQ side by side with your western 'allies'.

Close co-operation with NATO, the very best in equipment, fighting alongside western allies against a common foe, close integration with other armies, upgrading of command and control, and ringing endorsements and kudos from around the world.
Hell, once you'd updated your doctrine and ROE's you could even have Pakistan generals commanding NATO troops. AAAnnnd, the elimination of a very real threat to Pakistan's continued existence.

No?

thought not.

 

[SeaGull]

Here's an idea though: since you're so convinced that the PA could do sooo much better at controlling Afghanistan, how about moving some of the PA off your southern borders, ally with the ISAF and set about hunting the Talibunies and AQ side by side with your western 'allies'.

Close co-operation with NATO, the very best in equipment, fighting alongside western allies against a common foe, close integration with other armies, upgrading of command and control, and ringing endorsements and kudos from around the world.
Hell, once you'd updated your doctrine and ROE's you could even have Pakistan generals commanding NATO troops. AAAnnnd, the elimination of a very real threat to Pakistan's continued existence.

No?

thought not.

EXCELLENT IDEA - Only if it can be reciprocated when Pakistan is fighting its OLD NEMESIS.

 

[parihaka]

So why on earth would ABCA compound their problem by many magnitudes, by invading Pakistan and destroying it, when they could withdraw entirely from Afghanistan (if the cut-off of supply transit occurs, and I think it is unlikely) and have a fraction of the problem still compared to the one they would have following your suggested route?

As usual, you misrepresent the original quote to realign the argument in your own favour.
To wit

Do u have any idea if Pakistan stops the army supplies thru our routes than what will happen?
if stopped,the bodies of u'r soldiers dieing in wholesale quantity will not make make back to US of "A" and will rot in Afghanistan.

Like I said, why on earth would ABCA allow the destruction of their armies?
And why on earth would you attempt to support this idiot?

 

[parihaka]

EXCELLENT IDEA - Only if it can be reciprocated when Pakistan is fighting its OLD NEMESIS.

.....

 

[SeaGull]

.....

FUNNY HUH??

You'd rather have a COOLIE than an ALLY.

 

[parihaka]

FUNNY HUH??

You'd rather have a COOLIE than an ALLY.

No, I'd rather deal with rationalists than idiots

 

[SeaGull]

No, I'd rather deal with rationalists than idiots

Thank you for the insight - I shall take that as complimentary.