Pakistan threatens to cut US ties

[VCheng]

Compare the conditions of Pakistan pre-9/11 to the situation today. You will find the answer.

But how does cutting diplomatic ties aid the answer?

 

[53fd]

But how does cutting diplomatic ties aid the answer?

Diplomatic ties comes with a lot of 'baggage'. 'Baggage' that can't be 'carried around' for much longer.

 

[VCheng]

Diplomatic ties comes with a lot of 'baggage'. 'Baggage' that can't be 'carried around' for much longer.

So exactly what "baggage" will be shed at this stage? If anything, Pakistan's international isolation will only get worse to its detriment.

 

[Omar1984]

So exactly what "baggage" will be shed at this stage? If anything, Pakistan's international isolation will only get worse to its detriment.

Pakistan is enhancing relations with Russia, China, and Iran. All these countries are in our region and all want U.S./NATO to get out of Asia.


U.S., Isreal, and India are not the entire world.

 

[VCheng]

Pakistan is enhancing relations with Russia, China, and Iran. All these countries are in our region and all want U.S./NATO to get out of Asia.


U.S., Isreal, and India are not the entire world.

Perhaps you have lost sight of the original question: How does breaking off diplomatic ties with the US help Pakistan?

 

[Omar1984]

Perhaps you have lost sight of the original question: How does breaking off diplomatic ties with the US help Pakistan?

It will help Pakistan get out of this war OF terror that is destroying Pakistan and was not even Pakistan's war to begin with.

 

[VCheng]

It will help Pakistan get out of this war OF terror that is destroying Pakistan and was not even Pakistan's war to begin with.

But those steps can be taken without cutting diplomatic ties. Pakistan can stop its involvement in WoT TODAY if it "wanted" to; please go right ahead.

 

[53fd]

So exactly what "baggage" will be shed at this stage? If anything, Pakistan's international isolation will only get worse to its detriment.

Iran's isolation has strengthened that nation, Pakistan's isolation during the Pressler Amendment in the 90s gave it the push to shore up its defenses. The US's 'international isolation' pre 9/11 resulted in its being regarded as one of the greatest nations to exist in all time, & it sadly looks like a third world country with each passing day. Many here in the US argue that international isolation is exactly what the US needs to regain its lost glory.

Anyways, we have to weigh the pros & cons one gets from a relationship. Pakistan has incurred losses of over $70 billion for fighting the US's war on terror, & only got compensated a fraction of that from the US. The end result was that Pakistan has been operating in losses as a result of fighting the US's war. It has created more enemies for itself fighting the US's war, killed its own people, got its soldiers killed by the US, had its sovereignty violated numerous times, operated in huge losses, & the security inside the country became worse as a result of fighting the US's war. It has had 35000 people killed fighting America's war. Frankly speaking, there is nothing that the US does can compensate the losses Pakistan has incurred fighting America's war.

The US has no real stakes in the region. Pakistan will isolate itself from the US to an extent (but will not break ties with them), & will build stronger relations with China, Iran & Russia; nations that have a real stake in the region. The US can pack up & leave whenever they want.

 

[VCheng]

Iran's isolation has strengthened that nation....................

Neither Iran has, nor will Pakistan gain anything from international isolation. Your premise is flawed.

 

[Gin ka Pakistan]

Iran's isolation has strengthened that nation, Pakistan's isolation during the Pressler Amendment in the 90s gave it the push to shore up its defenses. .

JF17 was produced because of US sensations in 90s ,when US blocked more F-16s under Pressler . Al-Khalid was made as US didn't give M1s tanks. So sensations helped Pakistan in self reliance.

 

[logic]

The Moral of the NATO attack was that they did it because they could.

Pakistan Government will do a lot of hollow slogan chanting and Loud Chest Thumping besides that there is not much that this government can or will do.

This will not be the last incident either.

It is not long before NATO will enter Islamabad and Mr Corruption will exchange his Topi for a nice first class boarding pass along with other elites.

Two words define GOP these days Threats and Rhetoric. Business as usual.
A highly level commission will bury this incident in mud within days.

 

[Gin ka Pakistan]

Under Pressler Pakistan developed its missile program

 

[53fd]

Neither Iran has, nor will Pakistan gain anything from international isolation. Your premise is flawed.

First of all, your basic implication that 'cutting' (not eradicating) diplomatic ties with the US means international isolation for a nation is false. Hence, the rest of your argument is moot.

 

[Omar1984]

'Pakistan reviewing US, NATO ties'


A prominent journalist says that the deadly US drone strikes has pushed Pakistan into reviewing its political arrangements with the West including the United States, NATO and the ISAF.


The decision was taken at an urgent meeting of senior cabinet ministers and military chiefs, chaired by Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani, who strongly condemned the strikes.

The defense committee of the cabinet said all diplomatic, political and military and intelligence activities should be reviewed.

The committee has also demanded that the US vacate the Shamsi airbase, within 15 days.

Press TV has conducted an interview with Gareth Porter, historian and investigative journalist, to share his opinion on this issue.

Following is the text of the interview:

Press TV: Ordering a review of ties and arrangements with the US, do you think that this has been a long time coming?

Porter: Well this is still another step in a process that has been going on, that is a process of deterioration of relations between United States and Pakistan throughout this year.

I mean, it really began well before the Bin Laden killing in May when the Pakistani government was trying to get the United States to change its policy towards the drone strikes and made representations to the Obama administration calling for a change in policy to dial down the drone strikes so that Pakistan would have some control over the targeting which they clearly did not have up to this time. And the Obama administration did not go along with that. And I think that was really a key turning point.

And even before that, you had a long period of time in which the Pakistani government was trying to get the CIA to withdraw a large part of its contingent in Pakistan on the grounds that they were carrying out unilateral operations, something that, of course, is not allowed by any government in the world.

Press TV: Tell us more about the US presence at the Shamsi airbase and what does leaving it mean for the United States?

Porter: Well, the United States has been preparing really for withdrawal from that airbase now for a number of months because it's been very clear that the Pakistani government would not allow the United States to continue to use it. So they've had contingency plans to carry out drone strikes from Afghanistan for some months now. And I think this is not surprised by any means.

Press TV: Please tell us what is the next chapter, basically, in the US-Pakistan relations?

Porter: Well, I think the pressure from Pakistan, including pressure from the National Assembly of Pakistan, in particular, which has become very much involved in this issue, is going to continue to increase, to get the United States to change its drone strike policy. And what I would be looking for at this point is how the debate in Washington DC is going to evolve at this point.

There are some signs of the beginning of a debate on the drone strike policy despite the fact that the Obama administration has declared very strongly that it is going to continue those strikes as it has in the past.

There are a number of people in the intelligence community and in the administration itself who understand that the price of these drone strikes and the obvious continuing killing of civilians at a very high rate is simply too high for the United States.

It is not getting any benefit from that which is in anyway comparable to the political cost in terms of the fear and hatred it generates in Pakistan. And I think this is becoming more widely understood in policy making circles in Washington.

So I think we can expect a continuing debate, and one that is going to become more and more hostile to the present policy toward drone strikes.


PressTV - 'Pakistan reviewing US, NATO ties'

 

[Pakistanisage]

'Pakistan reviewing US, NATO ties'


A prominent journalist says that the deadly US drone strikes has pushed Pakistan into reviewing its political arrangements with the West including the United States, NATO and the ISAF.


The decision was taken at an urgent meeting of senior cabinet ministers and military chiefs, chaired by Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani, who strongly condemned the strikes.

The defense committee of the cabinet said all diplomatic, political and military and intelligence activities should be reviewed.

The committee has also demanded that the US vacate the Shamsi airbase, within 15 days.

Press TV has conducted an interview with Gareth Porter, historian and investigative journalist, to share his opinion on this issue.

Following is the text of the interview:

Press TV: Ordering a review of ties and arrangements with the US, do you think that this has been a long time coming?

Porter: Well this is still another step in a process that has been going on, that is a process of deterioration of relations between United States and Pakistan throughout this year.

I mean, it really began well before the Bin Laden killing in May when the Pakistani government was trying to get the United States to change its policy towards the drone strikes and made representations to the Obama administration calling for a change in policy to dial down the drone strikes so that Pakistan would have some control over the targeting which they clearly did not have up to this time. And the Obama administration did not go along with that. And I think that was really a key turning point.

And even before that, you had a long period of time in which the Pakistani government was trying to get the CIA to withdraw a large part of its contingent in Pakistan on the grounds that they were carrying out unilateral operations, something that, of course, is not allowed by any government in the world.

Press TV: Tell us more about the US presence at the Shamsi airbase and what does leaving it mean for the United States?

Porter: Well, the United States has been preparing really for withdrawal from that airbase now for a number of months because it's been very clear that the Pakistani government would not allow the United States to continue to use it. So they've had contingency plans to carry out drone strikes from Afghanistan for some months now. And I think this is not surprised by any means.

Press TV: Please tell us what is the next chapter, basically, in the US-Pakistan relations?

Porter: Well, I think the pressure from Pakistan, including pressure from the National Assembly of Pakistan, in particular, which has become very much involved in this issue, is going to continue to increase, to get the United States to change its drone strike policy. And what I would be looking for at this point is how the debate in Washington DC is going to evolve at this point.

There are some signs of the beginning of a debate on the drone strike policy despite the fact that the Obama administration has declared very strongly that it is going to continue those strikes as it has in the past.

There are a number of people in the intelligence community and in the administration itself who understand that the price of these drone strikes and the obvious continuing killing of civilians at a very high rate is simply too high for the United States.

It is not getting any benefit from that which is in anyway comparable to the political cost in terms of the fear and hatred it generates in Pakistan. And I think this is becoming more widely understood in policy making circles in Washington.

So I think we can expect a continuing debate, and one that is going to become more and more hostile to the present policy toward drone strikes.


PressTV - 'Pakistan reviewing US, NATO ties'

Pakistan reviewing US and NATO ties does NOT mean Pakistan is thinking of breaking diplomatic ties. It simply means Pakistan is reviewing its ties with NATO in terms of Cooperation and help. Do not confuse those two things. It is simply reevaluating its political arrangement of Cooperation and help in war on terror and intelligence sharing and not the diplomatic ties.