Why Are We Sending This Attack Helicopter to Pakistan?

[Mughal-Prince]

Its your own Pakistani HH = His Highness who is peddling these facts to current affairs defunct people.

Defunct people who make you people so worked up at the forums and a lot more things not to mention even on Gov level through this forum

Nothing to talk about India.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

This Harami was a mistake not our ambassador we kicked this Ma******D out and believe me we will kill this a$$ hole when ever we got a chance.

So when are you doing it ?
You might even reach heaven for all your efforts.

 

[Mughal-Prince]

So when are you doing it ?
You might even reach heaven for all your efforts.

I am not some chutia talib or like wise or supporter but I can see least you people comes to know the way of heaven.
I will give you a contract to send him to hell and take a way to heaven

 

[IND151]

Ten responses, all consisting of innuendos or ad hominem attacks. Nothing disputing the substance of H.H.'s arguments.

PDF is full of immature kids.

Most of them are from a certian section of South Asia which declares itself ally of a nation which has according to sources, world's oldest continuous civilization.

 

[pakdefender]

So when are you doing it ?
You might even reach heaven for all your efforts.

You indians are very big fan of this kuttay ka bacha , so may be you would like to take the bullet in your *** for him

 

[Devil Soul]

Pakistan will likely use US weapons against Baloch insurgents, India: Haqqani
By Web Desk
Published: April 20, 2015

Husain Haqqani, who has been living under self-imposed exiled in the US since 2012, believes the US government is committing a mistake by selling weapons to Pakistan as they will be used to “fight or menace” India.

In a scathing piece in the Wall Street Journal, the former ambassador to the US (2008-11) questioned the Obama administration’s recent decision to sell almost $1 billion in US-made attack helicopters, missiles to Pakistan.

Haqqani felt the weapons sale will fuel conflict in South Asia without fulfilling the objective of helping Pakistan fight terrorism. “Pakistan’s failure to tackle its jihadist challenge is not the result of a lack of arms but reflects an absence of will,” wrote Haqqani, arguing that the arms race with India remains to be the dominant force in Pakistan’s foreign and domestic policies.

The former ambassador has been residing in the US since 2012 after being accused of sending a memo to US Defense Department that asked for help in reining in the Pakistan military. “The US has fed Pakistan’s delusion of being India’s regional military equal. Seeking security against a much larger neighbor is a rational objective but seeking parity with it on a constant basis is not,” wrote Haqqani.

He believed that US officials should convince Pakistan to give up its hopes of attempting to rival a country with a population six times as large and economy 10 times as big.

“It’s a mystery why the president suddenly trusts Pakistan’s military—after mistrusting it at the time of the Navy SEAL operation in May 2011 that found and killed Osama bin Laden living safely until then in the Pakistani garrison town of Abbottabad,” Haqqani wrote, while wondering if the US government is just simply lazy in its approach with Pakistan. “Selling helicopters and missiles is easier than thinking of alternative strategies to compel an errant ally to change its behavior.”

The former ambassador believes the equipment to be provided by the US – 15 AH-1Z Viper helicopters and 1,000 Hellfire missiles – will be used against insurgents in Balochistan, bordering Iran, and along the disputed border in Kashmir rather than against militants in nd tribal areas.

“If the Obama administration believes Pakistan’s military has really changed its priorities, it should consider leasing helicopters to Pakistan and verify where they are deployed before going through with outright sales,” the ambassador suggests.

 

[suresh1773]

Troll? You guy's gathered here like flies because somebody posted some silly comments by HH. You need to look at your own behaviour. I know we have poverty but only it is actually worse in India then in Pakistan. However Indian's come here singing and dancing about their much vaunted economy. We do not. Thus my post to cap you guys.

What @Dr Gupta says is right,There are more poor in India but India has a sizeable middle class population,What about Pakistan,is it better off. Are u aware of how Pakistan pays its international debs. To clear debts, yr Prime minister Nawaz or Zardari will visit a number of countries China,America,Middle East to procure funds. Apart from these countries u further approach World Bank,IMF & the Saudis. When a country takes loans to pay its debts,what do u expect,how long this will go on. A time will time when Pakistan will be heavily cash strapped & no country or any institution will come to bail out Pakistan. You r not aware of COST OF military operation(Zarb E Adab) in Wazirstan & its consequences. Employing latest tanks & fighter planes WITH thousands of ground soldiers plus accommodation,food & compensation to the families for those soldiers injured or killed. All these expensive military operations will be deplete yr precarious forex reserves

 

[Rafael]

India's Bitch!

 

[Capt.Popeye]

You indians are very big fan of this kuttay ka bacha , so may be you would like to take the bullet in your *** for him

Is this the way that you speak in your home and family? tauba-tauba

I am not some chutia talib or like wise or supporter but I can see least you people comes to know the way of heaven.
I will give you a contract to send him to hell and take a way to heaven

I don't want to go to some imaginary places.

 

[Rafael]

And we WILL use this weapons against anyone we want, Baloch Terrorists, Indians, Talibs.

Haqqani can go and suck India's coco.

 

[Areesh]

Koi 100 kuttai marain hoon gai to Hussain Haqqani paida hua hoga.

Anyways decision has been made by US administration. Haqqani can b!tch as much as he wants to.

 

[qamar1990]

From our very own Hussain Haqqani. I don't know why he is so anti-Pakistani? How in the world did he end up as our ambassador to USA?

Why Are We Sending This Attack Helicopter to Pakistan? - WSJ
The Obama administration’s decision this month to sell almost $1 billion in U.S.-made attack helicopters, missiles and other equipment to Pakistan will fuel conflict in South Asia without fulfilling the objective of helping the country fight Islamist extremists. Pakistan’s failure to tackle its jihadist challenge is not the result of a lack of arms but reflects an absence of will. Unless Pakistan changes its worldview, American weapons will end up being used to fight or menace India and perceived domestic enemies instead of being deployed against jihadists.

Competition with India remains the overriding consideration in Pakistan’s foreign and domestic policies. By aiding Pakistan over the years—some $40 billion since 1950, according to the Congressional Research Service—the U.S. has fed Pakistan’s delusion of being India’s regional military equal. Seeking security against a much larger neighbor is a rational objective but seeking parity with it on a constant basis is not.

ENLARGE
The AH-1Z Viper. PHOTO: GETTY IMAGES
Instead of selling more military equipment to Pakistan, U.S. officials should convince Pakistan that its ambitions of rivaling India are akin to Belgium trying to rival France or Germany. India’s population is six times as large as Pakistan’s while India’s economy is 10 times bigger, and India’s $2 trillion economy has managed consistent growth whereas Pakistan’s $245 billion economy has grown sporadically and is undermined by jihadist terrorism and domestic political chaos. Pakistan also continues to depend on Islamist ideology—through its school curricula, propaganda and Islamic legislation—to maintain internal nationalist cohesion, which inevitably encourages extremism and religious intolerance.

Clearly, with the latest military package, the Obama administration expects to continue the same policies adopted by several of its predecessors—and somehow get different results. It’s a mystery why the president suddenly trusts Pakistan’s military—after mistrusting it at the time of the Navy SEAL operation in May 2011 that found and killed Osama bin Laden living safely until then in the Pakistani garrison town of Abbottabad.

One explanation is that selling helicopters and missiles is easier than thinking of alternative strategies to compel an errant ally to change its behavior. This is a pattern in U.S.-Pakistan relations going back to the 1950s. Between 1950 and 1969, the U.S. gave $4.5 billion in aid to Pakistan partly in the hope of using Pakistani troops in anticommunist wars, according to declassified U.S. government documents. Pakistan did not contribute a single soldier for the wars in Korea or Vietnam but went to war with India over the disputed border state of Kashmir instead in 1965.

During the 1980s, Pakistan served as the staging ground for the jihad against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan and received another $4.5 billion in aid, as reported by the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations to Congress. Pakistan diverted U.S. assistance again toward its obsessive rivalry with India, and trained insurgents to fight in the Indian part of Kashmir as well as in India’s Punjab state. It also violated promises to the U.S. and its own public statements not to acquire nuclear weapons, which it first tested openly in 1998—arguing that it could not afford to remain nonnuclear while India’s nuclear program surged ahead.

Since the 1990s, Pakistan has supported various jihadist groups, including the Afghan Taliban. After 9/11, the country’s military dictator, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, promised to end support for the Islamic radicals. Based on that promise, Pakistan received $15.1 billion in civil and military aid from the U.S. until 2009. In February, Gen. Musharraf admitted in an interview with the U.K.’s Guardian newspaper that he continued to support the Afghan Taliban even after 9/11 because of concerns over close relations between Afghanistan and India. Thus the U.S. was effectively arming a country that was, in turn, arming insurgents fighting and killing American troops in Afghanistan.

After the Dec. 16, 2014, attack on a Peshawar school, where the Taliban massacred 160 people, including many schoolchildren, Pakistan claimed it had changed its policy toward terrorist groups and would no longer distinguish between “good” and “bad” Taliban. The Pakistani military has since sped up military action against terrorist groups responsible for mayhem inside Pakistan. But the destruction, demobilization, disarmament or dismantling of Afghan Taliban and other radical groups is clearly not on the Pakistani state’s agenda. There has been no move against Kashmir-oriented jihadist groups.

Given Pakistan’s history, it is likely that the 15 AH-1Z Viper helicopters and 1,000 Hellfire missiles—as well as communications and training equipment being offered to it—will be used against secular insurgents in southwest Baluchistan province, bordering Iran, and along the disputed border in Kashmir rather than against the jihadists in the northwest bordering Afghanistan.

If the Obama administration believes Pakistan’s military has really changed its priorities, it should consider leasing helicopters to Pakistan and verify where they are deployed before going through with outright sales.

With nuclear weapons, Pakistan no longer has any reason to feel insecure about being overrun by a larger Indian conventional force. For the U.S. to continue supplying a Pakistani military that is much larger than the country can afford will only invigorate Pakistani militancy and militarism at the expense of its 200 million people, one-third of whom continue to live at less than a dollar a day per household.

Mr. Haqqani, the director for South and Central Asia at the Hudson Institute in Washington, D.C., was Pakistan’s ambassador to the U.S., 2008-11.

this son of bitch.... i hope this rat is never allowed to go back to pakistan... a dog is more loyal then pigs like him... atleast they dont bite the hands that fed them.

Ten responses, all consisting of innuendos or ad hominem attacks. Nothing disputing the substance of H.H.'s arguments.

why would we dispute with a dog?? we let dogs bark....
a traitor deserves to get shot... no american would respect this piece of shit... what honor is there in insulting your own nation and country??
he is a Benedict Arnold, and i hope he gets treated like one... shunned here in america and in pakistan.

Who decides that, exactly?

You're misrepresenting what H.H. wrote. Maybe that works on some Pakistanis but don't try that on me.

listen solomon you piece of shit. **** israel and **** hussein haqqani... and **** tarek fatah **** asma janghir....

 

[Irfan Baloch]

It's not like Zardari forced himself into the office. Our awam lovingly voted for him.

throw Mansoor Ijaz at him
job done

he is a scumbag and needs a scumbag to dea with him

 

[qamar1990]

i hope pakistan roasts these secular rebels with these new machines....

I really like how he says ''we'', as if the Americans actually consider him a part of themselves. As usual, trying to be more loyal than the king.

.

actually americans would accept pakistani americans as part of america.... but they would never accept a dog like hussein haqqani....
a person that is not true to his own motherland cant be true to america...

On the contrary, so far his words are effectively undisputed and gain more impact with every attempt at distortion or ad hominem attack. Facts and arguments, not people, matter - and you're not disputing the crux of his argument, that weapons supplied by Washington to Pakistan for one reason aren't likely to be used much that way but for something else. Pakistan has a very, very bad history of this, going back to the 1965 war when weapons supplied by the U.S. for defensive purposes were blatantly used for attempted conquest of Kashmir, the excuse given to U.S. diplomats that Pakistani leaders were tired of diplomacy and thanks to the U.S. they have the weapons so why shouldn't they become conquerors instead? Don't believe me; you can check in out yourselves in the FRUS 1965 South Asia records. And the situation kept repeating itself in future clashes with India, each stroke weakening Pakistan's democracy and several the economy as well. This is the history H.H. is invoking and that you're failing to contest.

like any one gives a **** lol.... this only confirms our belief in him being a bastard and a dog....
a traitor is a traitor weather he is right or wrong.... he went againt his own people...

 

[Jungibaaz]

Ten responses, all consisting of innuendos or ad hominem attacks. Nothing disputing the substance of H.H.'s arguments.

Too easy. Tell me, do you bother with substance when the other argument is nothing but fiction and fanaticism pretending to have substance?

Well first he says that these 15 helicopters will fuel conflict in SA. Well of course they will, we'd be buying a billion USD worth of peace signs and flowers if we didn't intend to some day use them. We're a sane state with our interests after all, this coming from a man in his position is insane. Also, the order so far is for 15 AH-1Z helicopters, India is getting many more AH-64, this balance in the region has been maintained by our own expenditure too, it will always be tilted heavily in their favor which is why even with US arms procurement for the F-16's we buy, they are offered more advanced options in the MMRCA. For the AH-1 we buy, they buy AH-64. For our P-3C, they get P-8I. So to say that these helicopters somehow allow us a magical capability to wage war better is false in itself, and completely ignorant of the strategy employed by the US to maintain a balance in the region, and completely ignorant of similar but bigger sales to India.

Now the AH-1Z I can see with a great deal of certainty, will be used against the Taliban. We have used out current cobras, in their old and outdated technology, and they are nowhere near as effective. Asking us to fight a war, aiding Afghanistan and NATO in their war while expecting us to fight with weapons that are ineffective is not only degrading, but it actually contributes to loss of life. These sales in particular are arms that one can say are not India-centric, or need not be. As opposed to other arms sales by the US in the region such as AMRAAMs and P-8I/P-3C.

He then goes on to cite our lack of contribution and compliance with the US' will upon receiving aid. I don't know which hole he was living since 2004, or what compelled him to lie through his teeth. Pakistan has contributed tens of thousands of soldiers, along with an entire strategic shift to move resources, people and focus to the western border. And we paid for it in lives, our 50,000 are way more precious than any peanuts occasionally flicked in our direction. The figures he cites are also incorrect. The initially requested aid is cut down before it meets initial approval, when it's then put through the system it's cut slightly more. Congressional approval further dents the total, and then even fewer amounts are actually freed up by congress. At one point, while we were waging war costing us tens of billions, US analysts were quoting some 18 billion USD figures and saying why isn't this enough? Little do they understand that the amount from that actually went to war was about 1/4. That was needed to sustain the war effort, ammo, fuel and so on. Not for extravagant purchases of high end tech to take on India.

I see he doesn't like being specific either, he made no distinction between aid, and the CSF. The latter which is our money, his comments are worthless.

After a bit of rhetoric, Osama, good taliban, bad taliban. Refusing to define what he meant by it, he goes back to the India and Pakistan point. What he doesn't let you know is that what Pakistan does about India is insane, but very normal for a nation state. What would the US do, if it had a hostile neighbour, many times the size in the population, land and economy, a nation which it has had 3 major wars, 2 smaller conflicts and on going insurgency tussles with?

This man is a joke, and at the risk of sounding like a conspiracy nut, he seems to have his head up someone's @***, most likely someone with deep pockets and who also works with lobbyists.