India is the check to Pakistan, Donald Trump declares

[Syed_Adeel]

Looks like entire pakistan is full of faggots

and it seems like Whole India is full of Rapists and Pak Haters come we will correct your misunderstanding

 

[bafxet]

Oh really... sure he has gone nuts. Nothing more than another judgmental error like Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan

 

[PAKISTANFOREVER]

Oh really... sure he has gone nuts. Nothing more than another judgmental error like Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan

If the so-called world's greatest superpower got stuffed by the Iraqi resistance in 2007 with at least 1000 american troops OFFICIALLY killed in that year (the really figure probably being much higher) than imagine what the Pakistanis could do. We are much more battle hardened and battle trained than the Iraqis. We are more radicalised and anti-american than the Iraqis. Our military is many times more advanced, more powerful, more larger and self-sufficient than Iraq's military ever were. We number more than the Iraqis and our nation is more united. We are also more fierce and aggressive than them. The american military high command know all of this. Make no mistake about this, the performance of the Iraqi Resistance between 2004-08 made the american neo-cons reluctant to invade other countries on their hit list such as Iran, North Korea and Pakistan. If it wasn't for the above facts and our nuclear arsenal than the americans would be doing alot more against Pakistan than just drone strikes.

 

[Knight Rider]

Now lunatics gonna run untied states of America

AND I thought BUSH was the last one.

 

[Kao Boy]

He also said something against Muslims and I am afraid if he becomes President then communal violence will be on doorway as he will add fuel to already burning middle east with his point of view and comments...

 

[jaibi]

Be that as it may, the Republicans have a strong pro-Pakistan lobby and in the American politics the President is not the sole-runner of affairs. Secondly, janab, my explanation is to the claim-to-fame of the said person, not his mettle. Let him come to power then we will see how things roll out.

Whatever, his strategy seems to payoff. Now he is considered one of the front runners of elections. However, he will prove to be good for India as both him and Modi are right wingers.

 

[Neutron]

woah, Pakistan has become an election winning card at the International level

Yah .....................

 

[Spectre]

Be that as it may, the Republicans have a strong pro-Pakistan lobby and in the American politics the President is not the sole-runner of affairs. Secondly, janab, my explanation is to the claim-to-fame of the said person, not his mettle. Let him come to power then we will see how things roll out.

You are right to an extent - a united and adversarial Senate and Congress can extract a high political cost from a president and completely sap his political energies leaving him a lame duck president but traditionally President enjoys certain degree of autonomy in Foreign Policy.

Regarding political lobbies - both our countries play this game however the amount of actual influence they wield is debatable as mostly they balance each other out.

However Pakistan does have a better grip on bureaucrats in State Dept. and Pentagon due to it's much older ties and they are the real framers of policy in back ground. Remains to be seen though if new generation bureaucrats will carry a differing mind-set w.r.t. India/Pakistan.

Among think-tanks I would say there are a few influential ones like Carnegie Endowment which are opposed to India - due to varying factors - few of which are - their dis-comfort with an assertive and influential India and differences with the current right wing leadership in India.

Regards

 

[ThaniOruvan]

It is really good to hear some one from the US is slamming Pakistan for it had done over the years.
Really appreciate it. But, pitching India against Pakistan for the sake of US benefits is one which India
must not acknowledge. India and Pakistan has their own disputes which they will deal among themselves.

 

[ito]

Be that as it may, the Republicans have a strong pro-Pakistan lobby and in the American politics the President is not the sole-runner of affairs. Secondly, janab, my explanation is to the claim-to-fame of the said person, not his mettle. Let him come to power then we will see how things roll out.

I cannot now say anything too. But my guess is if Trump becomes the president it will be advantage India, and moreover NS is no match for Modi.

 

[jaibi]

My only point is that the game is much much messier than what the media would like us to believe. So, it remains to be seen: it won't be as simple as polarisation (black vs white) but, for a lack of a better word, 'interesting'.

You are right to an extent - a united and adversarial Senate and Congress can extract a high political cost from a president and completely sap his political energies leaving him a lame duck president but traditionally President enjoys certain degree of autonomy in Foreign Policy.

Regarding political lobbies - both our countries play this game however the amount of actual influence they wield is debatable as mostly they balance each other out.

However Pakistan does have a better grip on bureaucrats in State Dept. and Pentagon due to it's much older ties and they are the real framers of policy in back ground. Remains to be seen though if new generation bureaucrats will carry a differing mind-set w.r.t. India/Pakistan.

Among think-tanks I would say there are a few influential ones like Carnegie Endowment which are opposed to India - due to varying factors - few of which are - their dis-comfort with an assertive and influential India and differences with the current right wing leadership in India.

Regards

However, Pakistan hold a different equation for the region than India. It is true that our game is intertwined but, nonetheless, independent. Thus, I believe, the implications would too evolve on a different trajectory than what has been the American tradition of pendulum swings

I cannot now say anything too. But my guess is if Trump becomes the president it will be advantage India, and moreover NS is no match for Modi.

 

[ito]

My only point is that the game is much much messier than what the media would like us to believe. So, it remains to be seen: it won't be as simple as polarisation (black vs white) but, for a lack of a better word, 'interesting'.


However, Pakistan hold a different equation for the region than India. It is true that our game is intertwined but, nonetheless, independent. Thus, I believe, the implications would too evolve on a different trajectory than what has been the American tradition of pendulum swings

There is a huge difference on how India and Pakistan want the region to evolve, but given the location of Pakistan and given the relations between India and Pakistan, Pakistan will probably gravitate towards middle east while India towards South East Asia. So I see less and less intertwining of India and Pakistan's games.

As on America, you are right in saying that each country has its own importance for America. However, America sees India as a counterweight to China, that will brings India and America into much tighter strategic relationship.

 

[jaibi]

I'm not stating on what either nation wants. I'm not sure your background but this is not what dictates how countries interact. Take out what Pakistan or India want and still a lot of the dynamics of the region depend on their actions, this is what drives what other countries do. This is the reason why despite the Indian pro-USSR stance the USA never really gave up trying to ingratiate India because it couldn't. Countries don't have shoulds .

There is a huge difference on how India and Pakistan want the region to evolve, but given the location of Pakistan and given the relations between India and Pakistan, Pakistan will probably gravitate towards middle east while India towards South East Asia. So I see less and less intertwining of India and Pakistan's games.

As on America, you are right in saying that each country has its own importance for America. However, America sees India as a counterweight to China, that will brings India and America into much tighter strategic relationship.

 

[Soldier-X]

This troll is realy funny .... rip to american people in case if he will become president

 

[LeGenD]

These are blanket statements, for publicity purposes. You don't become one of the greatest entrepreneurs by being a fool.

I get the impression that Mr. Trump is a straightforward person and not a seasoned politician. He doesn't shy away from expressing his opinion about sensitive matters even if they may alienate some. However, I don't expect him to be an irresponsible President (if elected).

To be honest, I would rather give my vote to a straightforward person with reasonable goals then a seasoned politician who is good at deceiving the masses.

If the so-called world's greatest superpower got stuffed by the Iraqi resistance in 2007 with at least 1000 american troops OFFICIALLY killed in that year (the really figure probably being much higher) than imagine what the Pakistanis could do. We are much more battle hardened and battle trained than the Iraqis. We are more radicalised and anti-american than the Iraqis. Our military is many times more advanced, more powerful, more larger and self-sufficient than Iraq's military ever were. We number more than the Iraqis and our nation is more united. We are also more fierce and aggressive than them. The american military high command know all of this. Make no mistake about this, the performance of the Iraqi Resistance between 2004-08 made the american neo-cons reluctant to invade other countries on their hit list such as Iran, North Korea and Pakistan. If it wasn't for the above facts and our nuclear arsenal than the americans would be doing alot more against Pakistan than just drone strikes.

I think that you underestimate toughness of Iraqi people way too much. Iraq have fought several wars and Iraqi people are battle-hardened to the core on average as a consequence. Veteran Iraqi soldiers, in particular, are highly trained professionals on average and capable tacticians; they formed the bulk of Iraqi resistance movement in the 21st century against US forces, and they now form the bulk of ISIS-led caliphate movement (as unfortunate as this may sound). ISIS's tremendous gains on the ground are not based on luck factor.

At one time, Saddam Hussein made it mandatory for every able Iraqi to join military and fight on the front. Due to this policy, around 60% of Iraqi populace had been mobilized for fighting a war.

However, wars eventually destroy or harm nations involved. This is a lesson that never gets old in history.

Iraq's downfall began with Gulf War (1991). In those days, Iraq fielded a large (battle-hardened) military capability, the nation itself was galvanized by a general sense of preparedness for any eventuality (machoism and martialism) and Iraqi leadership felt confident about influencing Middle Eastern politics with its martial prowess. Invasion of Kuwait was an example. Unfortunately for Iraq, its policy-makers underestimated the resolve of US to protect its interests in the Middle East and GCC states were willing to assist it in this endeavor as a trade-off for their security against potential adversaries in the region. Moreover, US was prepared to fight a large-scale conflict in any setting at that time. Iraq bad-timed.

---

Pakistan have come a long way since 1960s. A large segment of the Pakistani populace is now urbanized and accustomed to wealth and luxuries. You expect this segment to be battle-hardened? You are deluding yourself. Keeping a gun in a home doesn't makes you a professional or battle-ready. Some tribes in Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa are the (only) groups who have first-hand experience and exposure to war-like situations in the main populace. There are other armed groups but far from reliable. Pakistani military is the most reliable front-line of defense against external threats; if its gone, then God help Pakistan.