What's new

Pakistan in spotlight in final US presidential debate

LOVETOALL

FULL MEMBER
Joined
Oct 18, 2012
Messages
274
Reaction score
0
The final US Presidential debate on Tuesday raised questions over Pakistan, with Republican contender Mitt Romney apprehending that with 100 nuclear warheads if the country becomes a "failed state", it would be an extraordinary danger to Afghanistan and America.

President Barack Obama exhibited his own trust deficit over Pakistan when he disclosed that had Islamabad been consulted on the commando operation to eliminate Osama bin Laden in Abbottabad, the US would not have succeeded.

In the third and final debate which polls gave to incumbent President, 65-year-old Romney said Pakistan "is important to the region, to the world and to us" because it had 100 nuclear warheads and was rushing to build a lot more. "They'll have more than Great Britain sometime in the relatively near future," Romney said.

"They also have the Haqqani network and Taliban existent within their country. And so a Pakistan that falls apart, becomes a failed state would be of extraordinary danger to Afghanistan and us," he added.

"So we're going to have to remain helpful in encouraging Pakistan to move towards a more stable government and rebuild a relationship with us. And that means that our aid that we provide to Pakistan is going to have to be conditioned upon certain benchmarks being met," he said during the 90-minute debate ahead of the November 6 polls.

Romney argued that despite a strained relationship with Pakistan, the United States cannot afford to "divorce" Pakistan, which is a nation of over 100 nuclear weapons.

"No, it's not time to divorce a nation on earth that has a hundred nuclear weapons and is on the way to double that at some point, a nation that has serious threats from terrorist groups within its nation, the Taliban, Haqqani network. It's a nation that's not like others and that does not have a civilian leadership that is calling the shots there," he said.

It is important for the US to recognise that it cannot just walk away from Pakistan, Romney said.

On his part, 51-year-old Obama said the US would have never killed al-Qaeda chief bin Laden if he had to seek permission from Pakistan, indicating the sheer lack of trust he had with the Pakistani leadership and its military in particular.

"If we had asked Pakistan for permission, we would not have gotten him. And it was worth moving heaven and earth to get him," Obama said during the high-stake debate. Stating that he has delivered what he promised on al-Qaeda and bin Laden, Obama said, "When it comes to going after Osama bin Laden, you said, well, any President would make that call. But when you were a candidate in 2008 -- as I was -- and I said, if I got bin Laden in our sights, I would take that shot, you said we shouldn't move heaven and earth to get one man, and you said we should ask Pakistan for permission."

Romney agreed that going after bin Laden without the permission of Pakistan was the right thing to do. "I don't blame the administration for the fact that the relationship with Pakistan is strained. We had to go into Pakistan; we had to go in there to get Osama bin Laden. That was the right thing to do," said the Republican presidential candidate during ******* section of the debate.

According to a CNN snap poll, Obama won the final presidential debate; and same was the case for other opinion polls including that of CBS news. While 48% voted for Obama, 40% supported Romney in the CNN poll.

Pakistan in spotlight in final US presidential debate - World - DNA
 
None of them had a trust deficit when CIA was funding, training and arming the taliban mullahs with the help of ISI?:confused:
 
None of them had a trust deficit when CIA was funding, training and arming the taliban mullahs with the help of ISI?:confused:

Because both countries had the same strategic goal in Afghanistan which was to defeat the Soviets.

Now their strategic goals have changed.

Pakistan wants to keep the Taliban intact as a coherent force so that they can take over Afghanistan once US/NATO withdraws and then funnel them into Kashmir to continue its proxy war with India.

US wants to destroy the Taliban as they harbored the Al Qaeda terrorists who are responsible for major terrorist attacks around the world.
 
Pakistan wants to keep the Taliban intact as a coherent force so that they can take over Afghanistan once US/NATO withdraws and then funnel them into Kashmir to continue its proxy war with India.

Thats bull$hit that I have heard many times. This is a western narrative which has been repeated to death.

Pakistan only interest is that its interests are taken care of when there are so many competing and often very inimical interests and assets being nurtured across the border.

So if Pakistan strives to hold on to Taliban for that objective, its a fair game. Having said this, I m not sure if holding onto any of these potential 'assets' will add any value if Pakistan itself is economically and politically weak.

US has been trying to destroy Taliban and its also trying to hold peace talks with them. Its so strange that people dont see contradictions there but see contradictions in Pakistan approach.
 
Thats bull$hit that I have heard many times. This is a western narrative which has been repeated to death.

Pakistan only interest is that its interests are taken care of when there are so many competing and often very inimical interests and assets being nurtured across the border.

So if Pakistan strives to hold on to Taliban for that objective, its a fair game. Having said this, I m not sure if holding onto any of these potential 'assets' will add any value if Pakistan itself is economically and politically weak.

US has been trying to destroy Taliban and its also trying to hold peace talks with them. Its so strange that people dont see contradictions there but see contradictions in Pakistan approach.

The fact that Pakistan is mired in good taliban and bad taliban debate itself is dangerous because taliban are not an organised forced which can be identified. Secondly, after the withdrawal of soviets Pakistan did a series of mistakes which has created the terrorism menace as we see today.
 
Because both countries had the same strategic goal in Afghanistan which was to defeat the Soviets.

Now their strategic goals have changed.

Pakistan wants to keep the Taliban intact as a coherent force so that they can take over Afghanistan once US/NATO withdraws and then funnel them into Kashmir to continue its proxy war with India.

US wants to destroy the Taliban as they harbored the Al Qaeda terrorists who are responsible for major terrorist attacks around the world.

right, and when did the last major al quaeda terrorist attack took place in the world?

and when was taliban used as a proxy war in kashmir?

your post contains is just a load of crap without any knowledge whatsoever
 
Lol I am surprised to see these people are happy that they are in spotlight :lol:. Idiots they are talking about how to destroy you in the next 4 yrs. They are planning your demise in front of you and you are laughing.
 
right, and when did the last major al quaeda terrorist attack took place in the world?

and when was taliban used as a proxy war in kashmir?

your post contains is just a load of crap without any knowledge whatsoever

89, after the Soviet withdrawal, they were the Mujaheedeen then not Taliban and Pakistan funneled them in droves into J&K and Indian forces had a tough time killing all of them, this time around Pakistan intends to funnel them from other borders too not just Kashmir. Probably through Bangladesh borders as well if given the opportunity.
 
Lol I am surprised to see these people are happy that they are in spotlight :lol:. Idiots they are talking about how to destroy you in the next 4 yrs. They are planning your demise in front of you and you are laughing.

135054000080.gif
 
Because both countries had the same strategic goal in Afghanistan which was to defeat the Soviets.

Now their strategic goals have changed.

Pakistan wants to keep the Taliban intact as a coherent force so that they can take over Afghanistan once US/NATO withdraws and then funnel them into Kashmir to continue its proxy war with India.

US wants to destroy the Taliban as they harbored the Al Qaeda terrorists who are responsible for major terrorist attacks around the world.

I think i replied earlier to your such post....

Pakistan have no other goals in afghanistan except a friendly afghanistan.. If we wanted to push "taliban" into Kashmir kargil was perfect opportunity to engage taliban v India in kashmir instead we sent NLI despite of the fact we were calling them mujaheedeen. we knew the risk was high of them being caught as Pakistani soldier. we would have no such risk with sending Taliban but we didn't. We supported Taliban to whatever level we did was just because we wanted a friendly Afghan govt who dont attack our embassies, dont have special wings of intelligence to support "uprising" in FATA, and dont send armies to conquer Bajour.
 
Back
Top Bottom