What's new

Obama tells PM he's 'very fond of Pakistan'

Well US /Pakistan traditionally go well if only we can build on our strategic cooperation to next level something like US/Canada etc I think there is great hope we can be an ideal country to develop

US/China/Pakistan cooperation in region and may be help US discuss issues with other nations regionally :P
 

Obama met earlier in the day with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, who urged the US leader to put pressure on Pakistan to rein in extremists responsible for the grisly 2008 assault on Mumbai
.

The White House made no explicit mention of the Indian concerns in its account of the meeting with Gilani.

Am not too sure of this.. See the video attached(ignore the starting ad).. Gilani does not seem too happy


26/11 attackers must be punished: Gilani
 
hmmm I don't know we hear cool talk and article no action we never get any good stuff
 
WASHINGTON
: President Barack Obama said on Sunday he was "very fond of Pakistan" and pledged a ong-term commitment to the frontline US partner as he met with Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani.

Gilani was among a handful of leaders Obama met separately on the eve of a major nuclear summit in Washington as his administration makes a concerted effort to reduce anti-American sentiment in Pakistan.

Obama opened the meeting "by noting that he is very fond of Pakistan, having visited the country during college," the White House said in statement.

Obama voiced appreciation for Pakistan's response to an attack last week on the US consulate in Peshawar, offering condolences over the assault and a separate bombing against a rally that together left 46 people dead.

"These two attacks on the same day are important to note because the extremists do not distinguish between us and we are truly facing a common enemy," Obama was quoted as saying by the White House.

The White House said the relationship between Pakistan and the United States was "of significant importance because of the shared values of our countries and the fight we are both engaged in against extremists operating in South Asia."

Obama "also noted that our multi-faceted and long-term strategic relationship goes far beyond security issues," the statement said.

The United States last year approved a 7.5-billion-dollar aid package to Pakistan in hopes of developing the economy and democratic institutions of the Islamic world's only declared nuclear power.

Very fond of Pakistan: Obama to Gilani - The Times of India

We are very fond of you too sir.
 
I think you are overgeneralising . The Muslim population is not a homogeneous entity having one single concern. I also think that you know that the size of the Jewish population is not necessarily commiserate with their influence. Their wealth and also that of the Indian Americans who might be another

Nor is the jewish population a homogenous entity. There are a large number of jewish democrats who continue to support Obama despite the tiffs with Israel. And there is a substantial number of jewish americans who are completely fed up of Israel earning them and their faith a bad name. One example:


And as for jewish money and influence, please remember that a huge amount of arab money - impossible to estimate but definitely in the trillions - is parked in the US. Up until recently, one of the most expensive homes in the US was owned by Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan. Many former US presidents and high officials directly benefit from millions of dollars in donations from middle eastern organizations. The zionist lobby in America certainly has influence, but it is no longer unopposed. The muslim population in America is growing rapidly, the jewish population is not. There is much great upward mobility potential in the muslim population of the US than the jewish population. Therefore it stands to reason that the political influence of muslim groups in the US will continue to increase rapidly.

group of interest to you is much higher than any other group. In any case, a U.S. President can only go as far as the general mood of the country which actually is very evident in Obama's abject failure with the West Asia peace negotiations. His inability to pressurise Israel to do the basic minimum to get the talks underway

I don't agree. First, if the Bush government has proved anything, it is that the mood of the people can be shaped quite quickly. He went down the path of a ridiculous war in Iraq with popular support... not because the people would have supported the move if they knew the facts, but because the Bush team was able to craft public sentiment to their benefit. Of course, this eventually backfired, but by then the damage was done.

Second, I think it is way to early to call Obama's moves in the ME a 'failure'. He's been at it for a year, where previous attempts have spanned the course of decades. His moves to reach out to Saudi Arabia in a respectful fashion, his speech from Egypt which was received well in the muslim world, the toughening of his stance on Israel and the obvious discomfort this has caused the Gov of Israel (including their recent decision to not attend the nuke summit in the US) etc. have all gone down well and are moves beyond what the previous US government(s) were willing to take. A journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step...

That's being more than a little unfair. Obama's election proved that most of America indeed did get over that but no President can get a free ride especially during such tough economic times.

Who is asking the people of the US to give Obama a "free ride"? So far, it appears that he has tackled some difficult and unpopular issues and has done the right thing (in his and his team's opinion - which is all you can ask of a government) despite the obvious opposition. If you read much of the popular press, even though the healthcare initiative has faced heavy opposition, the majority of Americans have appreciated the move and, from an electoral perspective, this is likely to help the Democrats.

I am quite familiar with politics in the US and my personal read is that Obama is trying to tackle much of the unpopular stuff early on in his term so that he can spend the last two years focusing on issues that will help him get re-elected. There is still much time to craft a re-election strategy, and voters are fickle, with short memories.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Obama had been living in Pak with his mother and he likes his childhood home.
 
His mother spends 5 years in Pakistan before 15 years ago. Working in ASIAN BANK also reporter of Daily Waqt (but its very old story 15 years old) but Obama neva been into PAkistan before...
 
Huh?

What else would you have expected Gilani to say in response to the reporter's question?

Clutching at straws now I see ;)

All this fanfare....all because of just some "Fond" remarks that Obama made to Gilani:what:

Was this the "jald hi hum nation ko ek acchi khabar denge" news??

So Obama says to Gilani that he is fond and then he asks him to act on the terrorists operating from Pakistan against India and also declines any bait on the nuclear deal = refuses "jaisi India ke paas hai waisi wali" nuclear deal and then we start clutching to straws.....:undecided:
 
India moving away from USA- good for India.:azn:

Pakistan moving close to USA- good for India.:azn:

really, what about those f-35s, and civil nuke tech?? and indian lobby in USA to stop giving pak f-16s, but for better US pak relations US will have to stop drone strikes to win pak people confidence and vacate afghanistan and be sincere and honest in pak india dealings, still then its very late.
 
Huh?

What else would you have expected Gilani to say in response to the reporter's question?

Clutching at straws now I see ;)

Not really.. The 1st line of the snippet refers to Obama backing India's stance and asks for Gilani's reaction to it. And he promised action. If nothing else this shows that there was some conversation about 26/11. And thats contradictory to the big bold letters ;) in the post that I responded to
 
You know , Obama really has no reason to do anything against Pakistan.
what ever type of relation he wants to build he can .

I simply don't want him to be like every other US president , playing flip flop between India and Pakistan . with out actually helping solve any issues and then just end up adding fuel to the fire
 
All this fanfare....all because of just some "Fond" remarks that Obama made to Gilani:what:

Was this the "jald hi hum nation ko ek acchi khabar denge" news??

So Obama says to Gilani that he is fond and then he asks him to act on the terrorists operating from Pakistan against India and also declines any bait on the nuclear deal = refuses "jaisi India ke paas hai waisi wali" nuclear deal and then we start clutching to straws.....:undecided:

The clutching at straws would be the Karan's comments about 'Gilani's expression' in response to a question by a reporter.

On the nuclear deal side there has been no 'refusal', rather there has been a shift towards initiating a dialog on how nuclear cooperation can come into play - so far things are proceeding in the direction they should.

And wasn't the highlighted part in the earlier report suggesting that there was no explicit or major emphasis on 'acting against terrorists operating against India'?

Even if mention was made, it is such a general statement, to which there would have been an equally general response, 'of course we will act against terrorists and we are through the trial of Shah, Lakhvi and others'.

There is nothing tangible here in terms of increased pressure on Pakistan by the US at the behest of India.
 

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom