Cameron's inflammatory comments against Pakistan: I meant Pakistanis are terrorists..

[SMC]

Nonsensical rant that has nothing to do with the issue being discussed, and quite frankly it is the hatred and prejudice ingrained into the mindset of Indians such as yourself, advocating irrational positions of 'accepting unsubstantiated allegations leveled at Pakistan' that speaks lowly of the 'Indian public'.

Hypocrites, utter hypocrites, these indians are. A good number of them at least. They expect us to accept their allegations based on weak circumstantial arguments and conspiracy theories, but they attack us if we allege indian involvement.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

US is gaining a lot more than what it pays. Pakistan army is the hired gun and US is obliged to pay for the services. The manner with which Pakistan was dealt in the 60s as against India to the current state of affairs is truly a welcome change. If you still want to turn a blind eye, lets just agree to disagree.

Again goal post shifting - you are getting thrashed on every point and choose to deflect onto other issues. First it was 'PA not under control of GoP on drone attacks' and when countered you went on to rant about 'introspection and Pakistani mindset'. Then it was 'public perception will change State behavior towards Pakistan', and when negated on that you are on to 'US is gaining a lot more than it pays'.

Stop trolling please, discussions with you are becoming pointless and a waste of time since you refuse to stick to one issue when you get refuted.

 

[SMC]

standard boiler plate text to point out a simplistic argument. Way too familiar with this script.

Well that's you indians are used to making simplistic argument hence I have to point it out when I see it. A spade, is a spade, is a spade. You choosing to personally attack me doesn't change the fact that it IS a simplistic argument focusing on only the bare-bones of the issue.

Btw, what happened to side-stepping, not replying to post? Like I said, pot, kettle, black. You are a really good example of such hypocritical indian.

 

[SMC]

Again goal post shifting - you are getting thrashed on every point and choose to deflect onto other issues. First it was 'PA not under control of GoP on drone attacks' and when countered you went on to rant about 'introspection and Pakistani mindset'. Then it was 'public perception will change State behavior towards Pakistan', and when negated on that you are on to 'US is gaining a lot more than it pays'.

Stop trolling please, discussions with you are becoming pointless and a waste of time since you refuse to stick to one issue when you get refuted.

He was telling me to respond to his post and don't side-step. Yet he is the master of doing that. What an utter, utter, hypocrite.

 

[ramu]

Nonsensical rant that has nothing to do with the issue being discussed, and quite frankly it is the hatred and prejudice ingrained into the mindset of Indians such as yourself, advocating irrational positions of 'accepting unsubstantiated allegations leveled at Pakistan' that speaks lowly of the 'Indian public'.

Very well, that is fine by me. Indian public opinion is biased and totally against Pakistan over the years and Mumbai sealed it. I accept the hate mindset in India against Pakistan but Indians were supportive of Vajpayee but Kargil happened. Do you think people are fools to again forget everything and trust Pakistan? I dont blame popular perception in India. It is right and Pakistan has many chances to revert but failed.

Any chance of change was lost when Pakistan acted in a politically correct but morally in a manner that did not convince India of action. Even today, justice is delayed.

 

[ramu]

Again goal post shifting - you are getting thrashed on every point and choose to deflect onto other issues. First it was 'PA not under control of GoP on drone attacks' and when countered you went on to rant about 'introspection and Pakistani mindset'. Then it was 'public perception will change State behavior towards Pakistan', and when negated on that you are on to 'US is gaining a lot more than it pays'.

Stop trolling please, discussions with you are becoming pointless and a waste of time since you refuse to stick to one issue when you get refuted.

Don't get judgmental and sound like a bad looser. Let the readers of the posts decide who is getting thrashed.

 

[Jackdaws]

You have still not answered my question..........stop running around in circles. If Pakistan is so bad and the CIA know's this, then why haven't they decided to attack Pakistan or at least change the Nato supply routes going into Afghanistan. Simple answer is they can't afford to do it, because if that was the case they would have done it by now.

I will answer it -

a. Why haven't they attacked Pakistan? - They have invaded 2 countries in the last decade - unless someone that Shahzad fellow who tried to blow up a block on Times Square is successful - the American public won't back the invasion/attack of/on Pakistan.

b. Why haven't they changed Nato supply routes? Because Pakistan gives the really good rates and bang for the buck. Unless Pakistan specifically refuses to give them access - why should they bother activating a separate supply line? And you have to be extremely naive if you think the Americans don't have a back-up plan in place.

c. They can't afford it? Please look up the American military budget..

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

US is gaining a lot more than what it pays. Pakistan army is the hired gun and US is obliged to pay for the services. The manner with which Pakistan was dealt in the 60s as against India to the current state of affairs is truly a welcome change. If you still want to turn a blind eye, lets just agree to disagree.

Informed observers would argue that the US-Pak relationship has always been transactional. In the past Pakistan lobbied for aid and military support on the basis of playing a role as an ally against communism. Even that support from the US was fickle and scant, until there were some real US interests Pakistan could deliver upon, such as the Soviet presence in Afghanistan. The US lobbied the French against providing a reprocessing plant to Pakistan, which pushed Pakistan into the direction of Uranium enrichment and using AQ Khan. The US also sanctioned military supplies to Pakistan several times, in 1965 and 1971 (not certain on the latter), and of course after the nuclear tests.

The US-Pak relationship has therefore never been something to brag about. If anything, by past standards, the current Kerry-Lugar Law and US pronouncements on the US-Pak relationship (we'll leave the sincerity of those comments for another discussion) far outweigh similar US support for Pakistan in the past.

The US relationship with India is being carried out on its own terms, keeping in mind US interests that India can satisfy. But were Pakistan to issue an RFP for 150 fighter jets tomorrow, you can bet that every Western company bidding in India for the MRCA will be in the race for the Pakistani contract, 'public perceptions of Pakistan' be damned.

Money and interests talk, and money and interests will continue to talk. Pakistan just has to ensure that it retains some Western interests, or assuages Western concerns on certain key issues, when NATO decides to leave Afghanistan.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Don't get judgmental and sound like a bad looser. Let the readers of the posts decide who is getting thrashed.

When you can't stick to a point and go off on irrelevant rants there is no point to the discussion.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Very well, that is fine by me. Indian public opinion is biased and totally against Pakistan over the years and Mumbai sealed it. I accept the hate mindset in India against Pakistan but Indians were supportive of Vajpayee but Kargil happened. Do you think people are fools to again forget everything and trust Pakistan? I dont blame popular perception in India. It is right and Pakistan has many chances to revert but failed.

Any chance of change was lost when Pakistan acted in a politically correct but morally in a manner that did not convince India of action. Even today, justice is delayed.

Given Indian intransigence over resolving Kashmir and its support for terrorists and insurgents in East Pakistan and possibly in Baluchistan, the Pakistani mindset is justified in its attitude towards Pakistan as well.

'Do you think people are fools to again forget everything and trust India?'

 

[ramu]

Given Indian intransigence over resolving Kashmir and its support for terrorists and insurgents in East Pakistan and possibly in Baluchistan, the Pakistani mindset is justified in its attitude towards Pakistan as well.

'Do you think people are fools to again forget everything and trust India?'

Given all the history before India is even accused of doing all that is a good pointer to where lies the source of friction.

 

[SMC]

No generalization from me. I clearly said a good number of indians, not all (that itself wouldn't be far off from the reality), and only a fool would deny that a good number of indians do not do that.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Given all the history before India is even accused of doing all that is a good pointer to where lies the source of friction.

Hardly - the Indian invasion of Junagadh occurred around the same time as the Pakistani invasion of J&K. You cannot point to Pakistani perfidy in J&K and ignore Indian perfidy in Junagadh.

 

[ramu]

When you can't stick to a point and go off on irrelevant rants there is no point to the discussion.

When the question of Military domination is pointed out, you have gone into rants and not me. No straight answer but a procedure that means nothing but letting someone do exactly opposite of what the civil leadership expects to be done.

Military is supposed to be a subservient of the Civil leadership but it has a decision making body at the highest level even play a parallel power center. If you deny this, there is no point in you making an argument but for namesake. This is accepted by several prime ministers in the past given that Pakistan was ruled for 63 years by the military in his short independence years.

I am sure you wont accept it, so

 

[Ras]

Informed observers would argue that the US-Pak relationship has always been transactional. In the past Pakistan lobbied for aid and military support on the basis of playing a role as an ally against communism. Even that support from the US was fickle and scant, until there were some real US interests Pakistan could deliver upon, such as the Soviet presence in Afghanistan. The US lobbied the French against providing a reprocessing plant to Pakistan, which pushed Pakistan into the direction of Uranium enrichment and using AQ Khan. The US also sanctioned military supplies to Pakistan several times, in 1965 and 1971 (not certain on the latter), and of course after the nuclear tests.

The US-Pak relationship has therefore never been something to brag about. If anything, by past standards, the current Kerry-Lugar Law and US pronouncements on the US-Pak relationship (we'll leave the sincerity of those comments for another discussion) far outweigh similar US support for Pakistan in the past.

The US relationship with India is being carried out on its own terms, keeping in mind US interests that India can satisfy. But were Pakistan to issue an RFP for 150 fighter jets tomorrow, you can bet that every Western company bidding in India for the MRCA will be in the race for the Pakistani contract, 'public perceptions of Pakistan' be damned.

Money and interests talk, and money and interests will continue to talk. Pakistan just has to ensure that it retains some Western interests, or assuages Western concerns on certain key issues, when NATO decides to leave Afghanistan.

Interesting that you agree here AM...if you remember when I said the same thing in the Pakistan nuclear deal thread you went on a long rant about American hypocrisy.

Money and interest are all that matters...morality means squat.