Why Pakistan playes a double game

[Flame]

Saad


"Double game" is merely a useful characterization for the US/NATO - On one hand they accuse Pakistan and on the other they engage in the same thng thwey accuse Pakistan of doing. So it's merely a propaganda or pressure tool -- So the question arises why are they willing to do that? And the answer, I suggest, is that they are seeking to pressure Pakistan to drop the pursuit of her interests and instead help the pursuit of US/NATO interests - these two sets of interest have commonalities, for instance we all wish to see an end to terrorism, particularly terrorism that seeks to use Islam to justify itself, on the other hand, whereas Pakistan seeks a unified peaceful, friendly Afghanistan and enables Pakistani trade and access to central Asia, US/NATO seek to deny such a facility to Pakistan and to ensure that Pakistan's regional rivals are assured exactly such a facility, while also ensuring that neither peace will come to Afghanistan, nor a friendly governent will be allowed in Afghanistan.

How is Pakistan denied that? Pakistan has full access to and from Afghanstan. Infact Pakistan is Afghanistan's biggest trading partner, whilst Afghanistan the third biggest export market for Pakistan and its exports is growing. Get your facts right, mate.

 

[Flame]

Saad


"Double game" is merely a useful characterization for the US/NATO - On one hand they accuse Pakistan and on the other they engage in the same thng thwey accuse Pakistan of doing. So it's merely a propaganda or pressure tool -- So the question arises why are they willing to do that? And the answer, I suggest, is that they are seeking to pressure Pakistan to drop the pursuit of her interests and instead help the pursuit of US/NATO interests - these two sets of interest have commonalities, for instance we all wish to see an end to terrorism, particularly terrorism that seeks to use Islam to justify itself, on the other hand, whereas Pakistan seeks a unified peaceful, friendly Afghanistan and enables Pakistani trade and access to central Asia, US/NATO seek to deny such a facility to Pakistan and to ensure that Pakistan's regional rivals are assured exactly such a facility, while also ensuring that neither peace will come to Afghanistan, nor a friendly governent will be allowed in Afghanistan.

You are amazing!!! Obviously NATO and U.S. is doing that through Iran since India has no other route or access. LMAO

 

[muse]

Flame


On the World Affairs board on this forum, you will find a thread " What's Wroing With This" - Perhaps you may wish to review the lead piece.

 

[jeypore]

Actually I totally disagree. Pakistan should continue the path by ensuring that our partners understand why is it that we need to maintain a balance in our relationships in Afghanistan.

If strategic encirclement is a threat to us, our partners need to understand this to be the reason why we cannot stop hedging our support. Pakistan's problems would be much more complicated if the situation in Afghanistan was left to be one in which Pakistan's interests were going to get undermined.

In the end, all sides need to realize that it cannot be a zero sum game for Pakistan only. There is a need for some give and take here. Pakistan is only pushing for an environment which would facilitate this give and take.

Basically Afganistan back to Taliban Control...

Everyone knows this!!! What is your middle ground/solution of Give or Take!!

 

[muse]

Obviously NATO and U.S. is doing that through Iran since India has no other route or access

Thank you for confirming what we have put forward to our readers, namely that US/NATO are using accusations of double game against Pakistan, while engageing in such duplicity themselves.

 

[SekrutYakhni]

Saad


"Double game" is merely a useful characterization for the US/NATO - On one hand they accuse Pakistan and on the other they engage in the same thng thwey accuse Pakistan of doing. So it's merely a propaganda or pressure tool -- So the question arises why are they willing to do that? And the answer, I suggest, is that they are seeking to pressure Pakistan to drop the pursuit of her interests and instead help the pursuit of US/NATO interests - these two sets of interest have commonalities, for instance we all wish to see an end to terrorism, particularly terrorism that seeks to use Islam to justify itself, on the other hand, whereas Pakistan seeks a unified peaceful, friendly Afghanistan and enables Pakistani trade and access to central Asia, US/NATO seek to deny such a facility to Pakistan and to ensure that Pakistan's regional rivals are assured exactly such a facility, while also ensuring that neither peace will come to Afghanistan, nor a friendly governent will be allowed in Afghanistan.

So the question arises why is the U.S. giving us battle equipment if she is denying us to have a friendly neighbour? Not only this, why is Pakistan accepting aid and defence equipment if the U.S. is denying to give us liberty on local issues? If we are fulfilling our (the U.S. and Pakistan) needs; lets say, the U.S. gives Pakistan some latest 'killing' machine than in return will she demand an action against freedom fighters which will benefit her?

I am getting a blur image now--
The U.S. and Pakistan wants to kill the hardcore individuals but both of the countries have different point of view when it comes to pro Pakistan Afghanis, am I right? The U.S. wants Pakistan to take action against Afghani freedom fighters (which have a support of tribes in Pakistan) but Pakistan denies it? NW as an example.

We can only create a friendly government of Afghanistan if we help the majority and you know what I mean by majority, right?

 

[Flame]

Thank you for confirming what we have put forward to our readers, namely that US/NATO are using accusations of double game against Pakistan, while engageing in such duplicity themselves.

No disrespect, but don't tell me that you are that insane that U.S. will choose Iran over Pakistan. LOL If you don't know that then you know nothing. No need to thank me for that, please. To tell you the truth, in my observation I decipher that the policy towards Iran is that of an arm-length.

I looked at the thread "What is wrong with this". Robert Bclakwell with his idiotic rubbish, what is your point any way and what is its relation to the topic at hand?

 

[muse]

Saad

Please don't get confused - Are F16's the best thing to use against suicide bombers?

You seem to be suggesting that the US and Pakistan are on the same page -- if they were onthe same page, why would we have seen a continuous IO campaign against Pakistan? Our interests converge on some issues, on others the US?NATO clearly favor the replacement of our influence and interests by those of our rivals - that's a no go - hence, the US/NATO IO campaign.

 

[jeypore]

Here's the crux, the heart of this IO campaign - the US wants Pakistan to turn over it's interests and all it's assets to the US and in doing so relinquish any claim to any interest in Afghanistan -- like people in hell imagine they will get ice water.

Is this a big Paranoia or what Mr. Muse!!! Do you really think that US is working on this strategy, while the populace is demanding a withdrawal of Afganistan and a Set date...

 

[Flame]

Basically Afganistan back to Taliban Control...

Everyone knows this!!! What is your middle ground/solution of Give or Take!!

You first line will never happen, not in a million years. Taliban were given a chance by Afghans and they blew it into the atomosphere.

 

[SekrutYakhni]

Saad

Please don't get confused - Are F16's the best thing to use against suicide bombers?

You seem to be suggesting that the US and Pakistan are on the same page -- if they were onthe same page, why would we have seen a continuous IO campaign against Pakistan? Our interests converge on some issues, on others the US?NATO clearly favor the replacement of our influence and interests by those of our rivals - that's a no go - hence, the US/NATO IO campaign.

Yep I understand the point behind F16s but why is the U.S. giving it if we have severe disagreements? Moreover, why is Pakistan accepting it, perhaps 'anay do jo ata hai' but what does the U.S. ask in return?
I think the U.S. and Pakistan are on the last line of the same page. Which means that the U.S. and Pakistan both wanna eliminate hardcore terrorists but the differences start when the U.S. wants Pakistan to 'do more' which will certainly hurt the interests of Pakistan. You were right that our interests converge on some issues...NATO wants to undermine our influence while giving the rivals an upper hand--

 

[humanfirst]

Did usa ever bothered to analyse what will happen to pakistan(who is in neighbourhood of suicidal talibs,with a loose border and a lot of taliban supporters within its border)before pushing pakistan to wot by threatening to be bombed to stone age?It was never usa's concern that 1000x bombs blasts would occur in pakistan than in usa/nato countries who are far away,a civil war may erupt which may even last for decades.In my openion pakistani army should be concerned about all that,and if it is needed for their nation's security(which is not at all an issue for usa,even while being an ally) they should play double or triple games.Who have the moral highground to accuse?india?(who supported mukti bahini and LTTE)USA?(OH LOL!)

 

[muse]

what is your point any way and what is its relation to the topic at hand?

Too many Afghans seem to have become too used to being drawn pictures. The piece is in fact not about Amb. Blackwill but rather Dr. Inderfurth's proposal for a "neutral" Afghanistan -- I had hoped you could read the piece critically.

The "Neutrality" is predicated on allowing Afghanistan's neighbors unfettered access through Afghanistan -- if as you suggest that the Pakistan are not experience problems getting to CA, then of course the entire premise of the "neutrality" is misplaced, isn't that so? And yet Dr. Inderfurth first proposed this after his first term as Asst Sec. state for South Asia - in other words, it's a solution to a problem - yet you assert that it is not -- but you may not have realized that we are talking about trade with central Asia.

 

[Flame]

We can only create a friendly government of Afghanistan if we help the majority and you know what I mean by majority, right?

There is no majority that need help from Pakistan my friend, incase you mean Pashtuns. Taliban on the other had are a very very marginal group politically with exiguous legitimacy amongst the Afghan populous, even among Pashtuns. The more of the current policy, Pakistan will loose the sympthy and respect it has even with Pashuns and it is already waning.

 

[SekrutYakhni]

Pakistan can use Tashkent card, no? We can increase our influence on NA by lobbying in Uzbek, Kaz, Iran but alas, India is everywhere--