Pakistan Issues Another NOTAM Warning

[mudas777]

US will not attack Pakistan, plus the US will not let the Balance of Power in the region tilt towards India.

Really, bro are you on some Cola. Balance is already changed but China keeps us throwing the life line to keep us afloat. Like a spoil child India have got a free hand at virtually all the toys while we were even denied the base line gunship helo's. Try to understand who are our real friends, they may have got their own interests too but we need to accumulate toys too, what ever we can from where ever we can. Don't fall for some one who is holding your hand to keep you in tow for their own end instead make your own path.

 

[araz]

Really, bro are you on some Cola. Balance is already changed but China keeps us throwing the life line to keep us afloat. Like a spoil child India have got a free hand at virtually all the toys while we were even denied the base line gunship helo's. Try to understand who are our real friends, they may have got their own interests too but we need to accumulate toys too, what ever we can from where ever we can. Don't fall for some one who is holding your hand to keep you in tow for their own end instead make your own path.

There are differences between India and Pakistan and the method via which arms have been acquired.
I need not remind posters about India being 7 times bigger than us with a much bogger economic footprint and an established democratic system spanning 7 decades. Pakistan on the other hand has almost always gone with a request for aid except for the Benazir era buy of 71 F16s. Although it has been said that our airplanes are from our sovereign funds we have often changed tack half way through and asked for FMS/other aid to be diverted towards the buy.
I think if as a nation you could offer Lockmart 5 Billion dollars for a F16 sale you would have no issues with buying them. If on the other hand if you ask for aid you will encounter problems.
The last issue is in relation to the US following certain line of thought which you openly defy. For instance if you get arms from aid for fighting the Talibans and use thlse arms to initiate aggression against the Indians you will invite US sanctions.
So in many cases the terms under which arms have been acquired have been violated by Pakistan. Indians on the other hand possibly would walk out if the same restrictions/conditions were applied to them.
A

 

[Thorough Pro]

Allah behtar karay ga.

If you are so naïve and can't see where things are heading then not my issue. Future is USA with India and we with China. India and USA friendship will grow further. We are hated by both Israel, and India plus USA has serious concerns against us. So in short soon this alliance will not just target China but we would also be the target. So we better be prepared.

And as for Shadi please do dua for me. Seriously in no mood to live alone and the fear is growing in my mind and resulting in some not so good thoughts.

The flags in your profile has two flags. One of Pakistan the one of another country. That country sooner is now ally of India plus it's an ally or let say master of Israel. All three have one thing common they hate Pakistan specially nuclear powered Pakistan. Soon or later they would come for us. So yes we need ICBM for the rising threat.

 

[Xone]

The last issue is in relation to the US following certain line of thought which you openly defy. For instance if you get arms from aid for fighting the Talibans and use thlse arms to initiate aggression against the Indians you will invite US sanctions.

Your point of view is too simplistic. Did we got AMRAAM 120 for Taliban? What is wrong in beating the Big Bully who want to walk over you?
Had US not deceived us? So many to count, but who listen to us (small us)? US is not ready to reckon us, but can not ignore us too.
We were and are no threat to US but the opposite can not be hoodwinked. What should US expect from us with such a bullying response? US leave us with no options but defy and walk away.
We do not want to be a foul foe or fool friend but a fair friend, reliable ally but also believe in reciprocity in this relationship.
What one gives, eventually gets back. The choice is open to all.

 

[araz]

Your point of view is too simplistic. Did we got AMRAAM 120 for Taliban? What is wrong in beating the Big Bully who want to walk over you?
Had US not deceived us? So many to count, but who listen to us (small us)? US is not ready to reckon us, but can not ignore us too.
We were and are no threat to US but the opposite can not be hoodwinked. What should US expect from us with such a bullying response? US leave us with no options but defy and walk away.
We do not want to be a foul foe or fool friend but a fair friend, reliable ally but also believe in reciprocity in this relationship.
What one gives, eventually gets back. The choice is open to all.

But you are not walking away. You have ignored the whole gist of the post and pointed at an isolated point.
You are portraying the Pakistani point of view. If you look at it from US perspective they have given you subsidized arms for a specific purpose. If you have agreed to the terms of whatever the demands are it is your obligation to abide by them. If on the other hand you pay the full price then you can do whatever you want with your weapons. Then there is the issue of not introducing newer tech into a region. For instance F16s with AESA were a no go till the Rafale was introduced. Lastly there will be certain things which will not be given to non NATO nations for instance AIM120Ds may not be for sale
You cannot have your cake and eat it too especially at subsidized rates. Even with the last sale of 8F16s the ask was that you pay full price not a disagreement to sell you the equipment.
A

 

[The Accountant]

You do know that US doesn't even have to directly declare war on Pakistan to bring it to its knees? Proxies and give Defense systems to India will do the job way quicker, Pakistan's nuclear weapons were and will only be for India.

What fantasy world are you living in ? Pakistan nuclear and all the weapons are and will be for defense no matter if the adversary is India, Israel or USA.

 

[waz]

Well that was an anti-climax.

 

[Xone]

You cannot have your cake and eat it too especially at subsidized rates. Even with the last sale of 8F16s the ask was that you pay full price not a disagreement to sell you the equipment.

Exactly that is what I was saying US can not befriend and arm-twister at the same time.
Had Our general should not surrender unconditionally to US demands, we would have in position to get whatever we want. Pakistan should to charge US for every service it had done, instead of begging for subsidy. We can purchase whatever it wants. US still owes money to us for our services. Had Pakistan played its cards well, it could have better cash and acknowledgement for our services,
One should have to understand the other's point of view as well, before going into the blame game.

 

[[--Leo--]]

so no test or failure? time is up

 

[araz]

Exactly that is what I was saying US can not befriend and arm-twister at the same time.
Had Our general should not surrender unconditionally to US demands, we would have in position to get whatever we want. Pakistan should to charge US for every service it had done, instead of begging for subsidy. We can purchase whatever it wants. US still owes money to us for our services. Had Pakistan played its cards well, it could have better cash and acknowledgement for our services,
One should have to understand the other's point of view as well, before going into the blame game.

If you read about international politics and the dynamics of big countries vs little countries,the only thing that matters is hard cash and the flow-is-always towards the biggger country.
Pak-US Alliance is interest based. You get your penny's worth out of them but they always get more out of you. I could explain this further but respectfully do not have the time. But as an indicator look at the political power base in Pak at the time-when US was interested in the region. Always army in control. Why? AND who brings them in. Then they are pushed out as the interest vanes as the new political setup-is-either too weak or corrupted to fight its corner. There are definite indicators of how the US operates with Pak. A look at its relationship with Canada or UK for instance will show you a trend of repression against them as well though not through political manipulation. So you never have them on the block even when you think you do. It took them 18 months to just issue the Sec of-State's apology over Salala and the US President did not apologize. Could you have held on longer over the issue? And what would have been the outcome?
Kind regards
A

 

[ziaulislam]

There are differences between India and Pakistan and the method via which arms have been acquired.
I need not remind posters about India being 7 times bigger than us with a much bogger economic footprint and an established democratic system spanning 7 decades. Pakistan on the other hand has almost always gone with a request for aid except for the Benazir era buy of 71 F16s. Although it has been said that our airplanes are from our sovereign funds we have often changed tack half way through and asked for FMS/other aid to be diverted towards the buy.
I think if as a nation you could offer Lockmart 5 Billion dollars for a F16 sale you would have no issues with buying them. If on the other hand if you ask for aid you will encounter problems.
The last issue is in relation to the US following certain line of thought which you openly defy. For instance if you get arms from aid for fighting the Talibans and use thlse arms to initiate aggression against the Indians you will invite US sanctions.
So in many cases the terms under which arms have been acquired have been violated by Pakistan. Indians on the other hand possibly would walk out if the same restrictions/conditions were applied to them.
A

i disagree here
pakistan was ready to pay in full in 90s and 2000s and USA still refused it, there was no aid involved then,

in 1990s pakistan seeked mirage2000s and deal was almost finalized when govt chnaged and economy was hit bad

in 2000s when economy was recovering pakistan went again, asked fo rf16 was denied, then it went for the only two other options, the french one and the gripen. It looked at french, and was probably offered gripen, seeing this serious effort of buy USA stepped in and provided f16s

so currently we pay have f16 available but it doesn't mean it was always available, I am not sure if currently we have aim120D/meteor available to us even if we pay hard cash

 

[Salman876]

US will not attack Pakistan, plus the US will not let the Balance of Power in the region tilt towards India.

26 Feb happened with the permission of USA

 

[Ali_Baba]

26 Feb happened with the permission of USA

This is true, the USA signed off the Indian attack and then tried to prevent Pakistan's response.

 

[Xone]

This is true, the USA signed off the Indian attack and then tried to prevent Pakistan's response.

Supporting and sponsoring India to attack Pakistan suits US. No surprise in that.

 

[araz]

i disagree here
pakistan was ready to pay in full in 90s and 2000s and USA still refused it, there was no aid involved then,

in 1990s pakistan seeked mirage2000s and deal was almost finalized when govt chnaged and economy was hit bad

in 2000s when economy was recovering pakistan went again, asked fo rf16 was denied, then it went for the only two other options, the french one and the gripen. It looked at french, and was probably offered gripen, seeing this serious effort of buy USA stepped in and provided f16s

so currently we pay have f16 available but it doesn't mean it was always available, I am not sure if currently we have aim120D/meteor available to us even if we pay hard cash

As I have mentioned in my earlier post the 90s was the only'time we were buying arms on payment. However the issue was Pressler amendmentand the US Presidents certification. How that came into reckoning on a deal involving Pak sovereign funds is not known however the Pressler amendment was known about and PAF should have ensured a contract that was not affected by it. It did not as it did not expect the US President not to issue the certificate. However the point to ponder on is that the amendment existed and Pakistan made a deal in persuance with it.
TheMirage deal is apples and oranges and not really pertinent here. There are so many episodes to it one does not even know which one needs to be discussed. But the point is not relevant here.
When the 8F16s were sanctioned by Obama, it was the terms of payment'which were changed and PAF deciddd to walk away. So again if we pay full price'we can get what we want.
Iam not'sure the US is supplying 120D to non NATO allies but if it'is it should be on the sales deed if you enter into a contract.
US maybe on Indian side to prevent China from achieving its goals but I suspect if the US changes ita policies towards China at some time it will dump India like it'has dumped Pakistan. As they say"all is fair in love and war".
A