Solving Afghanistan?

[blain2]

Gents,

Let me bow out of this discussion as frankly I think I have expounded my points as well as I could have and in exchange read your views. I do not think I will be able to convince anyone entirely but in all honesty that is not even the intent, hopefully you are getting a perspective that is a little different from yours. I think there is a midpoint here over which all sides (I mean the real players) can converge and negate the absolutists from calling all the shots. In that lies hope for Pakistan and Afghanistan.

 

[zraver]

You make good points, i don't agree all that often, but its a good argument.

 

[blain2]

Its good that we are discussing at least even if we do not agree and hopefully the discussion will remain civil.

BTW, on the issue of Pakistan's concerns about India, see this:
Former envoy says U.S. alienating Pakistan - UPI.com

I have to admit that Robert Oakley has been one of the better US ambassadors to Pakistan as I was personally always pleased with his insight about the country in which he remained as an Ambassador. I was actually sad to see him go just because he had personally invested so much time building bridges across the board (even meeting the leaders of the religious right among many others to get a better perspective on Pakistan).

 

[zraver]

Its good that we are discussing at least even if we do not agree and hopefully the discussion will remain civil.

BTW, on the issue of Pakistan's concerns about India, see this:
Former envoy says U.S. alienating Pakistan - UPI.com

I have to admit that Robert Oakley has been one of the better US ambassadors to Pakistan as I was personally always pleased with his insight about the country in which he remained as an Ambassador. I was actually sad to see him go just because he had personally invested so much time building bridges across the board (even meeting the leaders of the religious right among many others to get a better perspective on Pakistan).

I think Pakistani alienation goes deeper than the article says, but so does American alienation from Pakistan. The US and India are now forging ties that are an utter disaster for Pakistan. It as you said cuts in to Afghanistan, gives India American technology and removes one of the two Security council votes Pakistan has always been able to count on.

America and Pakistan had been allies for decades and the move away from Pakistan has a lot to do with the actions of both sides. A Pakistani may be totally right in their complaints, but so are the Americans. Pakistanis are giving aid and comfort to the Taliban and even joining them. The problem for Pakistan is one of equality, nations are not equal. Pakistan is by virtue of its nuclear arsenal a great power, entitled to deal equally with other super powers. But India with nukes and a much larger economy is a step above and is a super-power, while the US is another step higher as a hyper-power. This puts Pakistan's worries and concerns on a lower rung that the others especially in light of the number of terrorists originating in Pakistan.

You might claim Kashmir is the issue, its not. Kashmir was never part of Pakistan, the fight is over attempts to make it part of Pakistan. Give up those attempts and Pakistan would face a much less hostile security environment, combine it will real efforts to end covert and barely concealed support for terrorists by the ISI and Pakistan's only threats would be minor.

Look at who is profiting by the Kashmir issue, by the FATA issue and you find Pakistani uniforms at the head of the list.

 

[Solomon2]

Why Pakistan is insecure is something that needs to be looked into from the context of the lingering disputes between the two countries.

Pakistan could use better leadership: make friends with India rather than enemies. Security through friendship, you know. Why shouldn't relations between Pakistan and India be as smooth as those between the U.S. and Canada?

 

[Xeric]

Pakistanis are giving aid and comfort to the Taliban and even joining them.

Yes Pakistanis, not Pakistani Government. Neither our stance nor our overtures are there to support them.

The problem for Pakistan is one of equality, nations are not equal. Pakistan is by virtue of its nuclear arsenal a great power, entitled to deal equally with other super powers. But India with nukes and a much larger economy is a step above and is a super-power, while the US is another step higher as a hyper-power. This puts Pakistan's worries and concerns on a lower rung that the others especially in light of the number of terrorists originating in Pakistan.

Ya right!
But you missed the point regarding the containment of China while you trumpeted your support for india.

You might claim Kashmir is the issue, its not. Kashmir was never part of Pakistan, the fight is over attempts to make it part of Pakistan.

Extactly, tomorrow you would also say Balochistan was never part of Pakistan it was just a deal and day after tomorrow we may find you asking us to diminish the already faded Durand Line.

Give up those attempts and Pakistan would face a much less hostile security environment

Even then let me tell you now, Pakistan would still face a hostile environment, especially from you and your Afgani allies.

Moreover, i must say having Kashmir with india, Pakistan would never be threatened as ever before.

Look at who is profiting by the Kashmir issue, by the FATA issue and you find Pakistani uniforms at the head of the list.

Guud piece of propaganda, i like you!
Look at who is profiting by the Iraq issue, by the Afghanistan issue and the damn GWOT and you find American weapon makers and companies like General Atomics Aeronautical Systems and your politicians who have shares there at the head of the list!!

Chill!

 

[Xeric]

Pakistan could use better leadership: make friends with India rather than enemies. Security through friendship, you know. Why shouldn't relations between Pakistan and India be as smooth as those between the U.S. and Canada?

We would love to.

BTW why don't you pass on this piece of advice to our indian counterparts?

Read the history and try to understand who has been intimidating, pressurizing, taking on aggression and hegemonizing over whom!

i bet you would find yourself talking to india instead of Pakistan

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Pakistan could use better leadership: make friends with India rather than enemies. Security through friendship, you know. Why shouldn't relations between Pakistan and India be as smooth as those between the U.S. and Canada?

'Takes two to tango' - Pakistan has been interested in normalizing. We eliminating the cross-LoC infiltrations for all intents and purposes for about seven years, and were quite enthusiastic about the back-channel diplomacy referenced by Steve Coll in his New Yorker article.

It was the Indians that backed out of that process in 2007, when it was at quite an advanced stage and things looked set to move to a higher level. Quite frankly that has been Pakistan's experience with India on 'normalization' since 1947 and the initial rejection of the agreement in the UNSC on settling Kashmir by Nehru.

 

[blain2]

I think Pakistani alienation goes deeper than the article says, but so does American alienation from Pakistan. The US and India are now forging ties that are an utter disaster for Pakistan. It as you said cuts in to Afghanistan, gives India American technology and removes one of the two Security council votes Pakistan has always been able to count on.

America and Pakistan had been allies for decades and the move away from Pakistan has a lot to do with the actions of both sides. A Pakistani may be totally right in their complaints, but so are the Americans. Pakistanis are giving aid and comfort to the Taliban and even joining them. The problem for Pakistan is one of equality, nations are not equal. Pakistan is by virtue of its nuclear arsenal a great power, entitled to deal equally with other super powers. But India with nukes and a much larger economy is a step above and is a super-power, while the US is another step higher as a hyper-power. This puts Pakistan's worries and concerns on a lower rung that the others especially in light of the number of terrorists originating in Pakistan.

You might claim Kashmir is the issue, its not. Kashmir was never part of Pakistan, the fight is over attempts to make it part of Pakistan. Give up those attempts and Pakistan would face a much less hostile security environment, combine it will real efforts to end covert and barely concealed support for terrorists by the ISI and Pakistan's only threats would be minor.

Look at who is profiting by the Kashmir issue, by the FATA issue and you find Pakistani uniforms at the head of the list.

Zraver,

Your views are right out of an Indian textbook. Kashmir is the issue thus there are resolutions about it at the UN. The militancy started in the Indo-Pak context around the Kashmir issue. Other wars in the region have fueled this problem even more.

Kashmir was never part of Pakistan

OK so it was a part of the Indian Republic?

What you suggest above is exactly why the problem remains to this day.

Give up those attempts and Pakistan would face a much less hostile security environment, combine it will real efforts to end covert and barely concealed support for terrorists by the ISI and Pakistan's only threats would be minor.

Lets get a little more pragmatic here. Kashmir issue requires give and take. Pakistan will not stand to lose it all. There are valid grievances of the people of Kashmir and they are very clear about the point that they do not want to be part of the Indian federation.

Your comments about the ISI are the normal run of the mill one-sided propaganda. Not much I can do about that. The precedents set after 9/11 do not mean that in fear and from guilt of those attack, all legitimate movements for the right of self-determination are sacrificed at the alter of terrorism. Own up to the responsibility that prior to 1987, there was no violence in Kashmir yet India sat on the problem to the point that people took up guns. ]

Look at who is profiting by the Kashmir issue, by the FATA issue and you find Pakistani uniforms at the head of the list.

Please explain how are the uniforms in Pakistan profiting by Kashmir? If the logic is that they keep these issues alive and stay relevant then the same can be said about the Indian Army there and the US in Afghanistan. All are getting ever more funding from their governments to carry on wars, re-equip and stay at the forefront of policy so why single out PA with this hypocrisy?

 

[Patriot]

and for those who advocate bombing bombs from air and killing thousands of them...well i hope you do that in Mainland America and let's see for how long your country stays united.Our Pilots are fighter pilots not cold blooded murderers who will kill All Pushtuns with their families.

 

[zraver]

Zraver,

Your views are right out of an Indian textbook. Kashmir is the issue thus there are resolutions about it at the UN. The militancy started in the Indo-Pak context around the Kashmir issue. Other wars in the region have fueled this problem even more.


OK so it was a part of the Indian Republic?

What you suggest above is exactly why the problem remains to this day.

Set the border at the LOC and call it even.

Lets get a little more pragmatic here. Kashmir issue requires give and take. Pakistan will not stand to lose it all. There are valid grievances of the people of Kashmir and they are very clear about the point that they do not want to be part of the Indian federation.

What is Pakistan willing to give and in trade for what? Like it or not the part of kashmir in Pakistani hands is Pakistani and vice versa.

Your comments about the ISI are the normal run of the mill one-sided propaganda. Not much I can do about that. The precedents set after 9/11 do not mean that in fear and from guilt of those attack, all legitimate movements for the right of self-determination are sacrificed at the alter of terrorism. Own up to the responsibility that prior to 1987, there was no violence in Kashmir yet India sat on the problem to the point that people took up guns.

The right of self determination begisn and ends with the formation of the nation state. This is a settled point of law. Kashmir's legal government chose India- the worlds second biggest moslem population. Pakistan rejected this and sent in fighters.

Please explain how are the uniforms in Pakistan profiting by Kashmir? If the logic is that they keep these issues alive and stay relevant then the same can be said about the Indian Army there and the US in Afghanistan. All are getting ever more funding from their governments to carry on wars, re-equip and stay at the forefront of policy so why single out PA with this hypocrisy?

Look at the budget and who gets what, in the US the military gets big chunk but effectively live son the left overs, in Pakistan the nation lives on whats left over from the military.

 

[zraver]

and for those who advocate bombing bombs from air and killing thousands of them...well i hope you do that in Mainland America and let's see for how long your country stays united.Our Pilots are fighter pilots not cold blooded murderers who will kill All Pushtuns with their families.

We did get hit, by people who got aid and succor in Pakistan. who were shielded by a group supported by the ISI, who later refused to turn over our attackers. When those attackers and their supporters fled into Pakistan and got further aid and comfort any right Pakistanis had to be secure in their homes evaporated like the sense of peace America had on 9-10.

My nation is at war, and as such has the right to go after its enemies where ever they are.

 

[zraver]

Yes Pakistanis, not Pakistani Government. Neither our stance nor our overtures are there to support them.

And we are not bombing the Pakistani government but those who render aid and comfort.

Ya right!
But you missed the point regarding the containment of China while you trumpeted your support for india.

Containment of China is a good selling point, but not the only one, anger at Pakistan is another.

Extactly, tomorrow you would also say Balochistan was never part of Pakistan it was just a deal and day after tomorrow we may find you asking us to diminish the already faded Durand Line.

Pakistan's borders are secure, it is Pakistan that wants land from India not vice versa.

Even then let me tell you now, Pakistan would still face a hostile environment, especially from you and your Afgani allies.

We can control the Afghani government, but as long as Pakistani's support the Taliban, why should we?

Moreover, i must say having Kashmir with india, Pakistan would never be threatened as ever before.

How?

Guud piece of propaganda, i like you!
Look at who is profiting by the Iraq issue, by the Afghanistan issue and the damn GWOT and you find American weapon makers and companies like General Atomics Aeronautical Systems and your politicians who have shares there at the head of the list!!

Chill!

Whose profiting in American wars has zero to do with who is profiting from artificial tensions in Pakistan.

 

[Solomon2]

for those who advocate bombing bombs from air and killing thousands of them...well i hope you do that in Mainland America and let's see for how long your country stays united.

So all the Talibs have to do is take enough women and children hostage and they have your A-OK to conquer Pakistan?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Look at the budget and who gets what, in the US the military gets big chunk but effectively live son the left overs, in Pakistan the nation lives on whats left over from the military.

What is the size of the Pakistani defence budget?

Kashmir's legal government chose India

How can it be a legal government when it is disputed territory, acknowledged by India in the UN?