What's new

US 'biggest' threat, say Pakistani Polls

Pakistan enjoyed US protection under a mutual defense agreement signed in 1954, which likely deterred any Soviet misadventure.

And on that note:

"Pakistan was rudely shocked by the reaction of the United States to the war. Judging the matter to be largely Pakistan s fault, the United States not only refused to come to Pakistan s aid under the terms of the Agreement of Cooperation, but issued a statement declaring its neutrality while also cutting off military supplies. The Pakistanis were embittered at what they considered a friend's betrayal, and the experience taught them to avoid relying on any single source of support. For its part, the United States was disillusioned by a war in which both sides used United States-supplied equipment."

Indo-Pakistan War of 1965

"The program of military assistance continued until the 1965 Indo-Pakistani War when President Lyndon B. Johnson placed an embargo on arms shipments to Pakistan and India. The United States embargo on arms shipments to Pakistan remained in place during the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 and was not lifted until 1975, during the administration of President Gerald R. Ford."
 
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.




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.
Yeah Yeah I am just going to ignore your rant about Soviet Union.As if US was any better then Soviet Union.The Vietnam War far exceeds crimes committed Soviet Union..Soviet's wanted good relations with Pakistan after 47 but it was us who turned to West.If we had sided with Soviets, they would have made sure that their allies don't fight each other and they had considerable influence over Indians to resolve Kashmir dispute in a way that it's not bad for either side.American tactics did not help us thanks to massive sanctions our machinery was not working well and we're not arabs.We know how to use war machinery..OTOH, India enjoyed weapons without sanctions from Soviets.You see Soviets were not anti Pakistani because we were muslim nation or anything but because we sided with West.If we had sided with Soviet Union after independence why would they be anti pakistani...?
 
@AM, just to be clear I fully accept that the United States is perceived as being a ‘fair weather friend’ not just by Pakistan but by several other countries. If you don’t mind, I first want to talk about the F-16 debacle before we move on to mutual defense agreement and the war of 1965.

@AM,
...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.

Do you agree or disagree that US assistance and military sales was contingent upon Pakistan not developing nuclear weapons?
 
Last edited:
@AM, just to be clear I fully accept that the United States is perceived as being a ‘fair weather friend’ not just by Pakistan but by several other countries. If you don’t mind, I first want to talk about the F-16 debacle before we move on to mutual defense agreement and the war of 1965.

Do you agree or disagree that US assistance and military sales was contingent upon Pakistan not developing nuclear weapons?

To answer your question I would need to look at the sales agreement, and whether it specified a halt to nuclear weapons development.
 
No one really took that offer by Omar to try his brother-in-law Osama as a serious one.

Why not? This was, IIRC, the first time the Taliban had relented in any significant way to offer a trial, without seeing any purported evidence from the US.

Their prior stance was that they would consider nothing related to OBL unless the US provided the GoA (Taliban regime) evidence, after which they woudl determine which course of action to take (trial or no trial).

So how can you argue a case of 'belligerents using the territory of a neutral power and the neutral power doing nothing to prevent them', when the guilt of the alleged belligerents was never proven to the neutral power, nor was the neutral power taken up on its offer to take to trial the alleged belligerents, either in Afghanistan or a mutually acceptable third nation.
 
To answer your question I would need to look at the sales agreement, and whether it specified a halt to nuclear weapons development.

Every US contract that I have ever read or signed had a clause similar to this "...shall comply with any and all applicable U.S. laws, including but not limited to U.S. export controls"
And in the case of the F-16’s, we’re talking about a law that came into existence in 1961. I am sure the F-16 contract has similar verbiage; in the absence of such wording GoP has every right to take legal action.

Benazir Bhutto and Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan are also partly responsible; Benazir for pursuing F-16’s in 1989 when she knew there was a real possibility of the world discovering Pakistan’s clandestine nuclear program and Dr AQ Khan for speaking out of turn to a London publication in 1987.

Finally, in the 80’s, perhaps true even today; Pakistan has disproportionately focused on just the US administration. The Congress, media and public opinion has been somewhat ignored. Take a page out of the Indian and Israeli playbook and see how they manipulate US policy. I know it’s easier to blame someone else; IMHO it was foolish to expect George Bush to risk his political career in his first term in office over F-16’s to Pakistan.
 
Last edited:
Finally, in the 80’s, perhaps true even today; Pakistani has disproportionately focused on just the US administration. The Congress, media and public opinion has been somewhat ignored. Take a page out of the Indian and Israeli playbook and see how they manipulate US policy. I know it’s easier to blame someone else; IMHO it was foolish to expect George Bush to risk his political career in his first term in office over F-16’s to Pakistan.

On that part I agree - in fact I was thinking of an appropriate way to start a thread on that subject, in the context of the statements by Sec. Gates and Adm. Mullen, and prior to that by SoS Clinton.

On the surface one would think that these statements indicate a sea change in US attitudes, a recognition of past wrongs and double standards, but while that recognition may indeed exist deeper than public statements in the administration, there is absolutely no reason to think that such a recognition indicates potential for a long term partnership, due to, in part, the issues you mentioned.

That is perhaps where Pakistani criticism of the Western press, in demonizing Pakistan with its constant horror stories and sensationalist tripe, along with accusations of US 'values and 'interests' essentially boiling down to money is correct IMO.

On the issue of the conditions in the sales agreement, what you say may be true in terms of the contract conditions, but I cannot say for certain until we dig it up.
 
That is perhaps where Pakistani criticism of the Western press, in demonizing Pakistan with its constant horror stories and sensationalist tripe, along with accusations of US 'values and 'interests' essentially boiling down to money is correct IMO.

What I mean by that is that if public opinion and lobbying groups representing business interests have significant clout in molding policy makers on Capitol Hill, then the Western press is guilty in running a non stop stream of scaremongering stories and what amounts to a vilification campaign against Pakistan and poisoning any chance of objective and fair policy.

And since the business opportunities presented by India already significantly overshadow Pakistan, and continue to exponentially grow, the resultant Indian clout on Capitol Hill will also continue to exponentially grow (US 'values and interests driven by money'), so the final policy prescriptions will not necessarily be objective and fair-minded in this situation either.

By the way, on the media issue, in the Pakistani media and its vilification of the US, in many cases, you see the mirror opposite of the Western media's campaign against Pakistan.

Of course Pakistan needs the US more than the US needs Pakistan, so such a battle of 'demonizing the other' has far more negative repercussions for Pakistan than it does for the US.
 
No one really took that offer by Omar to try his brother-in-law Osama as a serious one.
Why not? This was, IIRC, the first time the Taliban had relented in any significant way to offer a trial, without seeing any purported evidence from the US.

Their prior stance was that they would consider nothing related to OBL unless the US provided the GoA (Taliban regime) evidence, after which they woudl determine which course of action to take (trial or no trial).

So how can you argue a case of 'belligerents using the territory of a neutral power and the neutral power doing nothing to prevent them', when the guilt of the alleged belligerents was never proven to the neutral power, nor was the neutral power taken up on its offer to take to trial the alleged belligerents, either in Afghanistan or a mutually acceptable third nation.
Back in 1991, Sudan in a show of Islamic solidarity, allowed any muslim to enter sans visa. The result was the relocation of Osama bin Laden and effectively the al-Qaeda organization to Sudan. The US then placed Sudan on the list of states that sponsored terrorism. Sudan then began to negotiate with the US on how to remove itself off that list. But while all this was going on, negotiation with the US and still allowing any muslim to enter the country with no visas requirement, the Sudanese were monitoring Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda. Egyptian intelligence knew of this monitoring and the file created on Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda in Sudan.

After five years, Sudan offered to turn this file over to the US in return for removal off the list of states that sponsored terrorism. The US bungled this opportunity to hit al-Qaeda, which US intelligence believed, even to this day, is more valuable a target than Osama bin Laden himself. The highest officials of the US government from Dept of State, the FBI, the CIA and the National Security Council were completely thrown for a loop with EACH organization believed that it knew best on how to deal with Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda based upon its area of expertise. State was doubtful of Sudan's sudden turn to good gestures and wanted to continue diplomatic pressure and isolation. The FBI wanted access to the file to build a credible legal foundation to prosecute al-Qaeda operatives overseas with improved coordinations with other countries, allies or else. The CIA wanted access to the file to continue its own operations against al-Qaeda at the more organic level of the organization and Osama bin Laden factored low on that priority. The NSC wanted bin Laden himself as well as the file. It was a classic case of lack of leadership in a moment of sudden opportunity. All the while Egyptian intelligence was shaking its collective head at our ineptitude and indecisiveness. The US was under Clinton at that time, by the way.

In the end of that mess, the Sudanese decided to expel Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda and kept the file to themselves. Sudan also resume requiring visas to enter the country, being a muslim make no difference. The Sudanese learned a hard lesson.

Resentful west spurned Sudan's key terror files | World news | The Observer
The Observer, Sunday 30 September 2001 02.10 BST

On two separate occasions, they were given an opportunity to extradite or interview key bin Laden operatives who had been arrested in Africa because they appeared to be planning terrorist atrocities.

None of the offers, made regularly from the start of 1995, was taken up. One senior CIA source admitted last night: 'This represents the worst single intelligence failure in this whole terrible business. It is the key to the whole thing right now. It is reasonable to say that had we had this data we may have had a better chance of preventing the attacks.'

They also kept his followers under close surveillance. One US source who has seen the files on bin Laden's men in Khartoum said some were 'an inch and a half thick'.

'We know them in detail,' said one Sudanese source. 'We know their leaders, how they implement their policies, how they plan for the future. We have tried to feed this information to American and British intelligence so they can learn how this thing can be tackled.'
So even though we royally screwed up on al-Qaeda, based on what the intelligence services of Sudan, Egypt and Britain knew, no one really believe that Mullah Omar would sacrifice his brother-in-law, especially when he saw how idiotic we were when Osama bin Laden was not under his protection in Sudan and came very close to being in a US prison cell.

Sudan was a nominally a 'neutral' power and the Sudanese were aware of the consequences of being involved in a hostile situation between two belligerents: US and al-Qaeda. Finally, Sudan acted the way neutral powers supposed to act by expelling Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda then took away all of bin Laden's money he accumulated in Sudan. No one really believe that Mullah Omar did not know what Osama bin Laden was planning for US while in Afghanistan.
 
"...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...:devil:

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


what anti-semitism?


are you telling me that i do not have the right to call a spade a spade?

is this really coming from an advocate from the "land of the free"?


that is quite ironic.







this talk of aid is misguided.

if american was so gracious towards pakistan it would help create trade between pakistan and the west, this is far more valuble than aid, moreso when you consider the enormous strategic help pakistan has given the us - in terms of people, politcal/military support etc etc

this poll is a reflection of that fact, america in one way or another damages pakistan a hell of alot, it goes to show what regard westerners have of non-western lives when they can talk about little scraps of aid as being some sort of compensation for the cost pakistan has incurred.
 
Here is an interesting article from the Washington Post.

Anti-U.S. Wave Imperiling Efforts in Pakistan, Officials Say

By Karen DeYoung and Pamela Constable
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, September 25, 2009

A new wave of anti-American sentiment in Pakistan has slowed the arrival of hundreds of U.S. civilian and military officials charged with implementing assistance programs, undermined cooperation in the fight against al-Qaeda and the Taliban and put American lives at risk, according to officials from both countries.

In recent weeks, Pakistan has rejected as "incomplete" at least 180 U.S. government visa requests. Its own ambassador in Washington has criticized what he called a "blacklist" used by the Pakistani intelligence service to deny visas or to conduct "rigorous, intrusive and obviously crude surveillance" of journalists and nongovernmental aid organizations it dislikes, including the Congress-funded International Republican Institute and National Democratic Institute.

"It would be helpful if the grounds for action against them are shared with the Embassy," Ambassador Husain Haqqani wrote in late July to Pakistan's Foreign Ministry and the head of its Inter-Services Intelligence.

Tension has been fueled by widespread media reports in Pakistan of increased U.S. military and intelligence activity -- including the supposed arrival of 1,000 Marines and the establishment of "spy" centers in houses rented by the U.S. Embassy in the capital, Islamabad. U.S. Ambassador Anne W. Patterson has publicly labeled the reports false, and she told local media executives in a recent letter that publishing addresses and photographs of the houses "endanger the lives of Americans in Pakistan."

At the highest levels, bilateral cooperation is said to be running smoothly. President Obama and Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari met Thursday in New York with a gathering of Pakistan's international "friends." With Obama's enthusiastic support, the Senate on Thursday approved a $7.5 billion, five-year package that will triple nonmilitary aid to Pakistan. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, meets regularly with his Pakistani counterpart, Gen. Ashfaq Kiyani.

But just below the top, officials in Islamabad and Washington say, the relationship is fraught with mutual suspicion and is under pressure so extreme that it threatens cooperation against the insurgents.

"We recognize that Pakistani public opinion on the United States is still surprisingly low, given the tremendous effort by the United States to lead an international coalition in support of Pakistan," Richard C. Holbrooke, the administration's special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, said after Thursday's meetings. "We are a long way from this meeting to realities on the ground."

As Obama grapples with U.S. military proposals to greatly increase the number of American troops fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan, other options on the table include a stepped-up counterterrorism campaign against al-Qaeda strongholds in Pakistan that would require more -- rather than less -- Pakistani support.

Recent Pew Research Center surveys in Pakistan found considerable support for the "idea" of working with the United States to combat terrorism. But only 16 percent of Pakistanis polled expressed a favorable view overall of the United States, and only 13 percent expressed confidence in Obama.

Pakistanis, who are extremely sensitive about national sovereignty, oppose allowing foreign troops on their soil and have protested U.S. missile attacks launched from unmanned aircraft against suspected Taliban and al-Qaeda targets inside Pakistan.

Much of the recent upheaval has focused on U.S. plans to expand the U.S. Embassy complex in Islamabad, a heavily guarded, 38-acre compound with nearly 1,500 employees, two-thirds of them Pakistani nationals. About 400 employees are to be added, half of them Americans. Reports of the expansion have led to rumors that at least 1,000 Marines also would be arriving, along with new contingents of U.S. spies.

In addition to repeatedly denying ulterior motives, the embassy has held news briefings and invited Pakistani reporters to tour its grounds. Patterson appeared on local television on Saturday to reiterate that Washington has no takeover desires and that there are only eight Marines in the country, guarding the main embassy building.

Patterson also denied local media reports that the embassy has hired Blackwater, the security agency now known as Xe Services that was discredited in Iraq, to spy on and seek to kill insurgent leaders. Those reports apparently originated with U.S. media accounts this summer that the CIA had hired Blackwater to assist in a worldwide assassination program against al-Qaeda that was never activated and no longer exists.

One of the most vocal critics is security analyst and newspaper columnist Shireen Mazari, praised by supporters as a champion of Pakistan's independence. Patterson's Aug. 27 letter to Mir Shakil-ur-Rahman, head of the media group that owns the News newspaper and Geo Television, complained that Mazari's column and talk shows had made "wildly incorrect" charges that could endanger Americans' safety. In particular, Patterson objected to Mazari's "baseless and inaccurate allegation" that Washington-based Creative Associates International, a contractor for the U.S. Agency for International Development with offices in Africa, Central Asia and the Middle East, was a "CIA front-company."

In a telephone interview Sunday, Mazari said: "I definitely have concerns about the Americans' intentions here, especially that they would like to get access to our nuclear assets. The U.S. mind-set is suspicious of strong Muslim states, and there is a certain imperial arrogance in their behavior that Pakistanis like me don't like."

Many Pakistanis see the United States as the latest in a long line of usurpers. "It's like history repeating itself, from the time the East India Company came out here," Mazhar Salim, 52, a phone-booth operator in Islamabad, said last weekend. "We are a Muslim country, and the non-Muslim world, the Americans and the Jews and the Indians, are all threatened by our civilization."

U.S. and Pakistani officials, who agreed to discuss the relationship on the condition of anonymity, said that much of the anti-Americanism reflected jousting among Pakistani politicians and retired military leaders, who often use the media to discredit one another.

Haqqani, the Pakistani ambassador, is a frequent target, accused of being too pro-American or, more recently, even pro-Indian. His letter asking for an explanation of visa denials was first leaked to the Indian media, arousing suspicion that a foe of the government had sought to doubly discredit him.

But even those Pakistani officials who criticize the intelligence service's "blacklist" say that the delay in issuing official visas is as much the United States' fault as it is Pakistan's.

Many more visa applications have been approved than rejected, one official said, and those sent back are "usually the ones without a clear description on the forms about what they're going to do" in Pakistan. "Sometimes the forms just say 'work for the U.S. government.' All we've done is returned those forms and said, 'Hey, what are you going to do?' "

Constable reported from Islamabad. Staff writer Glenn Kessler in New York contributed to this report.
 
Pakistanis cite US as biggest threat because US is a powerful nation.

India is the least trusted nation in Pakistan, but Pakistan dont cite India as a threat because India is not powerful, it doesnt even have an influence in the subcontinent.
 
Here is an interesting article from the Washington Post.

Anti-U.S. Wave Imperiling Efforts in Pakistan, Officials Say

By Karen DeYoung and Pamela Constable
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, September 25, 2009

A new wave of anti-American sentiment in Pakistan has slowed the arrival of hundreds of U.S. civilian and military officials charged with implementing assistance programs, undermined cooperation in the fight against al-Qaeda and the Taliban and put American lives at risk, according to officials from both countries.

In recent weeks, Pakistan has rejected as "incomplete" at least 180 U.S. government visa requests. Its own ambassador in Washington has criticized what he called a "blacklist" used by the Pakistani intelligence service to deny visas or to conduct "rigorous, intrusive and obviously crude surveillance" of journalists and nongovernmental aid organizations it dislikes, including the Congress-funded International Republican Institute and National Democratic Institute.

"It would be helpful if the grounds for action against them are shared with the Embassy," Ambassador Husain Haqqani wrote in late July to Pakistan's Foreign Ministry and the head of its Inter-Services Intelligence.

Tension has been fueled by widespread media reports in Pakistan of increased U.S. military and intelligence activity -- including the supposed arrival of 1,000 Marines and the establishment of "spy" centers in houses rented by the U.S. Embassy in the capital, Islamabad. U.S. Ambassador Anne W. Patterson has publicly labeled the reports false, and she told local media executives in a recent letter that publishing addresses and photographs of the houses "endanger the lives of Americans in Pakistan."

At the highest levels, bilateral cooperation is said to be running smoothly. President Obama and Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari met Thursday in New York with a gathering of Pakistan's international "friends." With Obama's enthusiastic support, the Senate on Thursday approved a $7.5 billion, five-year package that will triple nonmilitary aid to Pakistan. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, meets regularly with his Pakistani counterpart, Gen. Ashfaq Kiyani.

But just below the top, officials in Islamabad and Washington say, the relationship is fraught with mutual suspicion and is under pressure so extreme that it threatens cooperation against the insurgents.

"We recognize that Pakistani public opinion on the United States is still surprisingly low, given the tremendous effort by the United States to lead an international coalition in support of Pakistan," Richard C. Holbrooke, the administration's special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, said after Thursday's meetings. "We are a long way from this meeting to realities on the ground."

As Obama grapples with U.S. military proposals to greatly increase the number of American troops fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan, other options on the table include a stepped-up counterterrorism campaign against al-Qaeda strongholds in Pakistan that would require more -- rather than less -- Pakistani support.

Recent Pew Research Center surveys in Pakistan found considerable support for the "idea" of working with the United States to combat terrorism. But only 16 percent of Pakistanis polled expressed a favorable view overall of the United States, and only 13 percent expressed confidence in Obama.

Pakistanis, who are extremely sensitive about national sovereignty, oppose allowing foreign troops on their soil and have protested U.S. missile attacks launched from unmanned aircraft against suspected Taliban and al-Qaeda targets inside Pakistan.

Much of the recent upheaval has focused on U.S. plans to expand the U.S. Embassy complex in Islamabad, a heavily guarded, 38-acre compound with nearly 1,500 employees, two-thirds of them Pakistani nationals. About 400 employees are to be added, half of them Americans. Reports of the expansion have led to rumors that at least 1,000 Marines also would be arriving, along with new contingents of U.S. spies.

In addition to repeatedly denying ulterior motives, the embassy has held news briefings and invited Pakistani reporters to tour its grounds. Patterson appeared on local television on Saturday to reiterate that Washington has no takeover desires and that there are only eight Marines in the country, guarding the main embassy building.

Patterson also denied local media reports that the embassy has hired Blackwater, the security agency now known as Xe Services that was discredited in Iraq, to spy on and seek to kill insurgent leaders. Those reports apparently originated with U.S. media accounts this summer that the CIA had hired Blackwater to assist in a worldwide assassination program against al-Qaeda that was never activated and no longer exists.

One of the most vocal critics is security analyst and newspaper columnist Shireen Mazari, praised by supporters as a champion of Pakistan's independence. Patterson's Aug. 27 letter to Mir Shakil-ur-Rahman, head of the media group that owns the News newspaper and Geo Television, complained that Mazari's column and talk shows had made "wildly incorrect" charges that could endanger Americans' safety. In particular, Patterson objected to Mazari's "baseless and inaccurate allegation" that Washington-based Creative Associates International, a contractor for the U.S. Agency for International Development with offices in Africa, Central Asia and the Middle East, was a "CIA front-company."

In a telephone interview Sunday, Mazari said: "I definitely have concerns about the Americans' intentions here, especially that they would like to get access to our nuclear assets. The U.S. mind-set is suspicious of strong Muslim states, and there is a certain imperial arrogance in their behavior that Pakistanis like me don't like."

Many Pakistanis see the United States as the latest in a long line of usurpers. "It's like history repeating itself, from the time the East India Company came out here," Mazhar Salim, 52, a phone-booth operator in Islamabad, said last weekend. "We are a Muslim country, and the non-Muslim world, the Americans and the Jews and the Indians, are all threatened by our civilization."

U.S. and Pakistani officials, who agreed to discuss the relationship on the condition of anonymity, said that much of the anti-Americanism reflected jousting among Pakistani politicians and retired military leaders, who often use the media to discredit one another.

Haqqani, the Pakistani ambassador, is a frequent target, accused of being too pro-American or, more recently, even pro-Indian. His letter asking for an explanation of visa denials was first leaked to the Indian media, arousing suspicion that a foe of the government had sought to doubly discredit him.

But even those Pakistani officials who criticize the intelligence service's "blacklist" say that the delay in issuing official visas is as much the United States' fault as it is Pakistan's.

Many more visa applications have been approved than rejected, one official said, and those sent back are "usually the ones without a clear description on the forms about what they're going to do" in Pakistan. "Sometimes the forms just say 'work for the U.S. government.' All we've done is returned those forms and said, 'Hey, what are you going to do?' "

Constable reported from Islamabad. Staff writer Glenn Kessler in New York contributed to this report.


A good read. For the last line i believe we are very much justified in returning incomplete forms or those that just say working for the US government. A country with a huge list of shady polices is it too much to as" Hey what are you going to do?" I for one believe we need even more tighten out visa obtaining process for countries who have a long shady history with Pakistan.
By the way isnt this exactly what the US does with Pakistani and to a whole new level, why whine when we do the same.
 
Back
Top Bottom