Not in US interests to cut off relations with Pakistan: Clinton

[VCheng]

i dont engage in such public hypotheticals

but i'll get back to you in approx. 2 months

If I am around, sure........

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

If I am around, sure........

oooohhhhHhhhh you'll be around, Cheng Du! you'll be around and we'll be right where we are now

 

[yoku]

White people like bush is better. But he can't come into the office again.
If Clinton want good relation, they should give drone technology to kill militants in Pak/afghan border.

Could you please elaborate on that one. There's something important that you are suggesting about Obama and Bush administrations and their respective 'backgrounds' that had bearing on their dealing with Pakistan.

 

[Machoman]

Oh Bhai bus kardo Make up your mind...................

 

[somebozo]

Hillary smoking too much pot these days she is having memory holes...

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

wish i knew who her supplier is.....i'd love to also try it

 

[somebozo]

wish i knew who her supplier is.....i'd love to also try it

Karzai & Co.

Ever wonder why she has soo much stake in Afghanistan!

 

[PakiRambo]

I wonder how the US-Pakistan relationship will develop or even decrease or diminish as new leaders are sworn in.

 

[Thorough Pro]

WASHINGTON: With the bilateral relationship between the US and Pakistan in a troubled spot, Clinton said it was preferred to keep the cooperative relationship with Pakistan, than to totally cut it off.

It may not be in the best interest of US, but it DEFINITELY IS in the best interest of Pakistan. We are better off without these thankless, ignorant, arrogant, murderer yanki scumbags.

**** off america, you have always sued us like a condom. you get the pleasure we get the ****.
Pakistanis should understand that Pakistan Us relatinship is like the relationship between a dick and condom.

People never foget or forgive insult, what kind of nation have we become?

 

[r3alist]

Some of it is of our own making,”

I like how she sneaks that in.

 

[VCheng]

Doesn't the art of diplomacy lie in avoiding collisions and conflicts?

from: US, Pakistan heading towards collision | DAWN.COM

WASHINGTON: The US-Pakistan relationship appeared to be heading towards a head-on collision as an American general blamed Friday’s deadly attack on a Kabul hotel on Fata-based militants and the White House vowed to take the steps needed to mitigate this threat.

Earlier on Friday, the US media reported that Washington had considered launching retaliatory attacks at terrorist targets inside Fata but concerns about destabilising Pakistan prevented it from doing so.

“We’ll take steps necessary to mitigate that threat,” said a White House official, while commenting on AP report.

Asked if the White House could send US soldiers across the border to chase down those militants, White House Principal Deputy Press Secretary Josh Earnest said: “I won’t preview the kinds of things that are being discussed, and frankly, whether or not they’re even being discussed by the administration.”

But, he said, he could share with the reporters that “this threat is something that we have talked about quite extensively both publicly and privately.”

The White House official pointed out that the US had raised this issue with the Pakistanis and remained committed to finding ways to work with them to combat the threat that these groups posed both to US forces and innocent Pakistani civilians.

Earlier, the commander of Nato forces in Afghanistan said that the deadly attack on the Kabul hotel bore the signature of the
Haqqani group which he said continued to operate from Pakistan.

Commenting on the statement, State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland told reporters in Washington that the United States had been pushing Pakistan for a long time to ‘squeeze’ this terrorist outfit.

Also on Friday, Defence Secretary Leon Panetta indicated that the US was not going to accept Pakistan’s demand for an apology over the Salala incident, which caused Islamabad to block Nato supply routes to Afghanistan.

Pakistan is unwilling to reopen the routes without an apology.

Asked whether he would oppose any further apology, Mr Panetta told the Reuters news agency: “We’ve made clear what our position is, and I think it’s time to move on.”

He added: “If we keep going back to the past, if we keep beating up each other based on past differences, we’ll never get anywhere.”

But the most detailed analysis of US-Pakistan relations came in a televised discussion between Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and one of her predecessors, James A. Baker.

Secretary Baker noted that the relationship was in a ‘terrible’ shape, adding that this was “really sad, because for the duration of the Cold War they were our ally, and India was the ally of the Soviet Union, and now all of that is changed”.

Mr Baker disagreed with those who suggested severing ties to Pakistan.

“I think we need to maintain a relationship with them because they’re a nuclear power and because it’s really important that we not see nuclear conflagration in the subcontinent. And we don’t want to see any more proliferation than we’ve seen from Pakistan,” he said.

He suggested cutting off US aid to Pakistan to “get their attention” while maintaining a relationship with them.

Secretary Clinton observed that America’s relationship with Pakistan has been challenging for a long time.

“Some of it is of our own making,” she said, adding that she believed the US should have been more concerned about “what was going to happen to the Pakistanis” after the Soviet withdrawal from Pakistan.

“First of all, I completely agree it is not in our interests to cut off our relationship,” she said while explaining her approach. “It is in our interest to try to better direct and manage that relationship.”

She said there were several things that the US was now asking the Pakistanis to do: “Number one, they’ve got to do more about the safe havens inside their own country” because “the extremists have an ace in the hole. They just cross the border; they get direction and funding and fighters, and they go back across the border.”

She urged Pakistan to act against the Haqqani network as well as the LET, noting that the militants had already killed more than 30,000 Pakistanis.

“Secondly, they have to be willing to recognise that as we withdraw from Afghanistan, it is in their interest to have a strong, stable Afghan government” and they should stop “doing everything possible to try to undermine it.”

“And at the very least, they ought to stop double-dealing us,” said Secretary Baker. “Yeah, at the very least,” Secretary Clinton agreed.

“And they should release Dr Afridi,” she added.

 

[Pauper]

It may not be in the best interest of US, but it DEFINITELY IS in the best interest of Pakistan. We are better off without these thankless, ignorant, arrogant, murderer yanki scumbags.

**** off america, you have always sued us like a condom. you get the pleasure we get the ****.
Pakistanis should understand that Pakistan Us relatinship is like the relationship between a dick and condom.

People never foget or forgive insult, what kind of nation have we become?

 

[RazorMC]

Here's a quote from the article:

“Some of it is of our own making,” she said, adding that she believed the US should have been more concerned about “what was going to happen to the Pakistanis” after the Soviet withdrawal from Pakistan.

1. A lot of it was of their making, not ours. They wanted to hurt the Soviet Union, they put Pakistan and major Arab nations together in a coalition to support the Mujahideen, they were the ones with all the resources necessary for this conflict.

2. She rightly mentioned that the US should have given the end scenario more thought. This statement further confirms the fact that the US never looks beyond its own objectives hence the wary attitude of our public and the Military concerning the Pak-US relations.

3. When did the Societ withdrawal from Pakistan take place ???

 

[VCheng]

......................

3. When did the Societ withdrawal from Pakistan take place ???

Likely mispeaking or misquoting. Afghanistan is what is meant in that sentence i.e. US should have been more concerned about “what was going to happen to the Pakistanis” after the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan.

 

[regular]

Not in US interests to cut off relations with Pakistan.........
I think we need to maintain the relationship with them because they are a nuclear power.......:Clinton
.....

Yes! its not in the US interest to cutt-off relations with Pakistan cuz its a master slave relationship. but we need to cuttoff this relationship of being a slave to the US........umm............