Why America is hated in the Middle-east?
- Thread starter A.Rahman
- Start date
- Status
Obama goes to the dogs. All his talk about change is BS after going even farther than what those, who have never talked about change have done.
OPINION: Troubled peace Uri Avnery
The transparent fawning of Obama on the Israel lobby stands out more than similar efforts by the other candidates. Why? Because his dizzying success in the primaries was entirely due to his promise to bring about a change
After months of a tough and bitter race, a merciless struggle, Barack Obama has defeated his formidable opponent, Hillary Clinton. He has wrought a miracle: for the first time in history a black person has become a credible candidate for the presidency of the most powerful country in the world.
And what was the first thing he did after his astounding victory? He ran to the conference of the Israel lobby, AIPAC, and made a speech that broke all records for obsequiousness and fawning.
That is shocking enough. Even more shocking is the fact that nobody was shocked.
It was a triumphalist conference. Even this powerful organisation had never seen anything like it. 7000 Jewish functionaries from all over the United States came together to accept the obeisance of the entire Washington elite, which came to kowtow at their feet. All the three presidential hopefuls made speeches, trying to outdo each other in flattery. 300 Senators and Members of Congress crowded the hallways. Everybody who wants to be elected or reelected to any office, indeed everybody who has any political ambitions at all, came to see and be seen.
The Washington of AIPAC is like the Constantinople of the Byzantine emperors in its heyday.
The world looked on and was filled with wonderment. The Israeli media were ecstatic. In all the worlds capitals the events were followed closely and conclusions were drawn. All the Arab media reported on them extensively. Aljazeera devoted an hour to a discussion of the phenomenon.
The most extreme conclusions of professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt were confirmed in their entirety. On the eve of their visit to Israel, this coming Thursday, the Israel Lobby stood at the center of political life in the US and the world at large.
Why, actually? Why do the candidates for the American presidency believe that the Israel lobby is so absolutely essential to their being elected?
The Jewish votes are important, of course, especially in several swing states which may decide the outcome. But African-Americans have more votes, and so do the Hispanics. Obama has brought to the political scene millions of new young voters. Numerically, the Arab-Muslim community in the US is also not an insignificant factor.
Some say that Jewish money speaks. The Jews are rich. Perhaps they donate more than others for political causes. But the myth about all-powerful Jewish money has an anti-Semitic ring. After all, other lobbies, and most decidedly the huge multinational corporations, have given considerable sums of money to Obama (as well as to his opponents). And Obama himself has proudly announced that hundreds of thousands of ordinary citizens have sent him small donations, which have amounted to tens of millions.
True, it has been proven that the Jewish lobby can almost always block the election of a senator or a member of Congress who does not dance and do so with fervor to the Israeli tune. In some exemplary cases (which were indeed meant to be seen as examples) the lobby has defeated popular politicians by lending its political and financial clout to the election campaign of a practically unknown rival.
But in a presidential race?
The transparent fawning of Obama on the Israel lobby stands out more than similar efforts by the other candidates.
Why? Because his dizzying success in the primaries was entirely due to his promise to bring about a change, to put an end to the rotten practices of Washington and to replace the old cynics with a young, brave person who does not compromise his principles.
And lo and behold, the very first thing he does after securing the nomination of his party is to compromise his principles. And how!
The outstanding thing that distinguishes him from both Hillary Clinton and John McCain is his uncompromising opposition to the war in Iraq from the very first moment. That was courageous. That was unpopular. That was totally opposed to the Israel lobby, all of whose branches were fervidly pushing George Bush to start the war that freed Israel from a hostile regime.
And here comes Obama to crawl in the dust at the feet of AIPAC and go out of his way to justify a policy that completely negates his own ideas.
OK he promises to safeguard Israels security at any cost. That is usual. OK he threatens darkly against Iran, even though he promised to meet their leaders and settle all problems peacefully. OK he promised to bring back our three captured soldiers (believing, mistakenly, that all three are held by Hizbullah an error that shows, by the way, how sketchy is his knowledge of our affairs.)
But his declaration about Jerusalem breaks all bounds. It is no exaggeration to call it scandalous.
No Palestinian, no Arab, no Muslim will make peace with Israel if the Haram-al-Sharif compound (also called the Temple Mount), one of the three holiest places of Islam and the most outstanding symbol of Palestinian nationalism, is not transferred to Palestinian sovereignty. That is one of the core issues of the conflict.
On that very issue, the Camp David conference of 2000 broke up, even though the then Prime Minister, Ehud Barak, was willing to divide Jerusalem in some manner.
Along comes Obama and retrieves from the junkyard the outworn slogan Undivided Jerusalem, the Capital of Israel for all Eternity. Since Camp David, all Israeli governments have understood that this mantra constitutes an insurmountable obstacle to any peace process. It has disappeared quietly, almost secretly from the arsenal of official slogans. Only the Israeli (and American-Jewish) Right sticks to it, and for the same reason: to smother at birth any chance for a peace that would necessitate the dismantling of the settlements.
In prior US presidential races, the pandering candidates thought that it was enough to promise that the US embassy would be moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. After being elected, not one of the candidates ever did anything about this promise. All were persuaded by the State Department that it would harm basic American interests.
Obama went much further. Quite possibly, this was only lip service and he was telling himself: OK, I must say this in order to get elected. After that, God is great.
But even so the fact cannot be ignored: the fear of AIPAC is so terrible, that even this candidate, who promises change in all matters, does not dare. In this matter he accepts the worst old-style Washington routine. He is prepared to sacrifice the most basic American interests. After all, the US has a vital interest in achieving an Israeli-Palestinian peace that will allow it to find ways to the hearts of the Arab masses from Iraq to Morocco. Obama has harmed his image in the Muslim world and mortgaged his future if and when he is elected president.
What has caused the dizzying ascent to power of the American Jewish establishment? Organisational talent? Money? Climbing the social ladder? Shame for their lack of zeal during the Holocaust?
The more I think about this wondrous phenomenon, the stronger becomes my conviction (about which I have already written in the past) that what really matters is the similarity between the American enterprise and the Zionist one, both in the spiritual and the practical sphere. Israel is a small America, the USA is a huge Israel.
The Mayflower passengers, much as the Zionists of the first and second aliya (immigration wave), fled from Europe, carrying in their hearts a messianic vision, either religious or utopian. (True, the early Zionists were mostly atheists, but religious traditions had a powerful influence on their vision.) The founders of American society were pilgrims, the Zionists immigrants called themselves olim short for olim beregel, pilgrims. Both sailed to a promised land, believing themselves to be Gods chosen people.
Both suffered a great deal in their new country. Both saw themselves as pioneers, who make the wilderness bloom, a people without land in a land without people. Both completely ignored the rights of the indigenous people, whom they considered sub-human savages and murderers. Both saw the natural resistance of the local peoples as evidence of their innate murderous character, which justified even the worst atrocities. Both expelled the natives and took possession of their land as the most natural thing to do, settling on every hill and under every tree, with one hand on the plow and the Bible in the other.
How is it that a man like Obama, the son of an African father, identifies so completely with the actions of former generations of American whites? It shows again the power of a myth to become rooted in the consciousness of a person, so that he identifies 100 percen with the imagined national narrative. To this may be added the unconscious urge to belong to the victors, if possible.
Therefore, I do not accept without reservation the speculation: Well, he must talk like this in order to get elected. Once in the White House, he will return to himself.
I am not so sure about that. It may well turn out that these things have a surprisingly strong hold on his mental world.
Of one thing I am certain: Obamas declarations at the AIPAC conference are very, very bad for peace. And what is bad for peace is bad for Israel, bad for the world and bad for the Palestinian people.
Uri Avnery is an Israeli peace activist who has advocated the setting up of a Palestinian state alongside Israel. He served three terms in the Israeli parliament (Knesset), and is the founder of Gush Shalom (Peace Bloc)
Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan
OPINION: Troubled peace Uri Avnery
The transparent fawning of Obama on the Israel lobby stands out more than similar efforts by the other candidates. Why? Because his dizzying success in the primaries was entirely due to his promise to bring about a change
After months of a tough and bitter race, a merciless struggle, Barack Obama has defeated his formidable opponent, Hillary Clinton. He has wrought a miracle: for the first time in history a black person has become a credible candidate for the presidency of the most powerful country in the world.
And what was the first thing he did after his astounding victory? He ran to the conference of the Israel lobby, AIPAC, and made a speech that broke all records for obsequiousness and fawning.
That is shocking enough. Even more shocking is the fact that nobody was shocked.
It was a triumphalist conference. Even this powerful organisation had never seen anything like it. 7000 Jewish functionaries from all over the United States came together to accept the obeisance of the entire Washington elite, which came to kowtow at their feet. All the three presidential hopefuls made speeches, trying to outdo each other in flattery. 300 Senators and Members of Congress crowded the hallways. Everybody who wants to be elected or reelected to any office, indeed everybody who has any political ambitions at all, came to see and be seen.
The Washington of AIPAC is like the Constantinople of the Byzantine emperors in its heyday.
The world looked on and was filled with wonderment. The Israeli media were ecstatic. In all the worlds capitals the events were followed closely and conclusions were drawn. All the Arab media reported on them extensively. Aljazeera devoted an hour to a discussion of the phenomenon.
The most extreme conclusions of professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt were confirmed in their entirety. On the eve of their visit to Israel, this coming Thursday, the Israel Lobby stood at the center of political life in the US and the world at large.
Why, actually? Why do the candidates for the American presidency believe that the Israel lobby is so absolutely essential to their being elected?
The Jewish votes are important, of course, especially in several swing states which may decide the outcome. But African-Americans have more votes, and so do the Hispanics. Obama has brought to the political scene millions of new young voters. Numerically, the Arab-Muslim community in the US is also not an insignificant factor.
Some say that Jewish money speaks. The Jews are rich. Perhaps they donate more than others for political causes. But the myth about all-powerful Jewish money has an anti-Semitic ring. After all, other lobbies, and most decidedly the huge multinational corporations, have given considerable sums of money to Obama (as well as to his opponents). And Obama himself has proudly announced that hundreds of thousands of ordinary citizens have sent him small donations, which have amounted to tens of millions.
True, it has been proven that the Jewish lobby can almost always block the election of a senator or a member of Congress who does not dance and do so with fervor to the Israeli tune. In some exemplary cases (which were indeed meant to be seen as examples) the lobby has defeated popular politicians by lending its political and financial clout to the election campaign of a practically unknown rival.
But in a presidential race?
The transparent fawning of Obama on the Israel lobby stands out more than similar efforts by the other candidates.
Why? Because his dizzying success in the primaries was entirely due to his promise to bring about a change, to put an end to the rotten practices of Washington and to replace the old cynics with a young, brave person who does not compromise his principles.
And lo and behold, the very first thing he does after securing the nomination of his party is to compromise his principles. And how!
The outstanding thing that distinguishes him from both Hillary Clinton and John McCain is his uncompromising opposition to the war in Iraq from the very first moment. That was courageous. That was unpopular. That was totally opposed to the Israel lobby, all of whose branches were fervidly pushing George Bush to start the war that freed Israel from a hostile regime.
And here comes Obama to crawl in the dust at the feet of AIPAC and go out of his way to justify a policy that completely negates his own ideas.
OK he promises to safeguard Israels security at any cost. That is usual. OK he threatens darkly against Iran, even though he promised to meet their leaders and settle all problems peacefully. OK he promised to bring back our three captured soldiers (believing, mistakenly, that all three are held by Hizbullah an error that shows, by the way, how sketchy is his knowledge of our affairs.)
But his declaration about Jerusalem breaks all bounds. It is no exaggeration to call it scandalous.
No Palestinian, no Arab, no Muslim will make peace with Israel if the Haram-al-Sharif compound (also called the Temple Mount), one of the three holiest places of Islam and the most outstanding symbol of Palestinian nationalism, is not transferred to Palestinian sovereignty. That is one of the core issues of the conflict.
On that very issue, the Camp David conference of 2000 broke up, even though the then Prime Minister, Ehud Barak, was willing to divide Jerusalem in some manner.
Along comes Obama and retrieves from the junkyard the outworn slogan Undivided Jerusalem, the Capital of Israel for all Eternity. Since Camp David, all Israeli governments have understood that this mantra constitutes an insurmountable obstacle to any peace process. It has disappeared quietly, almost secretly from the arsenal of official slogans. Only the Israeli (and American-Jewish) Right sticks to it, and for the same reason: to smother at birth any chance for a peace that would necessitate the dismantling of the settlements.
In prior US presidential races, the pandering candidates thought that it was enough to promise that the US embassy would be moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. After being elected, not one of the candidates ever did anything about this promise. All were persuaded by the State Department that it would harm basic American interests.
Obama went much further. Quite possibly, this was only lip service and he was telling himself: OK, I must say this in order to get elected. After that, God is great.
But even so the fact cannot be ignored: the fear of AIPAC is so terrible, that even this candidate, who promises change in all matters, does not dare. In this matter he accepts the worst old-style Washington routine. He is prepared to sacrifice the most basic American interests. After all, the US has a vital interest in achieving an Israeli-Palestinian peace that will allow it to find ways to the hearts of the Arab masses from Iraq to Morocco. Obama has harmed his image in the Muslim world and mortgaged his future if and when he is elected president.
What has caused the dizzying ascent to power of the American Jewish establishment? Organisational talent? Money? Climbing the social ladder? Shame for their lack of zeal during the Holocaust?
The more I think about this wondrous phenomenon, the stronger becomes my conviction (about which I have already written in the past) that what really matters is the similarity between the American enterprise and the Zionist one, both in the spiritual and the practical sphere. Israel is a small America, the USA is a huge Israel.
The Mayflower passengers, much as the Zionists of the first and second aliya (immigration wave), fled from Europe, carrying in their hearts a messianic vision, either religious or utopian. (True, the early Zionists were mostly atheists, but religious traditions had a powerful influence on their vision.) The founders of American society were pilgrims, the Zionists immigrants called themselves olim short for olim beregel, pilgrims. Both sailed to a promised land, believing themselves to be Gods chosen people.
Both suffered a great deal in their new country. Both saw themselves as pioneers, who make the wilderness bloom, a people without land in a land without people. Both completely ignored the rights of the indigenous people, whom they considered sub-human savages and murderers. Both saw the natural resistance of the local peoples as evidence of their innate murderous character, which justified even the worst atrocities. Both expelled the natives and took possession of their land as the most natural thing to do, settling on every hill and under every tree, with one hand on the plow and the Bible in the other.
How is it that a man like Obama, the son of an African father, identifies so completely with the actions of former generations of American whites? It shows again the power of a myth to become rooted in the consciousness of a person, so that he identifies 100 percen with the imagined national narrative. To this may be added the unconscious urge to belong to the victors, if possible.
Therefore, I do not accept without reservation the speculation: Well, he must talk like this in order to get elected. Once in the White House, he will return to himself.
I am not so sure about that. It may well turn out that these things have a surprisingly strong hold on his mental world.
Of one thing I am certain: Obamas declarations at the AIPAC conference are very, very bad for peace. And what is bad for peace is bad for Israel, bad for the world and bad for the Palestinian people.
Uri Avnery is an Israeli peace activist who has advocated the setting up of a Palestinian state alongside Israel. He served three terms in the Israeli parliament (Knesset), and is the founder of Gush Shalom (Peace Bloc)
Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan
Captain03
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2008
- Messages
- 1,244
- Reaction score
- 0
well there are many reasons for this
the biggest reason is that america keeps interfering in other people's conflicts and problems thus choosing a side and making a new friend but also a new enemy. Eventually when america loses interest in the conflict finding no profit in it they immediately draw and destroy the friendship they made previously thus creating more foes. This is the biggest reason for it and because of this reason america has destabilized 2 countries in the middle east [iraq and afghanistan] and that is why the world hates america.
the biggest reason is that america keeps interfering in other people's conflicts and problems thus choosing a side and making a new friend but also a new enemy. Eventually when america loses interest in the conflict finding no profit in it they immediately draw and destroy the friendship they made previously thus creating more foes. This is the biggest reason for it and because of this reason america has destabilized 2 countries in the middle east [iraq and afghanistan] and that is why the world hates america.
su-47
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2007
- Messages
- 2,426
- Reaction score
- 0
The reason USA is unpopular is the simple fact that they go to any lengths to protect and further their interests. They show no qualms in throwing countries into civil wars, invading other nations on false claims or infringing the sovereignty of other nations. Their war in iraq is nothing more than colonialism. If Iraq war hadn't taken place, USA would have 5 times its current popularity.
Luftwaffe
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2008
- Messages
- 9,544
- Reaction score
- 8
- Country
- Location
90% in the MIDEAST loves USA...they want to be like them ever visited MIDEAST? who said mideast hates US..EXCEPT for Palestine. Not even syrians hates US except for the govt...Just as Iraqis ditched their govt n welcomed US..
TruthSeeker
PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2008
- Messages
- 6,390
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
Please, please explain why oh why the USA would want to "capture" Pakistan? We have far too many other problems to deal with without THAT! 99% of Americans would like only to capture Osama bin Laden and Zawahari. If the Pakistani Army would kill or capture these two people, the USA would cheer and leave Pakistan alone to fight it out, as it wanted to, with India and Afghanistan. We would not like to see the bloodshed continue, but we would not contribute any more of our sons and daughters to it, believe me.
muse
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2006
- Messages
- 13,006
- Reaction score
- 0
A new dawn?
Muqtedar Khan
US Vice President Joe Biden unveiled Americas new foreign policy at the 45th Munich Security Conference, held January 6-8. Key events preceding the conference underscored the challenging atmosphere that the US faces in the world today.
Just few days before the event, Iran launched its first homemade satellite into orbit, advertising the rapid development of its rocket/ballistic capabilities. Iran, a state that has now emerged as Americas principal international rival, is celebrating the 30th anniversary of its Islamic revolution, which ended American imperial control of Irans politics, and most recently is pushing to end American hegemony in the Middle East.
For thirty years, the US has imposed sanctions against Iran, threatened it with war and worked diligently to overthrow its regime, without much success. Iran is a reminder of the continuing failure of US foreign policy.
Also, just before the Munich conference, Kyrgyzstan announced that it will close vital US air force base in Manas, reportedly under pressure from Russia. Russia lately has begun pushing back at growing US influence in Eastern Europe and Central Asia, regions that Russia considers part of its sphere of influence.
Thus, Biden went to Munich even as the American economy continues to suffer and America faces new and more energised challenges in the international arena to convince Europe that America has changed.
For the past seven years, Europe had watched impotently as the United States under George W Bush ignored the American tradition of consulting and working in consort with Europe. For years they hated Bush and America not just because of American unilateralism and arrogance, but because America had so strikingly exposed the absolute inability of Europe to either moderate or restrain American foreign policy.
Bush reminded Europe the extent to which it was dependent on the US for its global pre-eminence, and how without American support they were incapable of making a difference on the global stage. And they hated him for it.
At Munich, they were hoping that a weakened America would once again return to them, seeking help and in the process restoring their own influence.
Biden did just that. He said, The threats we face have no respect for borders. No single country, no matter how powerful, can best meet them alone. We believe that international alliances and organisations do not diminish Americas power they help us advance our collective security, economic interests and values. So we will engage. We will listen. We will consult. America needs the world, just as I believe the world needs America.
Bidens speech had more for those who sought more humility from the worlds sole superpower. He promised that America would not abandon its values, that it would not torture, and that it would work to restore the transatlantic alliance.
Making up with Europe and Russia was not the only item on Bidens agenda. He reiterated President Obamas assertion that America would extend a hand to those who unclench their fist.
All of this sounds great and the Obama administration should be applauded for convincing the world that things are about to change. But it is hoped that it recognises the danger it is placing itself in. A few months from now, words alone will not be enough; America will be judged by its actions, not by its promises. Indeed, these ambitious promises of change will make the judgement even harsher.
So far, America has demanded that Russia, Iran, the Taliban, Hamas and Hezbollah the primary sources of resistance to American interests overseas surrender to American demands, which remain the same. The only difference is that while the Bush administration threatened and used force, Obama has promised more diplomacy.
But why would they submit to Obama given that they did not to a more threatening America, when it was definitely more powerful than it is now? Moreover, if these players perceive current American predicaments as a direct result of their collective defiance, they are likely to stand their ground more firmly now than they did before.
The promise to listen implies empathy. How does the Obama administration seek to extend empathy to its principle challengers? Forget the rivals; is it ready to listen to its allies? Will it listen to NATO ally Turkey on the Arab-Israeli issue?
There is something important missing from Obamas new strategy, a realisation that perhaps it needs to revisit the goals of American foreign policy vis-à-vis its nemesis, not just its tactics.
Muqtedar Khan is Director of Islamic Studies at the University of Delaware and a Fellow of the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding
Muqtedar Khan
US Vice President Joe Biden unveiled Americas new foreign policy at the 45th Munich Security Conference, held January 6-8. Key events preceding the conference underscored the challenging atmosphere that the US faces in the world today.
Just few days before the event, Iran launched its first homemade satellite into orbit, advertising the rapid development of its rocket/ballistic capabilities. Iran, a state that has now emerged as Americas principal international rival, is celebrating the 30th anniversary of its Islamic revolution, which ended American imperial control of Irans politics, and most recently is pushing to end American hegemony in the Middle East.
For thirty years, the US has imposed sanctions against Iran, threatened it with war and worked diligently to overthrow its regime, without much success. Iran is a reminder of the continuing failure of US foreign policy.
Also, just before the Munich conference, Kyrgyzstan announced that it will close vital US air force base in Manas, reportedly under pressure from Russia. Russia lately has begun pushing back at growing US influence in Eastern Europe and Central Asia, regions that Russia considers part of its sphere of influence.
Thus, Biden went to Munich even as the American economy continues to suffer and America faces new and more energised challenges in the international arena to convince Europe that America has changed.
For the past seven years, Europe had watched impotently as the United States under George W Bush ignored the American tradition of consulting and working in consort with Europe. For years they hated Bush and America not just because of American unilateralism and arrogance, but because America had so strikingly exposed the absolute inability of Europe to either moderate or restrain American foreign policy.
Bush reminded Europe the extent to which it was dependent on the US for its global pre-eminence, and how without American support they were incapable of making a difference on the global stage. And they hated him for it.
At Munich, they were hoping that a weakened America would once again return to them, seeking help and in the process restoring their own influence.
Biden did just that. He said, The threats we face have no respect for borders. No single country, no matter how powerful, can best meet them alone. We believe that international alliances and organisations do not diminish Americas power they help us advance our collective security, economic interests and values. So we will engage. We will listen. We will consult. America needs the world, just as I believe the world needs America.
Bidens speech had more for those who sought more humility from the worlds sole superpower. He promised that America would not abandon its values, that it would not torture, and that it would work to restore the transatlantic alliance.
Making up with Europe and Russia was not the only item on Bidens agenda. He reiterated President Obamas assertion that America would extend a hand to those who unclench their fist.
All of this sounds great and the Obama administration should be applauded for convincing the world that things are about to change. But it is hoped that it recognises the danger it is placing itself in. A few months from now, words alone will not be enough; America will be judged by its actions, not by its promises. Indeed, these ambitious promises of change will make the judgement even harsher.
So far, America has demanded that Russia, Iran, the Taliban, Hamas and Hezbollah the primary sources of resistance to American interests overseas surrender to American demands, which remain the same. The only difference is that while the Bush administration threatened and used force, Obama has promised more diplomacy.
But why would they submit to Obama given that they did not to a more threatening America, when it was definitely more powerful than it is now? Moreover, if these players perceive current American predicaments as a direct result of their collective defiance, they are likely to stand their ground more firmly now than they did before.
The promise to listen implies empathy. How does the Obama administration seek to extend empathy to its principle challengers? Forget the rivals; is it ready to listen to its allies? Will it listen to NATO ally Turkey on the Arab-Israeli issue?
There is something important missing from Obamas new strategy, a realisation that perhaps it needs to revisit the goals of American foreign policy vis-à-vis its nemesis, not just its tactics.
Muqtedar Khan is Director of Islamic Studies at the University of Delaware and a Fellow of the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding
Destructlord
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2009
- Messages
- 554
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
You're looking for your dead puppet?!
The US has no interest in capturing Pakistan. In reality invading Pakistan would be one of the worst things we could possibly do in regards to Afghanistan let alone all the other problems it would cause.
A few things seem obvious. Without getting into the reasons for the invasion of Iraq (I opposed this by the way) it is taking 150,000 troops just to have some control over baghdad and a few provinces. There are approximately 60,000 NATO troops in Afghanistan and they are presently losing ground there. As it is we need more troops and frankly they are not available just to control these two conflicts. Any invasion of Pakistan would require hundreds of thousands of troops that we don't have.
Secondly, the last thing we want is for the government of Pakistan to destabilize. We rely on Pakistan to get most of the supplies to the NATO troops in Afghanistan. Perhaps more importantly the last thing we want is for a nuclear armed nation to disintegrate into an Afghanistan like situation, or even worse a failed nation like Somalia.
In my opinion, what we do want in Pakistan is a strong stable democratically elected central government that is able to control it's borders and internal security. Our tactics in pursuing this goal in the past have not always been wise. Hopefully we will be seeing some changes in our efforts in the next few months.
ejaz007
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2007
- Messages
- 6,533
- Reaction score
- 1
- Country
- Location
Just one freaking question.
If USA is hated so much around the world than why there are long ques outside US embassies of people willing to go their?
Just look at Pakistan. There are demonstrations against USA and people burn their flags but then there are people standing in long ques and waiting for hours just to get the visa.
Strange isn't it.
If USA is hated so much around the world than why there are long ques outside US embassies of people willing to go their?
Just look at Pakistan. There are demonstrations against USA and people burn their flags but then there are people standing in long ques and waiting for hours just to get the visa.
Strange isn't it.
duhastmish
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2009
- Messages
- 4,302
- Reaction score
- -4
Sir
wrong question America is not just hated in - arab its hated in south america most european country , russia , asian countries like korea, pakistan , china, vietnam, Many african countries ahte america too.
wrong question America is not just hated in - arab its hated in south america most european country , russia , asian countries like korea, pakistan , china, vietnam, Many african countries ahte america too.
PakmanUSA
FULL MEMBER
New Recruit
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2008
- Messages
- 95
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Really what it all is about is the fact America is controlled by the international bankers like most everywhere else. The people are mislead by the controlled media. Should some source of media like a TV station try to let some truth out or not play by the rules they are shut down by regulations now in place to control this so called "Free Country" LOL. I know this by experience when working with citizens investigating the Oklahoma City Bombing. A local channel here in Oklahoma City was sold?... They had hired a private investigator to look into some of the facts ignored by law enforcement, which in turn made the goverment look bad. I know this from being on the front line of the imformation war concerning some well known facts ignored by the goverment.
So now you all know why most Americans are so ignorant about the world at large. I find it difficult dealing with the people here who have been brained washed by the controlled media and our educational system. Should I have the chance to engage the misinformed about events or my experiences they always want to use my race as the reason I see things the way I do.
I grow tired of trying to enlighten the ignorant and plain stupid people here in America! Often I'm called Un-American. LOL.
So now you all know why most Americans are so ignorant about the world at large. I find it difficult dealing with the people here who have been brained washed by the controlled media and our educational system. Should I have the chance to engage the misinformed about events or my experiences they always want to use my race as the reason I see things the way I do.
I grow tired of trying to enlighten the ignorant and plain stupid people here in America! Often I'm called Un-American. LOL.
- Status
Similar threads
