The Pakistan Ultimatum

[muse]

i think this entire mess again is approved and supported by Pak GOV it self. This sounds funny. Every day US drone attacks Pakistan still then your GOV and powerful army just make some nominal token based protests? It is easy to put blame on USA

,


You know what's really curious is that the US has not busted them as yet -- I think the US should bust them and then lets see how things pan out

 

[Majnun]

I hope you know that Iran is the spiritual center for Shia Islam.

Do you understand how few Shias there are? And I would expect nothing less from Iran than to accuse Pakistan of stoking revolt while they themselves feed the flames of unrest in Balochistan.

 

[Kevrai]

Why does Pakistan allow drones?

because they get $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ in return

 

[Leviza]

^ Frankly to most of the world (in SMC's words, India and parts of the west), it really doesnt matter what Pakistan has lost to terrorism or what she is deploying to fight it as for them, these terrorists have been created in the 1st place by Pakistan..So getting sympathy in that area is pretty much impossible for Pak

Are you from some other planet ? Pakistan didnt created these terrorists , American CIA with the help of Pakistan did that against USSR............
Also if you know anything Taliban's were not terrorist , Al-qaida was and i hope you know who created Al-Qaida in Afghanistan against USSR...

 

[Patriot]

This is type blackmail mentality of western powers.They tried it in Vietnam and failed.

 

[Developereo]

The puerile tone of the article betrays the American frustration at the elusiveness of victory in Afghanistan, so the usual blame-Pakistan distraction is employed. The article is also self-contradictory in that it chides Pakistan for harboring 'paranoid illusions' about the Indian threat and then goes on to validate that threat by mentioning a 'more robust U.S. military alliance with India'.

The basic problem here is that the US has used more brawn than brain in dealing with the situation in this region. Right after 9/11, the US came thundering down like a wounded bear and NOTHING was going to stand in its way. No country except Russia or China could have denied the American demand for 'cooperation', so Musharraf really had no choice but to comply. Having said that, the Americans could have switched their strategy over time to one of mutual cooperation instead of arrogant demand. They could have realized that appealing to Pakistan's national interests would be more productive than threatening it. Instead, they served up Afghanistan to India and its proxies -- in line with their anti-China agenda -- and, in the process, earned Pakistan's mistrust.

Pakistan's national interests involve neutralizing TTP, BLA and other terrorists being supported from Afghanistan and, the way things are looking, that cannot be achieved as long as NATO troops are in Afghanistan providing them safe haven. So that leaves two questions:

- How to effectuate a speedy NATO exit from Afghanistan.
- How to ensure that the subsequent power vacuum is not filled by anti-Pakistan elements.

The standard Western/Indian claim is that Pakistan is counting on the Afghan Taliban to achieve both these objectives. If the US can work with Pakistan to achieve these goals in a mutually satisfactory fashion, there would be no need for Pakistan to support the Taliban.

 

[mehboobkz]

CIA will not halt operations in Pakistan: official | World | DAWN.COM

 

[MilSpec]

Pakistan cannot win against jihadis in pakistan unless

it starts disarming tribal areas

Effective gun control regime

plug Afghan Border

Banish Madrasas

clampdown on retarded Mullahs

If all of the above are done now , in 10 years pakistan can effectively clampdown on internal security threat.. If not then start praying

 

[mehboobkz]

Watch Khari Baat Luqman Kay Sath

 

[SMC]

It doesn't really weaken this argument though. Cause, people realize that the reference to 'whole world' only means the world effected. The same way when you say to someone, 'hang on a second', you don't expect him to wait for exactly one second, 'hyperbole' is used to stress on a point.

If 2-4 countries are effected by something, you can't expect the remaining countries to comment on it. Pointing out that other countries are not commenting is being specious because the other countries just don't have anything to comment on. Hence my earlier reference to Eskimos. The phrase 'whole world' would mean these 2-4 countries only but it won't be apparent to people who are more interested in evasions and stalls. For example, this is the 6th post on the phrase 'whole world' which has nothing to do with OP.

But as I said, if it's those 2-4 countries that are effected then say it like that. When you use the phrase 'whole world', it strengthens your argument a lot. No I don't think people realize that this reference refers to the countries effected, because the phrase 'whole world' cannot have any context and refers literally to the whole world or nearly the whole world.

Simply put, if its the few whatever countries effected, then talk about those countries.

 

[SMC]

Better to go in with a different argument. Which country supports this Pakistan position on terrorism? Anyone else supporting Taliban? LeT? Cupboard pretty bare, I expect.

Well Pakistan is not supporting Taliban or LeT to begin with, so that's a very stupid question.

 

[RazorMC]

Things would have been very different if Pakistan was actually supporting the Afghan Taliban but the US has so far failed to understand this simple fact. By bringing incompetent people like Karzai, the US had weakened its position right from the beginning. Then the "accidental" killing of civilians and torture chambers further tarnished US image in the region.

No amount of military action is going to help unless the US starts to actively develop Afghanistan. Let the people see that the US is there to solve Afghanistan's problems and notice the difference in the outcome of the war.

It is time that US understood that Pakistan is the only real ally it has in the region. Cooperation with Pakistan is the only way forward for the US since we are the only real US ally in the region.

 

[Meengla]

This article misses the fact that if Pakistan appears to be tolerant toward some Talibans right now it is precisely because Pakistan rightly fears an encirclement by India. Why is that so hard to understand? Would Americans allow Russia to have bases in Mexico? Heck, Cuba was a sovereign state but the early 60's show that Americans did not tolerate the Soviet deployments there.
The peace in Kabul lies through Kashmir. Rest of it is just smoke screen. Pakistanis will NEVER allow a strong pro-India govt. in Kabul even if mountains of dung is piled upon Pakistan by the international media.
Remove India from the Afghan equation and you will see Pakistani army and the nation will and can quash these Talibans like it was done in Swat a couple of years ago. I say this because there is no real love for these retard Talibans who, even in the best of times (late 90's) were problem for Pakistan.

 

[T-Rex]

Google for the word 'Hyperbole'. Since you probably won't, here is what an online dictionary defines it as:

–noun Rhetoric .

1. obvious and intentional exaggeration.
2. an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally, as “to wait an eternity.”​

So you see, it still doesn't make any difference. What however it reveals is your inability to distinguish between debating tools.

Since when did Dr. Joseph Goebbel's lies become 'debating tools'?

 

[khurasaan1]

This is type blackmail mentality of western powers.They tried it in Vietnam and failed.

They alwayz do this with weakcountries...it showz their hypocrisy....