Pakistan and the U.S.: A new beginning?

[VCheng]

Not really - that pretty much is the extent of the US list, a result of paranoia and smear campaigns by the US Deep State............

Like I said, I am not going to say anything that upsets you.

Hey, you were the one claiming 'being partners applies to both sides'.

Yes, it does apply to both sides, but not equally, and not in a static manner.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Like I said, I am not going to say anything that upsets you.

You have said it before and it has been debunked before, as with KS, its a nice tactic to avoid getting your arguments (or the lack of them) being shot down.

Yes, it does apply to both sides, but not equally, and not in a static manner.

US proposals and polices make it a one sided demand list, not partnership.

 

[VCheng]

You have said it before and it has been debunked before, as with KS, its a nice tactic to avoid getting your arguments (or the lack of them) being shot down.

Actually, it is a pretty effective tactic to avoid warnings and infractions.

US proposals and polices make it a one sided demand list, not partnership.

Not really, right now, it seems to me that Pakistan is the one making some pretty stringent demands for the apology, and substantially raised rates for reopening the supply routes, among other things. So the "partnership" is not really one-sided.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Actually, it is a pretty effective tactic to avoid warnings and infractions.

Which counter-argument to the Pakistani position on drones, the US-Pak Partnership, apology etc. did you receive an infraction/warning on?

Not really, right now, it seems to me that Pakistan is the one making some pretty stringent demands for the apology, and substantially raised rates for reopening the supply routes, among other things. So the "partnership" is not really one-sided.

The demand for an apology is not stringent - the US has turned it into an issue domestically through its own smear campaign against Pakistan in the Western media.

The proposed increased fees on the supply routes are pocket change for the US given the overall costs of the war and the costs of continuing to use the Northern Supply routes.

Pakistani demands, after years of being abused by the US, are completely legitimate and fair.

 

[VCheng]

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

Pakistani demands, after years of being abused by the US, are completely legitimate and fair.

........ in your opinion.

Neither side is out to be fair and/or legitimate. Both sides are out to maximize their gain for furthering national interests. Isn't that the way it works?

(Please note that I am merely observing the way things work, so don't get upset at me being immoral or worse, in your opinion of course. )

 

[r3alist]

Hence, it cannot be static either.

true enough.

but the only movement is from bad....to worse....to terrible....


thats the sort of fluid relationship you get in a gangster movie when the big bad boss doesnt get his way.





the word relationship is aways used with pakistan/usa - i find that a bad analogy, its more a "flirtation with the enemy".


relationships that dont always work day to day but have a glue that sticks them together can trundle along, lets say one where there is a child involved......



but pakistan and us have no child to share.

all they have is animosity, mistrust and anger with no real long term glue to hold it together - there is no longer any plausible pretense for a relationship.

 

[r3alist]

Not really, right now, it seems to me that Pakistan is the one making some pretty stringent demands for the apology,

you have an underhand way with twisting reality.


a demand for an apology after the murder of soldiers is a stringent demand? whose side are you exactly batting for - i find that the sort of thing only a (pro) american could say.

substantially raised rates for reopening the supply routes, among other things. So the "partnership" is not really one-sided.

the feeling, belief and confidence of having an actual "partnership" has to be evident.

correct me if i am wrong but the US has been paying diddly squat for transit routes and since pakistan/us are no longer partners why SHOULDN'T pakistan charge market rates + any necessary premium?

 

[VCheng]

......

correct me if i am wrong but the US has been paying diddly squat for transit routes and since pakistan/us are no longer partners why SHOULDN'T pakistan charge market rates + any necessary premium?

You are wrong: USA has been paying $250 per truck for the all the years the routes have been used, just for transit fees. What "market rates" do you refer to? This is no fair competition deal out in an open market; both sides have monopolies that each is trying to take advantage of, simply put.

 

[SQ8]

Well then.. let the US pay for the Northern route if its a "fair deal".

 

[VCheng]

Well then.. let the US pay for the Northern route if its a "fair deal".

Of course. If Pakistan does not agree to the rates offered, then USA has to look elsewhere, and find a deal that works for it better, if it can.

 

[r3alist]

You are wrong: USA has been paying $250 per truck for the all the years the routes have been used, just for transit fees. What "market rates" do you refer to? This is no fair competition deal out in an open market; both sides have monopolies that each is trying to take advantage of, simply put.

So I AM right, the us has been paying diddly squat.

Well if Pakistan are the only people in this Market it makes perfect economic sense to benefit in the way monopolies benefit in a monopoly Market

Even with your chicanery you cannot give a pro Pakistani explanation to deny that

 

[VCheng]

So I AM right, the us has been paying diddly squat............

Over $22 billion since 9/11 is "diddly squat", all accounts considered?

 

[r3alist]

Over $22 billion since 9/11 is "diddly squat", all accounts considered?

We are talking about (economics of) transit route fee's, why have you mentioned this?

Aside from that, there's hardly any auditable and verifiable proof for fantasy billions.

 

[VCheng]

We are talking about (economics of) transit route fee's, why have you mentioned this?

Aside from that, there's hardly any auditable and verifiable proof for fantasy billions.

The transit route fees are only one aspect of the overall substantial funds that flow from USA to Pakistan. If those fees go up, then something else might get reduced, so the overall impact is minimal to the bottom line. How can Pakistan benefit from any increase in transit route fees, when the real problem continues to be internal leakage and squandering of funds, regardless of the amounts?

 

[Don Jaguar]

Once again a new beginning.