US 'biggest' threat, say Pakistani Polls

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

"stolen our money, stolen the equipment that money was meant to buy"

Stolen? That money was returned to Pakistan in 2003 your former Prime Minister Mir Zafarullah Khan Jamali said so in an interview to a Saudi newspaper Okaz.

When was the money actually given to the US for purchasing the F-16's? What did the US do with it? It kept both money and equipment.

Years later the US sent out some wheat in exchange, and the only reason we saw the remainder in 2003 was because the US was interested in utilizing Pakistani assistance in its war in Afghanistan.

We did not pay the US 750 million to get a few tons of wheat years later, nor for the US to act as a 'bank' for our money and pay it out in 2003. It was for a specific purpose and the US kept the money and refused to provide the products the money was intended for -That's theft, fraud, betrayal of trust - whatever you want to call it.

its invasion and occupation acted as the catalyst for the rise of the Pakistani Taliban movement that has cost Pakistan dearly in lives and economic growth, and continues to do so.

Invasion? The UN and 40 other nations disagree.

Foreign nations using military force to overthrow a government in another nation and impose their own government and control - what else is it except for 'invasion'?

The Taliban had nothing to do with 911, they had no knowledge of the planning and execution. Nor were negotiations given ample time to convince the taliban to hand over OBL and Co.

The UN decision to sanction war against Afghanistan and its invasion and occupation, as quickly as it did, was flawed, and more than likely a result of the US pressure and anger at meting out 'justice' as it saw fit, and intent to bulldoze any that stood in the way of its notion of 'justice'.

“…acted as the catalyst for the rise of the Pakistani Taliban” You made a funny! No wait, you're serious if what you say is true then what are these people doing in FATA. The bad guys, the invaders, the crusaders are several miles west of FATA.

Did you read my post? What does 'rise of Pakistani Taliban' imply? If you have bothered to follow any aspect of the insurgency in FATA you would have realize how it is closely linked to the US invasion and the resulting insurgency in Afghanistan.

the US has betrayed and abandoned Pakistan time and again

Like we did in 2005 with a billion dollars in US government funds for earthquake relief? Not to mention 16.5 billion in aid from 1947 to 2007. Or, did we betray Pakistan by supporting its economy through imports worth 3.5 billion$ every year – making us your biggest export destination.

With enemies like us – who really needs friends? Or, in Pakistani lexicon friendship entails a trade deficit of 7.5 billion$ - your dear friends are laughing all the way to the 上海 bank.

First - lose the 'ten billion in aid' canard and please read the link I gave Tallman. A large chunk of it is not your money, but ours for services provided.

The earlier aid too was not given without an expectation that Pakistan would assist as an ally against the Communist threat - which Pakistan did. Nothing the US has offered (other than disaster relief) has come without strings attached and Pakistan offering services and assistance in return.

Then, try and deal with the over 30 billion USD in losses caused by the US invasion of Afghanistan and the resulting terrorism in Pakistan.

And none of the aid, though welcome, changes the fact that the US has betrayed Pakistan when it has come to her national interests on the issues I pointed out.

The US has at best been a fair weather ally - assisting when it needs help, sanctioning and ripping us off when it doesn't.

On top of all that, the US has continued to violate Pakistani sovereignty through ground incursions and drone attacks

A flip-flop worthy of a politician, sometimes you say drone strikes have your governments tacit approval other times you say we violate your sovereignty. Make up your mind, and when you decide we’ve violated your sovereignty then do what other countries do - wage war!

They are sanctioned by Pakistan unwillingly, as a compromise. Otherwise you would not have the leadership calling for the US to stop the strikes and give Pakistan control of the drones.

Pakistan sanctioning the strikes is an example of US coercion, not Pakistan's willingness to allow the US to attack targets on its soil.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

While you provide me with pretty lame arguments that I can easily contest - but I am not getting into the nitty gritty of it - Just content in the thought that you are contemplating.

Next time just 'contest' the 'lame arguments' ...

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Perhaps Islam is the only religion that has burned people alive over Blasphemy lately.

And on another thread you were advocating concentration camps and justifying the massacres and wiping out of the Native Americans.

Good bye - there is no room for bigots like you here.

 

[Gin ka Pakistan]

Why USA refuses to declare Baluchistan liberation army as terrorists? What’s stopping them? If they are Pakistan’s true friend.

 

[waraich66]

"...US media is still silent not presenting true picture of Afghanistan war may be because of control of stronge jew lobbies (AIPAC etc)"

OMG, 'dem dar Jews again...

This anti-semitism stuff is soooo incredibly engrained. So too the accompanying sense of impotent inferiority. Stunning stuff.

We need to hold some esteem-building seminars.

"I'm O.K. You're O.K."

Big group hug maybe.

Too little doing. Too much blaming others.

Do more. Blame less.

Can you provide any link to justify that jew lobby had no influence on US politics,media and banking ?

Ready below link to clarify your doubts lol
http://www.texemarrs.com/jews_own_hollywood.htm

 

[gambit]

Foreign nations using military force to overthrow a government in another nation and impose their own government and control - what else is it except for 'invasion'?

The Taliban had nothing to do with 911, they had no knowledge of the planning and execution. Nor were negotiations given ample time to convince the taliban to hand over OBL and Co.

The UN decision to sanction war against Afghanistan and its invasion and occupation, as quickly as it did, was flawed, and more than likely a result of the US pressure and anger at meting out 'justice' as it saw fit, and intent to bulldoze any that stood in the way of its notion of 'justice'.

Keep in mind that the US under Clinton pressed the Taliban for either expel al-Qaeda or turn over OBL and Co. And Clinton was US President for 8 yrs. The attack on US on Sept. 11, 2001 resulted in the first invasion of Afghanistan by Oct. 2001. Essentially, the US said we had enough. The Taliban was not willing to negotiate so we will no longer negotiate.

Here is the Geneva Conventions on the rights and responsibilities of supposedly neutral states when faced with belligerents...

The Avalon Project - Laws of War : Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers and Persons in Case of War on Land (Hague V); October 18, 1907

Article 1.
The territory of neutral Powers is inviolable.

Yes...This is a given.

Art. 2.
Belligerents are forbidden to move troops or convoys of either munitions of war or supplies across the territory of a neutral Power.

Art. 3.
Belligerents are likewise forbidden to:

(a) Erect on the territory of a neutral Power a wireless telegraphy station or other apparatus for the purpose of communicating with belligerent forces on land or sea;

(b) Use any installation of this kind established by them before the war on the territory of a neutral Power for purely military purposes, and which has not been opened for the service of public messages.

Art. 4.
Corps of combatants cannot be formed nor recruiting agencies opened on the territory of a neutral Power to assist the belligerents.

Art. 5.
A neutral Power must not allow any of the acts referred to in Articles 2 to 4 to occur on its territory.

It is not called upon to punish acts in violation of its neutrality unless the said acts have been committed on its own territory.

So say al-Qaeda and the US are belligerents in a conflict, if Canada wishes its territory to remain inviolate, then Canada must NOT allow articles 2 through 4 to occur on any territory under its sovereign control as in Article 5. If al-Qaeda covertly recruit in Canadian soil and the US found out, in the interests of maintaining good relations with Canada, the US would allow Canada to assert authority and prosecute al-Qaeda to comply with Article 5. But if Canada does nothing then in doing nothing Canada effectively abdicate sovereignty, or partial sovereignty, of Canadian territory to al-Qaeda and the US would have no choice but violate US-Canadian borders to pursue al-Qaeda in self-defence. If all al-Qaeda does on Canadian soil is to publish anti-US diatribes then Article 5 forbids the US to take any actions that could be construed to violate Article 1.

The Taliban does not need to have been in full cooperation with Osama bin Laden in executing the attack on US, or actively assisted al-Qaeda or even in planning the stages of the attack. Critics of the 'Bush Doctrine' missed the point that B43 did not create anything new, Bush merely put articles 2 through 4 of GC 5 in more blunt language. Those three articles said nothing about planning any act on behalf of one belligerent against the other. So if articles 2 through 4 are not obeyed, then article 1 is voided. The US does not require UN approval for violating Article 1 when Articles 2 through 4 were cast aside by the Taliban, even if the Taliban does nothing but acquiesced to al-Qaeda's demand for autonomy on Afghan soil.

This is the true reason why much of the world support US military response against the Taliban directly on Afghan soil, not because those governments of stable nation-states morally recoiled at the attack on US on Sept. 11, 2001. US allies realized that they are not immune to non-state belligerents using their associations with the US to attack them. I dare say most of their politicians are already sufficiently anti-US that they really do not care how many US citizens were killed on 9/11. Even the petty despots of the ME realized the threats to their countries based upon GC 5, hence their tepid responses to US 'aggression' on Afghanistan and why no one sent military support to the Taliban.

 

[Gin ka Pakistan]

Pakistani mistrust over U.S. intentions has "some legitimacy" since the United States has turned away from that country twice in the last three decades, and it will take time to win their confidence, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said on Thursday.

 

[dbc]

When was the money actually given to the US for purchasing the F-16's? What did the US do with it? It kept both money and equipment.
Years later the US sent out some wheat in exchange, and the only reason we saw the remainder in 2003 was because the US was interested in utilizing Pakistani assistance in its war in Afghanistan.
We did not pay the US 750 million to get a few tons of wheat years later, nor for the US to act as a 'bank' for our money and pay it out in 2003. It was for a specific purpose and the US kept the money and refused to provide the products the money was intended for -That's theft, fraud, betrayal of trust - whatever you want to call it.

@AM,
US non proliferation law was first introduced in 1961, in 1989, I suspect the Pakistani government was well aware that it risked billions of dollars in financial and military assistance including Peace Gate (F-16 purchase) if Pakistan ever delivered or received, acquired or transferred nuclear enrichment technology. At the time of placing the order for seventy one F-16’s you had already acquired the capability, Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan said so in 1987, this was later corroborated by the Pakistan foreign secretary in 1992. F-16’s and other advanced US weapons and billions of dollars of US assistance was the incentive on offer from the US Congress after assurances from both the US administration and Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto that military assistance would address Pakistan’s security concerns and thereby keep Pakistan from acquiring the bomb. Your Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto pledged that Pakistan neither had nor would develop nuclear weapons at a joint session with US congress in Washington in 1989.
Pressler amendment was Pakistan specific, it allowed President Reagan and Bush to continue providing weapons and financial assistance by certifying that Pakistan did not possess a nuclear device. Both were later accused by Senator John Glenn in 1992 of hoodwinking the US Congress and the American taxpayer. Under immense pressure and mounting evidence, President George Bush could no longer make the certification required by Pressler’s amendment and on October 6th, 1990 the US government embargoed further arms deliveries to Pakistan.
Pakistan was aware of the risk it took placing the order in 1989, by the time Pakistan was sanctioned in Oct 1990 General Dynamics had already started work on building the F-16’s worth 658m$ but the planes could not be delivered to Pakistan. The first batch of (Peace Gate III) eleven aircrafts were flown directly to AMARC (Aircraft Maintenance and Regeneration Center) at Davis-Monthan AFB, Arizona where they were put in 'Flyable Hold' later these were joined by seventeen more Peace Gate IV fighters. Since the government did not make a budget allocation for a refund of 658m$ the only choice was to find a buyer for the 28 F-16’s in storage. A few years later and after several failed attempts at selling the planes, an agreement was reached with Pakistan in Dec 2008 to pay $326.9 million in cash and up to $140 million in other compensation to settle the eight-year dispute. The $140 million includes about $60 million in US white wheat. The remaining $80 million in compensation will be negotiated by the two sides. After reaching the agreement with President Clinton, your Prime Minister Mohammad Nawaz Sharif had this to say at a press conference “the F-16 dispute has been resolved to the satisfaction of Pakistan”. No accusations of “theft”, “fraud” or “betrayal of trust” – you obviously disagree; take it up with Mr Sharif.

It was your Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto and your officials that defrauded the American taxpayer off 6 billion $ in military sales and grants between 1982 and 1990 by pledging nuclear abstinence while being only a few screw driver turns away from a fully functional nuclear device.

First - lose the 'ten billion in aid' canard and please read the link I gave Tallman. A large chunk of it is not your money, but ours for services provided.

The 16.5 billion $ figure for US aid that I provided does not include Coalition Support Funds. AM you’re being silly you really doubt a figure of 16.5 billion dollars over 62 years? The figure is closer to 35 billion dollars since 1947 if you add donations and contributions from US Citizens and corporations. If you don’t believe me just go to US Embassy Pakistan website and look at the contributions we make to Pakistan. From U.S. Chinooks performing a record 5,000 sorties transporting relief supplies, relief to flood victims, grants to improving your refining capability, cash for work programs, building roads, schools and medical facilities. I had no idea, my government was this involved in helping people. I will admit I teared up a bit, looking at all the good we’ve done, I really don’t care what your silly poll says, to the countless poor Pakistani’s we’ve helped I’m sure we rock!!

 

[SQ8]

There is seems to be a trend in all the posts of its all your fault.
While in my view.. the fault lies with both the nations & their people.
For one thing, putting up the argument of us Pakistani's being poor or illiterate is not going to run anymore. Deriding our leadership is also not going to work.. we turn 62 today. If a nation cannot learn to judge its leaders and its people in 62 years and it definitely deserves to be ridiculed, insulted and cornered. How long are we to blame or governments for letting the people down. Or are we too cowardly to admit that as a nation we have been snoring away, only to be awoken by another change in power at which we just nod our heads and go back to sleep.
Whats the point of blaming the Americans? And somehow they way we blame Americans is reminiscent of Oliver twist saying "Please sir may I have some more".
The Americans have dirty hands there is no doubt, whether to protect their national interests or otherwise. But is it not our own fault that we don't challenge the corridors of power in our country whenever we get over dependent on aid?. Or did we expect that the breastfeed by the Americans was to never end. We can blame them for sanctions, of leaving us high and dry. But It is our fault that we never prepared ourselves for it.
I have already stated in an earlier post, The American people too are tired of hearing about a country still on the brink of failure even after the trillion or so dollars they pumped in it. No matter where that money went. To the American people, its their tax money that has gone up in smoke. To them the Bearded psycho who proclaims the destruction of America on Fox News is Pakistan. Whether he is funded by Mossad, ISI, RAW or Some poppy trader in FATA. WE let these people breed on our soil. we let them grow, Because we as a nation are responsible for the actions of the Army, the ISI and the government. To deny it is to say that these organizations are not a part of Pakistan as a whole. The Saudi's have bigger extremists on their soil but the chances of me dying in a market in Riyadh are remote compared to Islamabad. It doesn't matter that 80% of the population is progressive or moderate if every time the 20% who are extremist are able to subjugate them with fear in the name of Islam.
We might never use our nukes, but the bearded goats in FATA want to, It doesn't matter if they can get them or not.
We need to stop thinking of the danger from the US, or Israel or India. The biggest threat to Pakistan is not from any external element.The Greatest Danger to Pakistan is from its own people.
And blaming the US, India, Israel or Barbados is not going to help our cause.

 

[Developereo]

strategic depth

Dude, I know you have a permanent hard-on about this "strategic depth" concept -- maybe you just like the sound of the word and like to keep repeating it -- but I can assure you that 90% of Pakistanis have never heard of, nor care about, strategic depth.

Anti-US sentiment is caused mainly due to US betrayal of trust in the past and unconditional US support for Israel and it's attendant anti-Muslim policies.

"...US media is still silent not presenting true picture of Afghanistan war may be because of control of stronge jew lobbies (AIPAC etc)"

OMG, 'dem dar Jews again...

AIPAC is the third most powerful lobby in D.C.
The US fought and lost soldiers in Lebanon and Iraq in wars which had nothing to do with US national interests and everything to do with Israeli interests.

The biggest fool is the fool who doesn't know he is being fooled.

The Danish newspaper that published the cartoons that started the most recent Muslim uprising, Jyllands-Posten, has published a call from some Muslims to their fellows.

These ex-Muslims (many of them openly profess to being no longer Muslims) are sellouts who have jumped on the profitable anti-Muslim bandwagon in the Western media. Anything for a buck!

Also, the Western hypocrisy about "freedom of speech" was exposed when the Iranians challenged them to publish cartoons mocking the Holocaust. Almost like a light switch turning off, most of these chatterboxes clamped up. When they finally managed to regain their composure, they published some muted cartoons about the Holocause after they had been approved by a panel of Rabbis.

Every culture has some subjects which are considered off-limits. Questioning any aspect of the Holocaust is a criminal offence in many European countries. Yet, the Western media takes perverse pleasure in deliberately provoking Muslim sensibilities. Just like it takes pleasure in mocking Christianity and Christians.

The point here is not to justify Holocaust denial or violent Muslim response to Western media provocation, but to point out the double standard and selective application of "freedom of speech" in Western countries.

The figure is closer to 35 billion dollars since 1947 if you add donations and contributions from US Citizens and corporations.

We acknowledge and appreciate the generosity of the US public and government over the years, but that does not in any way justify the taking of even one single innocent Pakistani life by US bombs. From the errant Tomahawks in the 90s to the drone attacks of late, the American arrogance that writes off dead brown people as acceptable "collateral damage" is precisely the attitude that fuels anti-American sentiment.

Just because we do not build memorials and hold ceremonies to honor our civilians killed by American fire does not mean their lives are any less valuable than the 2700 Americans killed on 9/11.

I have always favored a website that lists every single civilian victim of American terrorism (drone attacks). Their memory should not be forgotten and their lives not lost in vain. Lest we forget.

 

[Patriot]

Look DBT..There is no such thing as free meal.The aid was given so that our lands can be used against Soviet Union.Hell We gave you bases and in return Soviet threatened to Nuke entire Pakistan.We had incredibly pro America government and if you think America did not know about nuclear weapon program of Pakistan before sanctions came in then you're only kidding yourself.Ronald Regan knew well but hid to so that Soviet Afghan War can be fought and Soviets lose but let me add that Pakistanis too are responsible for this mess.We should have stayed neutral during Cold War or aligned with Soviet Union which was far more reliable ally then United States (Look how much Soviets helped India).Soviets would have never invaded Afghanistan if we were their ally.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Keep in mind that the US under Clinton pressed the Taliban for either expel al-Qaeda or turn over OBL and Co. And Clinton was US President for 8 yrs. The attack on US on Sept. 11, 2001 resulted in the first invasion of Afghanistan by Oct. 2001. Essentially, the US said we had enough. The Taliban was not willing to negotiate so we will no longer negotiate.

Here is the Geneva Conventions on the rights and responsibilities of supposedly neutral states when faced with belligerents...

The Avalon Project - Laws of War : Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers and Persons in Case of War on Land (Hague V); October 18, 1907
Yes...This is a given.

So say al-Qaeda and the US are belligerents in a conflict, if Canada wishes its territory to remain inviolate, then Canada must NOT allow articles 2 through 4 to occur on any territory under its sovereign control as in Article 5. If al-Qaeda covertly recruit in Canadian soil and the US found out, in the interests of maintaining good relations with Canada, the US would allow Canada to assert authority and prosecute al-Qaeda to comply with Article 5. But if Canada does nothing then in doing nothing Canada effectively abdicate sovereignty, or partial sovereignty, of Canadian territory to al-Qaeda and the US would have no choice but violate US-Canadian borders to pursue al-Qaeda in self-defence. If all al-Qaeda does on Canadian soil is to publish anti-US diatribes then Article 5 forbids the US to take any actions that could be construed to violate Article 1.

The Taliban does not need to have been in full cooperation with Osama bin Laden in executing the attack on US, or actively assisted al-Qaeda or even in planning the stages of the attack. Critics of the 'Bush Doctrine' missed the point that B43 did not create anything new, Bush merely put articles 2 through 4 of GC 5 in more blunt language. Those three articles said nothing about planning any act on behalf of one belligerent against the other. So if articles 2 through 4 are not obeyed, then article 1 is voided. The US does not require UN approval for violating Article 1 when Articles 2 through 4 were cast aside by the Taliban, even if the Taliban does nothing but acquiesced to al-Qaeda's demand for autonomy on Afghan soil.

This is the true reason why much of the world support US military response against the Taliban directly on Afghan soil, not because those governments of stable nation-states morally recoiled at the attack on US on Sept. 11, 2001. US allies realized that they are not immune to non-state belligerents using their associations with the US to attack them. I dare say most of their politicians are already sufficiently anti-US that they really do not care how many US citizens were killed on 9/11. Even the petty despots of the ME realized the threats to their countries based upon GC 5, hence their tepid responses to US 'aggression' on Afghanistan and why no one sent military support to the Taliban.

Was the following acted upon and OBL and his associates guilt established using proper legal procedure?

Reuters. 5 October 2001.

Taliban Say Ready to Try Bin Laden on Proof.

ISLAMABAD -- Afghanistan's ruling Taliban are prepared to put Osama bin
Laden on trial in an Afghan court if the United States provides solid
evidence against him, Afghan Ambassador to Pakistan Mullah Abdul Salam
Zaeef said on Friday.

"We are prepared to try him, if America provides solid evidence of Osama
bin Laden's involvement in attacks in New York and Washington," Zaeef
told Reuters.

Asked if the Taliban were prepared to allow a trial of bin Laden in
another country, h e said: "We are willing to talk about that, but the
first is that we must be given the evidence."

"If America is not satisfied with our trial of Osama, we are also ready
to find another Islamic way of trying him," the Afghan Islamic Press
(AIP) quoted him as saying.

When asked if the Taliban were ready to hand over bin Laden to the
United States, Zaeef told AIP: "This is a later thing, we cannot take
any step that hurts our Islamic or Afghan dignity."

Even as the Taliban stuck to their refusal to hand over a "guest" who
has sought sanctuary within their borders, diplomatic and military
maneuvers were closing in around the isolated puritanical movement.

The Taliban might still have a few days' breathing space to change their
minds on bin Laden.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was visiting their northern neighbor
Uzbekistan. His trip was shrouded in secrecy but was seen as a move to
strengthen ties with a country that could provide a likely base for
military strikes on the Taliban.

The United States has said it will not hand over evidence to the
Taliban, but insists it has enough put him on trial.

AIP said Zaeef had again offered talks to the United States saying: "War
is nothing but pain and death, blood does not wash blood, negotiations
are a good path and we can discuss all issues including Osama."

Washington has said there is nothing to discuss.
[R-G] Taliban Say Ready to Try Bin Laden on Proof

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Chairman of the US Chief of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen said America's trust deficit with Pakistan is quite low and that the US is "digging itself out of a hole that it dug into."

America had abandoned Pakistan for 12 years from 1990 to 2002 "so the trust deficent is pretty significant", Mullen claimed.

"This is a country that is a critical country. I believe we have to have a long-term partnership with, and we're just starting that," he said."
Pak critical country for US: Mullen

We walked away from Pakistan twice: Robert Gates

Friday, 14 Aug, 2009 | 10:15 AM PST |


WASHINGTON: Pakistani mistrust over US intentions has ‘some legitimacy’ since the United States has turned away from that country twice in the last three decades, and it will take time to win their confidence, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said on Thursday.

His comments came in response to a new Pew Research Center survey that found 64 per cent of Pakistanis see the United States as an enemy, but still 53 per cent wanted improved relations.

‘One of the reasons that the Pakistanis have concerns about us is that we walked away from them twice,’ Gates said at a news conference.

‘We walked away from them after the Soviets left Afghanistan, and we walked away from them through the 1990s, because of the Pressler amendment,’ he said, referring to US sanctions on Pakistan over its nuclear program.

Pakistanis ‘with some legitimacy’ question how long the United States is prepared to stay engaged and wonder whether the war in neighbouring Afghanistan is the only reason for current interest, Gates said.

‘So I think it’s going to take us some time to rebuild confidence of the Pakistani people that we are a long-term friend and ally of Pakistan,’ he said.

The United States considers Pakistan a key ally in its fight against al-Qaeda and Taliban extremists.

Unmanned US drones have been conducting strikes against extremist targets in the tribal regions of Pakistan that border the rugged mountains of Afghanistan.

Gates said he is considering visiting Pakistan in the next eight months. —Reuters
DAWN.COM | World | We walked away from Pakistan twice: Robert Gates

Recognition of past mistakes is a good start ...

 

[dbc]

Look DBT..There is no such thing as free meal.The aid was given so that our lands can be used against Soviet Union.Hell We gave you bases and in return Soviet threatened to Nuke entire Pakistan.We had incredibly pro America government and if you think America did not know about nuclear weapon program of Pakistan before sanctions came in then you're only kidding yourself.Ronald Regan knew well but hid to so that Soviet Afghan War can be fought and Soviets lose but let me add that Pakistanis too are responsible for this mess.We should have stayed neutral during Cold War or aligned with Soviet Union which was far more reliable ally then United States (Look how much Soviets helped India).Soviets would have never invaded Afghanistan if we were their ally.

Patriot, I spent the entire day yesterday reading every document I could find on US-Pakistan relationship. I am no longer naïve; Pakistan presented itself to the US as a pro-west ally in the early 50’s.

“Perhaps more than any other Pakistani, Ayub Khan was responsible for seeking and securing military and economic assistance from the United States and for aligning Pakistan with it in international affairs.” - U.S. Library of Congress

Please do not make it sound like you had a choice when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. You were anxious to do everything you possibly could to make the big bad bear, India’s BFF go away. Like Turkey, Pakistan enjoyed US protection under a mutual defense agreement signed in 1954, which likely deterred any Soviet misadventure.

aligned with Soviet Union which was far more reliable ally then United States (Look how much Soviets helped India)

You may be right; you should have allied with a nation that was not accountable to its citizens. A nation that did not have to worry about rule of law, a Congress or judiciary. The Soviet's no questions asked diplomacy was a better fit for you, blame Ayub Khan. But I wonder how your war(s) with India would've turned out had you fought with "state of the art" Soviet weapons and India on the other hand used American tech and tactics.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Pressler amendment was Pakistan specific

Exactly - Pakistan, an ostensible ally, that had supported the US and stuck to its part of the bargain in being an ally against Communism, gets singled out for this treatment. And not only do we have our money taken and equipment not delivered, we also get economic sanctions imposed on us. Pakistan was not a signatory to any treaty or agreement preventing it from developing nuclear arms - the decision to punish Pakistan militarily and economically was the US's alone, and it was a betrayal of trust by the US.

After reaching the agreement with President Clinton, your Prime Minister Mohammad Nawaz Sharif had this to say at a press conference “the F-16 dispute has been resolved to the satisfaction of Pakistan”. No accusations of “theft”, “fraud” or “betrayal of trust” – you obviously disagree; take it up with Mr Sharif.

At the point of resolution, no - but it was a betrayal, fraud and singling out of Pakistan when the US imposed sanctions on us.

It was your Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto and your officials that defrauded the American taxpayer off 6 billion $ in military sales and grants between 1982 and 1990 by pledging nuclear abstinence while being only a few screw driver turns away from a fully functional nuclear device.

You cannot be 'defrauded' out of goods sold to Pakistan provided you were paid for them. Nor can you use the argument that any aid or military sales during that period were solely because of some assurance that Pakistan would not develop nuclear weapons. That period was the time of Soviet intervention in Afghanistan, and the majority of that aid and military equipment sales were done to bolster Pakistan's position as an ally against the Soviets, as well as in carrying out the Afghan Jihad.

So you were defrauded out of nothing - your aid was for a purpose, otherwise the US wouldn't have given Pakistan the time of day. Brian Cloughley's book on the Pakistan Army (War, Coup and terror) explains in detail how hard it was for Pakistan to get the US to offer aid and military sales, starting from independence, with Pakistani military and political leaders having to work overtime to convince the US that Pakistan would be extremely useful as an ally against the Communist threat. No aid, barring humanitarian and relief, was given without strings attached and without an expectation that Pakistan would be a committed ally against Communism.

The figure is closer to 35 billion dollars since 1947 if you add donations and contributions from US Citizens and corporations.

Thanks for the charity, but it does not excuse US sanctions, military and economic, that weakened Pakistan economically and militarily and harmed both her national security and the prosperity of her people.

It really is in poor taste to expect someone you donate to to grovel in front of you and just blindly support you. Typically the objective of charitable donations is not to expect gratitude, or wave it in the face of those given charity. You did it willingly, no one forced you to. I think that harm the US has caused Pakistan's national security and interests, and the double standards it has applied (most recently with the nuclear deal for India) outweighs the charitable contributions by far.