Haseebullah
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2008
- Messages
- 1,205
- Reaction score
- 0
A new beginning my brown Pakistani arse!
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
By Sherry Rehman
............
Significant progress could be made toward resetting the relationship between our countries if the U.S. were to:
•Finally apologize for the battlefield deaths at Salalah.
•Reimburse the Coalition Support Funds — U.S. repayments to Pakistan for the cost of battling terrorism — owed to Pakistan, a very small part of the $78 billion that Pakistan has lost on account of the war against extremism since 2001.
•Increase the sharing of counterterrorism intelligence to assist our military in combating extremism.
•Cease the controversial drone operations that violate our sovereignty and the norms of international law.
•Shift to a policy of trade not aid by providing enhanced access to U.S. markets for Pakistan's exports.
...................
A better relationship for U.S., Pakistan - chicagotribune.com
Not likely unless US understands the meaning of "Partners".1. Not likely in a US election year.
2. Likely only after supply routes reopen under reasonable conditions.
3. Not until Pakistan stops its internal leaks.
4. Any enhanced access must be within WTO confines.
....... or would she like the whole list with cream, sprinkles and a cherry on top? I don't think so,
Not likely unless US understands the meaning of "Partners".
Absolutely.Being "partners" applies to both sides.
Absolutely.
Backstabbing Pakistan by carrying out the OBL raid covertly despite all the intelligence cooperation provided by Pakistan that allowed the US to track down OBL was a betrayal by the US of the 'partnership'.
Insisting that a lunatic CIA Contractor, who shot two men in cold blood in broad daylight on a busy Lahore street, be freed without any trial is a betrayal by the US of the 'partnership'
Refusing to halt unilateral military operations, which are illegal under the UN Charter, on Pakistani soil, is a betrayal by the US of the 'partnership'.
@Mech
Don't know how it goes in India but we don't strip search someone for living in a mansion near a military academy...
Pakistan supply routes row hits Nato summit
The US is unhappy about Pakistani demands for higher transit fees
Continue reading the main story
Taliban Conflict
Nato's crisis
Tipping point?
Rogue soldiers
Taliban strength
A row between the US and Pakistan over supply routes to Afghanistan is threatening to overshadow the summit of Nato leaders in Chicago.
The two sides have been unable to reach agreement on Pakistan's conditions for reopening the routes, closed after a US air strike killed several troops.
The summit goes into a second day with troop withdrawals from Afghanistan dominating the agenda.
France insists that its troops will return by the end of 2012.
AFP news agency quoted new President Francois Hollande as saying the issue was "non-negotiable because it was a question of French sovereignty".
The handover is expected to be completed by 2014, but several other Nato leaders are under domestic political pressure to bring troops home earlier.
More than 50 leaders are attending the summit, including heads of state and government from the 28 Nato countries, along with President Karzai and and Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari.
Transit dispute
The summit is expected to endorse plans to hand over combat command to Afghan forces by mid-2013 and seek progress in opening routes for troop withdrawals.
They also hope to reach a commitment on who pays how much towards funding Afghan forces after 2014.
Some nations - including the US, Australia, Britain, and Germany - have pledged to contribute to an international fund to help Afghan forces after the Nato pullout.
Washington is expected to pay half of an estimated $4bn (£2.5bn) needed every year.
The US invited Mr Zardari to the summit, in the hope of signing a deal to reopen the Pakistan-Afghanistan border to US transport.
The route was closed in November after a US drone attack killed several Pakistani troops.
But in return for reopening the routes, Pakistan has called for:
A public apology for the killings
A review of US policy on drone attacks inside Pakistan
An increase of the transit charge from $250 (£158) to $5,000 per vehicle.
US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta said before the summit that it was "not likely" that the US would be prepared to pay the higher amount demanded by Pakistan.
Correspondents say US President Barack Obama is unhappy about the fee, given that US is already giving Pakistan large amounts of aid.
US officials say no bilateral meeting is being planned between Mr Zardari and Mr Obama, although the Pakistani leader met Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Sunday evening.
Different messages
As talks began on Sunday, President Obama spoke of a "transformational decade" in Afghanistan and the enormous sacrifices of the American people on the road to peace, stability and development.
He warned there were still "great challenges ahead", urging leaders to "pool resources".
The route was closed in November after a US drone attack killed several Pakistani troops
1. It was no mansion (so you are caught lying/propagating the lies of the US 'Deep State')Really ?....Really ?...You had him living in a mansion with close proximity to the kakul military academy ! Who back-stabbed who exactly ? The US does not acknowledge any pakistani assistance to their little project. Since they do not acknowledge it and goes out of their way to "vehemently" deny it, its probably true that pakistan had no role to play in here.
More like the US 'arm-twisted', and I agree, the Pakistani government is answerable to its people for why it capitulated to US demands, but in the context of an ally (US in this case) betraying the partnership/alliance with Pakistan, blame does fall on the US for taking the route it did on the issue.They insisted, you obliged. Now whose fault is it really ? The government who sought to protect its own citizens ? Or a government who chose to write off their citizens lives for a few extra bucks ? When Italian marines shot dead Indian fishermen, the Italian govt insisted that their men be let off without trail in India. Did we oblige ? No. Did we extend any favors? No. Instead we denied them bail and sent them to central jail.
Pakistan is capable, and Pakistan has offered various feasible alternatives to unilateral and illegal US military strikes/operations on Pakistani soil such as:Hey if pakistan were capable of looking after itself or dealing with Islamic terror, the US or any other country for that matter wouldn't have had to interfere.
It was no mansion - it was a run down compound. Many middle class families in Pakistan have better looking homes ...@Mech
Don't know how it goes in India but we don't strip search someone for living in a mansion near a military academy...
Absolutely.
Backstabbing Pakistan by carrying out the OBL raid covertly despite all the intelligence cooperation provided by Pakistan that allowed the US to track down OBL was a betrayal by the US of the 'partnership'.
Insisting that a lunatic CIA Contractor, who shot two men in cold blood in broad daylight on a busy Lahore street, be freed without any trial is a betrayal by the US of the 'partnership'.
Refusing to reimburse Pakistan billions of dollars for logistical and military support expenses, despite having agreed to do so, is a betrayal by the US of the 'partnership'.
Refusing to apologize for the murder of 24 Pakistani troops in cold blood is betrayal by the US of 'partnership'.
Refusing to halt unilateral military operations, which are illegal under the UN Charter, on Pakistani soil, is a betrayal by the US of the 'partnership'.
Not really - that pretty much is the extent of the US list, a result of paranoia and smear campaigns by the US Deep State.I am sure that a similar list, and more, can be compiled from the US point of view, but why should I raise your ire?
Hey, you were the one claiming 'being partners applies to both sides'.Further, angling for absolute parity in a partnership usually does not work. The balance keeps tilting one way or another depending on how the partnership progresses in face of changing circumstances. Hence, it cannot be static either.