Indus Pakistan
BANNED
- Joined
- May 7, 2012
- Messages
- 20,487
- Reaction score
- 182
- Country
- Location
Elaborate please ....
US Government vs Congress: Sale of F16s to Pakistan
- Thread starter Zahoor Raja-Jani
- Start date
Vapnope
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2015
- Messages
- 6,646
- Reaction score
- 15
- Country
- Location
So you are telling me that Afghan Airforce also has expertise in fly F-16 just like Pakistan airforce does?
Indus Pakistan
BANNED
- Joined
- May 7, 2012
- Messages
- 20,487
- Reaction score
- 182
- Country
- Location
Taliban Combat team
US combat patrol
Clue - Differant forces. Differant strategies. Differant threat profiles. And here is comparison between India and Pak navies.
Very legit.
Another comparison.
Yep. Even more legitimate. And before you cry India has differant threat profiles well the same is applicable to comparing Afghan/Pak.
Last edited:
weqi
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2012
- Messages
- 310
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
INDIAN S-400 FOR WHICH PURPOSE ????
airmarshal
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2010
- Messages
- 9,361
- Reaction score
- 11
- Country
- Location
F-16 is still among the best planes in the world. The problem is US is finding new alignment in our region where its compulsion is prop India against China. India is more than willing play a pawn in the imperial game.
Its inevitable, no matter how hard Indians try to portray themselves as a power, India's benefit comes at Pakistan's expense.
Its inevitable, no matter how hard Indians try to portray themselves as a power, India's benefit comes at Pakistan's expense.
weqi
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2012
- Messages
- 310
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
PAKISTAN BETTER KNOWS THIS REGION OF AFGHANISTAN AS COMPARED TO INDIA
Paksanity
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2014
- Messages
- 2,376
- Reaction score
- 40
- Country
- Location
And how do you compare role of PAF vs AfAF? Who has been more effective?
Or let's just say pay 'cost' to get it. How does that sound?
IceCold
PDF VETERAN
- Joined
- May 1, 2007
- Messages
- 19,236
- Reaction score
- 10
- Country
- Location
Please cry in front of the Americans who consider it legit. Besides don't compare Afghan air force with PAF. They are still in their infancy, they could not handle anything advance yet alone an F-16. Rest assured if they could they would have asked for something similar.
Bratva
PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2010
- Messages
- 13,832
- Reaction score
- 67
- Country
- Location
RIP the logic and facts in this post.
Which aircraft killed Abu Musaab al Zarqaawi in Iraq ?
Whenever USA troops gets jammed up in an ambush in afghanistan or in IRAQ, which aircraft gets for airsupport ?
Which aircrafts are bombing ISIS in Syria ?
What MNNA says about America financing deals of the MNNA partners ?
I mean if someone wants to use little commonsense, he will not bring Super tucano or buy arguments in a debate.
Those who live in Glass house should not throw stones at others. Congress first itself should cease all contacts with Afghan taliban and Haqqani networks and then preach others for taking actions against them.
Immortan.Joe
BANNED
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2016
- Messages
- 270
- Reaction score
- -3
- Country
- Location
Reap the article posted as OP
US has not refused to sell F-16s to Pak, it has only defunded this deal demanding that Pakistan "do more" ie target those terrorist groups also that do not target Pakistan. Pakistan is free to buy F-16s by cash, just not be US taxpayer's money without delivering results on terrorism front.
Similarly US has with-held aid in order to get Shakeel Afridid release.
Both these acts are a testament to US diminishing interest in Afghanistan and subsequent loss of leverage of Pakistan in USA. With less than 8000 US soldiers in Afghanistan ,most of them being in advisory role, USA does not need any supply route to Afghanistan via Pakistan, and since US soldiers are not in combat role, targeting them using Taliban is difficult, thus US is winding down its dole program for Pakistan. Indian lobby play a a very small role in this. Anyone who think that USA became sole superpower by letting foreign lobbies influence its foreign policy is deluded.
True.
Everything has a cost, and even dole is not truly free. Either you pay with money, or you pay with favours, thus cost is a correct term rather than money to use in defence deals.
All-Green
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2008
- Messages
- 1,824
- Reaction score
- 5
- Country
- Location
I am a bit surprised as to the illogical criticism on Pakistan's stance here and more so on the complete disregard of the historical background and key drivers of our war against terrorists.
Being a Major Ally, Pakistan is entitled to push for the sale through the previously agreed Financial Formula.
These jets have been an integral component of our precision strikes and will certainly never tilt the balance of "offensive" power in PAF's favor with respect to IAF.
Our economy has suffered a lot due to the major fallout of this complex War; while terrorism and militancy would always have been a threat to us, the nature of this threat has become much more dire in a post US invasion era.
Regarding the diversion of this thread into the complex dynamics of the War on Terror and its
ownership/cost/repercussions...I think blaming Pakistan for not doing enough is something quite ridiculous in context of the background of this rampant militancy and global terrorism.
If we all educate ourselves on the events leading up to the Taliban and Al-Qaeda dominated Afghanistan, the major cause is the original Afghan Jihad and associated support operations. We all know that waging this Jihad was not possible without extensive US interests and active involvement in all aspects.
However, the key question remains as to the US plan regarding this region once the Soviets were defeated?
What of the global Jihad infrastructure which was developed to defeat Soviet Union?
Did US expect these militants to disappear, especially since many imported fighters were really not wanted back by their countries of origin?
After decades of devastation in Afghanistan and a huge influx of refugees creating many complexities for Pakistan, what was invested in terms of time and money to uplift the downtrodden victims of this war, in a post Soviet era?
Whereas Pakistan easily gets blamed for everything wrong, there is no real accountability for the overall impact USA had on this region once the Soviet troops retreated.
If we base everything on results then what has the USA achieved in terms of stabilizing Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan etc.?
Considering its active involvement in Afghanistan since the 80's...should we not expect USA to own the mess as well and give much more credit to Pakistan which has had to support this War despite dealing with the extremist consequences of the previous US actions.
Ironically the products of the Global Jihad which was actively setup by the USA are the biggest opponents of USA and many have evolved into the commanders of current Taliban and even helped create Al-Qaeda...
What to talk about a little old country like Pakistan when we see the US role as well!
Pakistan is a third world country which was transitioning from Zia's tyrannical era to a highly insecure and immature democracy. It certainly did not focus on ensuring that the fallout of the Afghan Jihad is controlled effectively, however it was certainly not possible to control all of it in isolation from its former Ally. So Pakistan dealt with whoever was able to stabilize Afghanistan, not as a tool to antagonize Afghans but to help stabilize itself.
I do not agree with many aspects of our foreign and internal policies but I also should not be unwilling to realize the limits of our capabilities and many complexities which are ignored as trivial!
Despite this; in post 9/11 scenario, which country captured or neutralized the largest number of Al Qaeda?
You cannot just dismiss all that Pakistan has done as a drama. There was a real effort and there was a cost we paid as well...in lives, economic regression, extremism due to anti US reaction...
Pakistan has played a major role, just like during Soviet invasion of Afghanistan it helped so many Refugees and cooperated with USA in a strategic partnership. However, it was readily dumped as soon as the primary US interest fizzled out with weakening of Soviet Union. Pakistan was not engaged but abandoned and this has not helped the entire region.
It is in Pakistan's interest to see a stable Afghanistan and the perception of meddling can be corrected if the factual position is accepted. US and Afghanistan have also been pushing for dialogues with Afghan Taliban, when things do not go well; suddenly fingers are pointed at Pakistan.
We should know that Afghan Taliban are not servants of Pakistan and we can only do so much to bring them to the table, if that is possible...
Whether Taliban are brought to the table or not, without a strong and long term US commitment to this region in terms of normalizing Pakistan Afghanistan relationship and meaningful investment of resources to facilitate development, we shall not see the stability which is required to address extremism and usher in a more prosperous era.
My objective is to merely highlight the fact that there is a lot of fair criticism due towards each party, just making one the punching bag is extremely unfair.
Cooperation is needed here more than ever.
Being a Major Ally, Pakistan is entitled to push for the sale through the previously agreed Financial Formula.
These jets have been an integral component of our precision strikes and will certainly never tilt the balance of "offensive" power in PAF's favor with respect to IAF.
Our economy has suffered a lot due to the major fallout of this complex War; while terrorism and militancy would always have been a threat to us, the nature of this threat has become much more dire in a post US invasion era.
Regarding the diversion of this thread into the complex dynamics of the War on Terror and its
ownership/cost/repercussions...I think blaming Pakistan for not doing enough is something quite ridiculous in context of the background of this rampant militancy and global terrorism.
If we all educate ourselves on the events leading up to the Taliban and Al-Qaeda dominated Afghanistan, the major cause is the original Afghan Jihad and associated support operations. We all know that waging this Jihad was not possible without extensive US interests and active involvement in all aspects.
However, the key question remains as to the US plan regarding this region once the Soviets were defeated?
What of the global Jihad infrastructure which was developed to defeat Soviet Union?
Did US expect these militants to disappear, especially since many imported fighters were really not wanted back by their countries of origin?
After decades of devastation in Afghanistan and a huge influx of refugees creating many complexities for Pakistan, what was invested in terms of time and money to uplift the downtrodden victims of this war, in a post Soviet era?
Whereas Pakistan easily gets blamed for everything wrong, there is no real accountability for the overall impact USA had on this region once the Soviet troops retreated.
If we base everything on results then what has the USA achieved in terms of stabilizing Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan etc.?
Considering its active involvement in Afghanistan since the 80's...should we not expect USA to own the mess as well and give much more credit to Pakistan which has had to support this War despite dealing with the extremist consequences of the previous US actions.
Ironically the products of the Global Jihad which was actively setup by the USA are the biggest opponents of USA and many have evolved into the commanders of current Taliban and even helped create Al-Qaeda...
What to talk about a little old country like Pakistan when we see the US role as well!
Pakistan is a third world country which was transitioning from Zia's tyrannical era to a highly insecure and immature democracy. It certainly did not focus on ensuring that the fallout of the Afghan Jihad is controlled effectively, however it was certainly not possible to control all of it in isolation from its former Ally. So Pakistan dealt with whoever was able to stabilize Afghanistan, not as a tool to antagonize Afghans but to help stabilize itself.
I do not agree with many aspects of our foreign and internal policies but I also should not be unwilling to realize the limits of our capabilities and many complexities which are ignored as trivial!
Despite this; in post 9/11 scenario, which country captured or neutralized the largest number of Al Qaeda?
You cannot just dismiss all that Pakistan has done as a drama. There was a real effort and there was a cost we paid as well...in lives, economic regression, extremism due to anti US reaction...
Pakistan has played a major role, just like during Soviet invasion of Afghanistan it helped so many Refugees and cooperated with USA in a strategic partnership. However, it was readily dumped as soon as the primary US interest fizzled out with weakening of Soviet Union. Pakistan was not engaged but abandoned and this has not helped the entire region.
It is in Pakistan's interest to see a stable Afghanistan and the perception of meddling can be corrected if the factual position is accepted. US and Afghanistan have also been pushing for dialogues with Afghan Taliban, when things do not go well; suddenly fingers are pointed at Pakistan.
We should know that Afghan Taliban are not servants of Pakistan and we can only do so much to bring them to the table, if that is possible...
Whether Taliban are brought to the table or not, without a strong and long term US commitment to this region in terms of normalizing Pakistan Afghanistan relationship and meaningful investment of resources to facilitate development, we shall not see the stability which is required to address extremism and usher in a more prosperous era.
My objective is to merely highlight the fact that there is a lot of fair criticism due towards each party, just making one the punching bag is extremely unfair.
Cooperation is needed here more than ever.
Last edited:
MilSpec
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2011
- Messages
- 12,931
- Reaction score
- 38
- Country
- Location
Sure, then shouldn't Afghn air force be "getting" F16's?
Taliban Combat team
US combat patrol
Clue - Differant forces. Differant strategies. Differant threat profiles. And here is comparison between India and Pak navies.
Very legit.
Another comparison.
Yep. Even more legitimate. And before you cry India has differant threat profiles well the same is applicable to comparing Afghan/Pak.
No disagreements there, go ahead and buy whatever you want. again keyword being "buy"
In this given case, the threat that this platform is advertised to combat is exactly the same - Taliban, right?
MilSpec
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2011
- Messages
- 12,931
- Reaction score
- 38
- Country
- Location
No problem with that, but then US government should not lie to their tax payers, and say that it want's to arm Pakistan against India with US taxpayer money.
I am not sure what you mean by "acre" as a noun, but we will buy it when we have the money to "buy it".Why you Indian acre if we get free.....why u r A$$ is on fire...
and Let me know when u r going to BUY Rafale
MilSpec
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2011
- Messages
- 12,931
- Reaction score
- 38
- Country
- Location
My issue has nothing to do with capabilities of PAF or AAF. It is quite simple, US is trying to arm Pakistan with US taxpayer money,
Are f16's great A2g platforms - Absolutely yes.
Are F16's great A2A and Maritime platforms - A resounding yes.
Does Taliban have any air assets - No.
By subsidizing military capital equipment which will be most definitely be used against India, US is basically arming Pakistan against India. And all I am asking that US tax payers should know what exactly they are subsidizing and against whom.
Similar threads
