Always Neutral
BANNED
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2007
- Messages
- 4,859
- Reaction score
- -20
Time Is Short as U.S. Presses a Reluctant Pakistan
- Thread starter jeypore
- Start date
qsaark
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2008
- Messages
- 2,638
- Reaction score
- 0
Neither here in America (don't know about Australia though), only illiterates and ghetto use these kind of words.
S-2
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2007
- Messages
- 4,210
- Reaction score
- 0
My infraction is noted and I'll retract the use of the specified word.
Luftwaffe, you are challenged to note ONCE where I've insulted Islam. You may perceive a cultural insult beyond it's common use by "illiterates" in America but there wasn't nor isn't any bone in my body that holds reservations about Islam.
Go find that religious insult or shut your sanctimonious mouth.
Back to topic, I hope you'll find acceptably adequate my use of "ungrateful wretches" as it will suitably describe your attitude to our aid. That'll meet my needs if it does so for the decorum of this board.
Luftwaffe, you are challenged to note ONCE where I've insulted Islam. You may perceive a cultural insult beyond it's common use by "illiterates" in America but there wasn't nor isn't any bone in my body that holds reservations about Islam.
Go find that religious insult or shut your sanctimonious mouth.
Back to topic, I hope you'll find acceptably adequate my use of "ungrateful wretches" as it will suitably describe your attitude to our aid. That'll meet my needs if it does so for the decorum of this board.
S-2
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2007
- Messages
- 4,210
- Reaction score
- 0
"I would rather that US stops drone attacks instead."
America doesn't have a choice there. Drones aren't PUNISHMENT to you. They're SELF-DEFENSE for us. I hope you see the difference.
Whether you accept aid or not, PREDATOR will fly as a force-protection measure. We'll not allow a foreign taliban army to take gratuitous whacks at us from across your border.
America doesn't have a choice there. Drones aren't PUNISHMENT to you. They're SELF-DEFENSE for us. I hope you see the difference.
Whether you accept aid or not, PREDATOR will fly as a force-protection measure. We'll not allow a foreign taliban army to take gratuitous whacks at us from across your border.
DarkStar
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2008
- Messages
- 116
- Reaction score
- 0
The Drone attacks seem good on the face of it, but their real military value is much less than vaunted.
Successful attacks rely on good intelligence, and with the Taliban beheading a suspected spy every two to three days, real intelligence on the ground is not forthcoming.
The damage done to the leadership is there, but it has not crippled AQ in the slightest, instead what has happened is fuel resentement of attacks by locals, especially when civilians have been inadvertantly targetted.
These drone attacks will not win you your war. Only the Pakistan army with Nato/American co-operation can. Once the Army is their in teh waziristans, and the enemy is on the run, then the drone attacks could be put to better use. Hell, I'd even be in favour of calling in USAF airstrikes when that happens.
S-2
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2007
- Messages
- 4,210
- Reaction score
- 0
"...is this the response we get when we are the sole country to have handed over the most operatives of so called AlQaeeda to you."
Al Qaeda is very real. Your answer suggests you doubt so. Where did you capture such? On your lands? Keep them if you wish...that is, unless you intend and prefer to release them.
"We have lost 1500 men in the process. The war on terror has cost Pakistan more than $36 Billion in trade lost alone, not to mention the loss of life of hundreds of ordinary civilians."
If you say so, I'll believe that. Over seven years, you've averaged the loss of a complete reinforced company of men per year.
ALL ON YOUR OWN SOIL.
I think the cause is worthy and the effort sustainable. Do you?
For what other purpose is your army but defense of your soil? Do you need to be paid as mercenaries to defend your own lands? It is suggested that this is America's war. Is it? If not, then the defense of your nation should be automatic. Without recourse to aid from others or not, there should be no question of intent to defend your lands. Yet there very clearly IS a question to that end these days.
I suppose you could leave those militants alone. That's a choice, correct?
I'm sorry that you've supposedly lost such money. Great Britain wrecked an empire defending itself in W.W.II and was utterly broke but free when finished. Ask them what their preference might be in retrospect. They'd laugh and do it all over again. I'm certain of that.
They'd no choice. Neither do you.
"...that might be funny to you but are highly objectionable to us."
I wasn't laughing when I wrote such, believe me.
Your nation has no RIGHTS to our aid. Should you wish, decline such and accept the consequences. I'm fine with that. It's my firm belief that you've long been engaged in this war on terror and have had little practical choice. Afterall, it's on your doorsteps and within your house.
You shouldn't require any incentive and while I regret the loss of life to your soldiers they died doing their intended jobs ON YOUR SOIL.
You don't need NVGs, more helicopters, more training, etc. to fight India where she to cross your borders tomorrow. You'd fight immediately and with all the vigor and vehemence that you could muster. You'd charge with pitchforks, rocks, and sharpened wooden spears if need be.
That this isn't the case in your west tells us everything. Your soldiers have done what's been required of them. Your officers less. Your civilian leader have entirely aborgated their responsibilities and you don't support our objectives.
I believe that the vast majority of your people would prefer to make war on Afghanistan and NATO to include ourselves and frankly cheer the afghan taliban army on your soil.
Please turn our aid down and make clear your preference as our enemy. I don't want aid offered and you don't want it accepted.
Easy.
Al Qaeda is very real. Your answer suggests you doubt so. Where did you capture such? On your lands? Keep them if you wish...that is, unless you intend and prefer to release them.
"We have lost 1500 men in the process. The war on terror has cost Pakistan more than $36 Billion in trade lost alone, not to mention the loss of life of hundreds of ordinary civilians."
If you say so, I'll believe that. Over seven years, you've averaged the loss of a complete reinforced company of men per year.
ALL ON YOUR OWN SOIL.
I think the cause is worthy and the effort sustainable. Do you?
For what other purpose is your army but defense of your soil? Do you need to be paid as mercenaries to defend your own lands? It is suggested that this is America's war. Is it? If not, then the defense of your nation should be automatic. Without recourse to aid from others or not, there should be no question of intent to defend your lands. Yet there very clearly IS a question to that end these days.
I suppose you could leave those militants alone. That's a choice, correct?
I'm sorry that you've supposedly lost such money. Great Britain wrecked an empire defending itself in W.W.II and was utterly broke but free when finished. Ask them what their preference might be in retrospect. They'd laugh and do it all over again. I'm certain of that.
They'd no choice. Neither do you.
"...that might be funny to you but are highly objectionable to us."
I wasn't laughing when I wrote such, believe me.
Your nation has no RIGHTS to our aid. Should you wish, decline such and accept the consequences. I'm fine with that. It's my firm belief that you've long been engaged in this war on terror and have had little practical choice. Afterall, it's on your doorsteps and within your house.
You shouldn't require any incentive and while I regret the loss of life to your soldiers they died doing their intended jobs ON YOUR SOIL.
You don't need NVGs, more helicopters, more training, etc. to fight India where she to cross your borders tomorrow. You'd fight immediately and with all the vigor and vehemence that you could muster. You'd charge with pitchforks, rocks, and sharpened wooden spears if need be.
That this isn't the case in your west tells us everything. Your soldiers have done what's been required of them. Your officers less. Your civilian leader have entirely aborgated their responsibilities and you don't support our objectives.
I believe that the vast majority of your people would prefer to make war on Afghanistan and NATO to include ourselves and frankly cheer the afghan taliban army on your soil.
Please turn our aid down and make clear your preference as our enemy. I don't want aid offered and you don't want it accepted.
Easy.
BanglaBhoot
RETIRED TTA
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2007
- Messages
- 8,839
- Reaction score
- 5
- Country
- Location
Islamabad is desperate for support in its civil war against the Taliban - it needs help from India
It is "the most dangerous place in the world", according to Barack Obama. It's also where 90% of our own home-front terrorist threat comes from, according to Gordon Brown. Forget scratched heads and reddening faces over Manchester's missing weapons of destruction. No anxious leader can forget Pakistan - or fail to remember one lethally complex thing. Pakistan's crisis is political as well as religious, economic as well as tribal, personal as well as endemic. Call Jinnah's pure state a failed state now and expect ritual resentment. But ask in return what equals "success", and hear silence descend. The misty, murky road from Operation Pathway is not so long after all.
Nightmare scenarios? General Petraeus hints at Pakistani chaos and collapse only a few months away. Maybe more troops in Afghanistan, more drones over Waziristan and more billions of dollars to bolster President Zardari's rocky regime can turn things around - but maybe (indeed, probably) not. Obama's latest plan for the region wins Nato applause because it sets narrower ends and means: searching out and destroying al-Qaida's safe redoubts. But its credibility drains the moment you cross Pakistan's borders.
Can US troops pursue the Taliban far into tribal territory - or even into the Swat valley, which has slipped, by feeble negotiation, out of central government control? Can drones smashing hamlets and hide-outs do the job instead? Whatever the Pentagon might like to believe, the answer on both counts is a straight no. Pakistan can't cope with anything that seems like American invasion. The drones that kill terrorists also kill innocent villagers. Even robots have no impunity.
Pakistan public opinion simply does not accept that Nato's war is its war as well. Like Pakistan's curiously conflicted army and its squabbling political parties, it cannot yet set the crisis in some neat western framework. Though many thousands of civilians - and many hundreds of troops - have died in this real civil war against real terror, it does not know where it stands or what it believes must be done. It needs help, desperately. The difficulty, though, is that the help it needs most is the help no one seems prepared to give.
A couple of weeks ago, India's leaders were smiling for group photographs in London's Excel Centre, representatives of an economic giant fit to sit alongside China at an expanded world power table. This week India begins another mammoth election process, an epic of democracy. Yet where - in so much of the hustings talk - is there recognition of the peril that Pakistan's internal implosion might bring? And where is the resolve to stretch out a hand of understanding or positive aid?
India's economic advance is new: India's political chieftains, though, are old, and set in their ways. They knew who to blame after Mumbai. They see the Taliban beginning to target Kashmir. They do not trust President Zardari or his army or his spooks. They welcome the announcement by Washington's special envoy, Richard Holbrooke, that India "is the absolutely critical leader in the region" with an enhanced role in Afghanistan, but they leave subcontinental relations frozen as usual. They do not realise they are not absolutely critical in Kabul, but in Islamabad itself.
Pakistan's army, which should be bringing the rule of law to Waziristan and freeing Swat from virulent zealotry, still gazes east when it looks for an enemy. The only foe that matters is India. The weapons and tactics it cares about are designed for another Indian war. Army intelligence, remember, set out to destabilise Russia in Afghanistan because Moscow was seen as New Delhi's friend in the first campaign Osama bin Laden helped finance. The easiest charge against Presidents Karzai and Obama now is that they are too close to India. They have chosen the "wrong side". Are the Taliban allies or monsters, then? Aren't they really fighting the great, all-purpose menace?
It is an increasingly dotty thesis. It idiotically blanks out the trail of murder and gangsterism that tugs Pakistan apart. And yet, until it's laid to rest, Islamabad seems doomed to wallow in a quagmire of indecision. A terrorist training haven 200 million souls strong? A government that suddenly locks up 625 suspects while we suck thumbs over 11? A nation split and split again by religion, politics and sheer incomprehension? This isn't some settled state where Brown can call Zardari and agree protocols as easily as stamping a visa. It's the unsteadiest state around: and any true pathway to rescue it from extremism has to begin with the neighbour who matters most.
Peter Preston on the crisis in Pakistan, the Taliban, and why India should help out | Comment is free | The Guardian
It is "the most dangerous place in the world", according to Barack Obama. It's also where 90% of our own home-front terrorist threat comes from, according to Gordon Brown. Forget scratched heads and reddening faces over Manchester's missing weapons of destruction. No anxious leader can forget Pakistan - or fail to remember one lethally complex thing. Pakistan's crisis is political as well as religious, economic as well as tribal, personal as well as endemic. Call Jinnah's pure state a failed state now and expect ritual resentment. But ask in return what equals "success", and hear silence descend. The misty, murky road from Operation Pathway is not so long after all.
Nightmare scenarios? General Petraeus hints at Pakistani chaos and collapse only a few months away. Maybe more troops in Afghanistan, more drones over Waziristan and more billions of dollars to bolster President Zardari's rocky regime can turn things around - but maybe (indeed, probably) not. Obama's latest plan for the region wins Nato applause because it sets narrower ends and means: searching out and destroying al-Qaida's safe redoubts. But its credibility drains the moment you cross Pakistan's borders.
Can US troops pursue the Taliban far into tribal territory - or even into the Swat valley, which has slipped, by feeble negotiation, out of central government control? Can drones smashing hamlets and hide-outs do the job instead? Whatever the Pentagon might like to believe, the answer on both counts is a straight no. Pakistan can't cope with anything that seems like American invasion. The drones that kill terrorists also kill innocent villagers. Even robots have no impunity.
Pakistan public opinion simply does not accept that Nato's war is its war as well. Like Pakistan's curiously conflicted army and its squabbling political parties, it cannot yet set the crisis in some neat western framework. Though many thousands of civilians - and many hundreds of troops - have died in this real civil war against real terror, it does not know where it stands or what it believes must be done. It needs help, desperately. The difficulty, though, is that the help it needs most is the help no one seems prepared to give.
A couple of weeks ago, India's leaders were smiling for group photographs in London's Excel Centre, representatives of an economic giant fit to sit alongside China at an expanded world power table. This week India begins another mammoth election process, an epic of democracy. Yet where - in so much of the hustings talk - is there recognition of the peril that Pakistan's internal implosion might bring? And where is the resolve to stretch out a hand of understanding or positive aid?
India's economic advance is new: India's political chieftains, though, are old, and set in their ways. They knew who to blame after Mumbai. They see the Taliban beginning to target Kashmir. They do not trust President Zardari or his army or his spooks. They welcome the announcement by Washington's special envoy, Richard Holbrooke, that India "is the absolutely critical leader in the region" with an enhanced role in Afghanistan, but they leave subcontinental relations frozen as usual. They do not realise they are not absolutely critical in Kabul, but in Islamabad itself.
Pakistan's army, which should be bringing the rule of law to Waziristan and freeing Swat from virulent zealotry, still gazes east when it looks for an enemy. The only foe that matters is India. The weapons and tactics it cares about are designed for another Indian war. Army intelligence, remember, set out to destabilise Russia in Afghanistan because Moscow was seen as New Delhi's friend in the first campaign Osama bin Laden helped finance. The easiest charge against Presidents Karzai and Obama now is that they are too close to India. They have chosen the "wrong side". Are the Taliban allies or monsters, then? Aren't they really fighting the great, all-purpose menace?
It is an increasingly dotty thesis. It idiotically blanks out the trail of murder and gangsterism that tugs Pakistan apart. And yet, until it's laid to rest, Islamabad seems doomed to wallow in a quagmire of indecision. A terrorist training haven 200 million souls strong? A government that suddenly locks up 625 suspects while we suck thumbs over 11? A nation split and split again by religion, politics and sheer incomprehension? This isn't some settled state where Brown can call Zardari and agree protocols as easily as stamping a visa. It's the unsteadiest state around: and any true pathway to rescue it from extremism has to begin with the neighbour who matters most.
Peter Preston on the crisis in Pakistan, the Taliban, and why India should help out | Comment is free | The Guardian
AgNoStiC MuSliM
ADVISORS
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2007
- Messages
- 25,259
- Reaction score
- 87
- Country
- Location
Related to Munshi sahib's post above:
DAWN.COM | World | US to seek joint Fata operations in trilateral talks
Kharian_Beast
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2008
- Messages
- 1,645
- Reaction score
- 0
Any self respecting God fearing nation would be hesitant to greet certain things with open arms...They are giving Pakistan 6 months to breath while shoving demands and drone strikes down our throats. Coincidence?
YES
YES
Solomon2
BANNED
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2008
- Messages
- 19,475
- Reaction score
- -37
- Country
- Location
Six months sounds about right: after the harvest the Talibs will roll over everyone while the Army's feckless leadership redeploys to the safety of the Indian border, the current batch of crooked politicians escape West with the loot, and the bulk of the population is tricked, Agnostic Muslim-style, into staying quiescent and put until it's too late. And so yet another Indus valley civilization falls to conquerors from the northern mountains .
Similar threads
