China & Russia need to take action against America.

[LeGenD]

Huh? That's something straight out of your imagination. PLAN is currently patrolling Diaoyutai and Japan is too scared to deploy any troops on our island even though they claim it. We also just held massive naval exercises in the Western Pacific. You might be confusing Japan with Taiwan. We had a confrontation with the US Navy in 1996 over Taiwan.

No, I have read relevant reports in newspapers. In one of the recent disputes, China was putting too much pressure on Japan and USA changed the game with a single statement. Situation is back to normal for a while now.

I'm not Pakistani but that sounds like defeatism to me. China has no doubt that political power comes from the barrel of a gun and revolution is not a tea party.

You don't understand the whole affair of this region. Realistically speaking, no nation can afford to trap US/NATO forces in Afghanistan. If US plans to withdraw them, somebody will have accomodate them.

And neither it is wise to assume that US has no pre-defined red lines and would behave like a coward. Remember the statement of Richard Armitage after 9/11?

No nation is seeking open confrontation with USA. Not even China.

 

[lem34]

Huh? That's something straight out of your imagination. PLAN is currently patrolling Diaoyutai and Japan is too scared to deploy any troops on our island even though they claim it. We also just held massive naval exercises in the Western Pacific. You might be confusing Japan with Taiwan. We had a confrontation with the US Navy in 1996 over Taiwan.



I'm not Pakistani but that sounds like defeatism to me. China has no doubt that political power comes from the barrel of a gun and revolution is not a tea party.

I agree with you. In any event i think its in the interest of russia and china to contain the excesses of nato. I dont accept the defeatist mind set

---------- Post added at 05:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:30 PM ----------

You don't understand the whole affair of this region. Realistically speaking, no nation can afford to trap US/NATO forces in Afghanistan. If US plans to withdraw them, somebody will have accomodate them.

And neither it is wise to assume that US has no pre-defined red lines and would behave like a coward. Remember the statement of Richard Armitage after 9/11?

No nation is seeking open confrontation with USA. Not even China.

First how is not allowing supply route to america in afghan a confrontation. iran does it. America has no right in international law to demand routes/

Second its not other nations looking to confront america, it america that wants confrontation

 

[LeGenD]

I agree with you. In any event i think its in the interest of russia and china to contain the excesses of nato. I dont accept the defeatist mind set

Defeatist mindset is not the correct term. For international affairs, every nation has some policy and interests. Some are more willing to protect their interests more aggressively then others.

Point is that 'aggressive pursuit of interests' can have serious ramifications. Russia and China are playing their game carefully. They will not seek open confrontation with USA and would work to defuse tensions whenever possible.

However, when push comes to shove, we cannot expect them to be our saviours. We will be left alone to defend ourselves as has been witnessed in cases of other nations. You cannot expect Chinese or Russian militaries to come and fight for Pakistan. Russia is absolutely out of the picture in this regard. If China does something, it may provide us some weapons like more JF-17 aircraft. However, their will be consequences for China too because of its indirect support. This is how the game of imperialism works.

First how is not allowing supply route to america in afghan a confrontation. iran does it. America has no right in international law to demand routes/

We have agreement with US/NATO in this regard. Our case is different from that of Iran.

And I am not just talking about supply routes. I am talking about holding US/NATO forces in Afghanistan as HOSTAGE. This is not possible for any nation.

Second its not other nations looking to confront america, it america that wants confrontation

And basis of your assumption is?

 

[Chogy]

Second its not other nations looking to confront america, it america that wants confrontation

Sorry A_B, I have to call you on this... This whole stupid thing was shoved down our throats, with the roots of it all in 1991, Saddam & Kuwait.

With the implosion of the USSR, essentially a "victory" in a cold war that was actually pretty hot for those who fought and died in multiple proxy conflicts - everything from Korea to Vietnam to Grenada - the moment was perfect for one of two things to happen...

1) "Flex the muscles" - The USA could take enormous advantage of the chaos and disruption left behind by the USSR's rollback. Defense expenditures would spike; overseas units would be increased, moved forward, territorial and resource demands made. Or...

2) "The Peace Dividend." - The USA could dramatically cut defense spending and reduce the size of her forces. We could look forward to a future of prosperity, trade, and cooperation.

We chose Door number 2. Unfortunately, certain entities did not want to play along. Saddam's invasion of Kuwait was a root cause among many of the WOT as it now exists, because of the enmity and raw hatred it created in the minds of a few, one being OBL. We know what happened... multiple terror attacks in the decade of the 1990's, culminating in 9/11.

If the USA sought confrontation, the year 1990 would have seen it kick off with a series of possible military maneuvers aimed at Eastern Europe and Asia. That didn't happen.

 

[lem34]

. Saddam's invasion of Kuwait was a root cause among many of the WOT as it now exists, because of the enmity and raw hatred it created in the minds of a few, one being OBL. We know what happened... multiple terror attacks in the decade of the 1990's, culminating in 9/11.

.

but Chogy didnt allbright I think was her name the American ambassador to the UN give the green light to Saddam for Kuwait??

If anything I think Bush snr managed to get a coalition together which i thought was cool.

I hav to say Bush jnr has a lot to answer for.

Anyway back to topic explain to me why america allows india several consulates in afghanistan which will clearly be seen and is seen as a pot threat to Pak interests, I think pakistan has no problem fighting with terrorism thats in all our interests whether pakistani or american but I think problems occurr when you include americas geopolitical ambitions in the wake of silk road etc which no one in pakistani neighbourhood but india would like

 

[SpArK]

China & Russia need to take action against America

Maybe ACTION after Christmas.. lets wait.

 

[lem34]

Defeatist mindset is not the correct term. For international affairs, every nation has some policy and interests. Some are more willing to protect their interests more aggressively then others.

Point is that 'aggressive pursuit of interests' can have serious ramifications. Russia and China are playing their game carefully. They will not seek open confrontation with USA and would work to defuse tensions whenever possible.

However, when push comes to shove, we cannot expect them to be our saviours. We will be left alone to defend ourselves as has been witnessed in cases of other nations. You cannot expect Chinese or Russian militaries to come and fight for Pakistan. Russia is absolutely out of the picture in this regard. If China does something, it may provide us some weapons like more JF-17 aircraft. However, their will be consequences for China too because of its indirect support. This is how the game of imperialism works.


We have agreement with US/NATO in this regard. Our case is different from that of Iran.

And I am not just talking about supply routes. I am talking about holding US/NATO forces in Afghanistan as HOSTAGE. This is not possible for any nation.


And basis of your assumption is?

first I believe that its in russia and china interests not to allow america to continue ala afghan, iraq, libya next syria iran pakistan. Secondly i dont expect russia or china to come and fight our wars. I did not suggest holding american soldiers hostage I dont see how us not supplying routes to americans is holding american soldiers as hostage, what if america goes to war with china?? are we to give routes to america? cos if we dont bend over then we are confronting america??? Oh whilst we are at it american govt thinks pakistan should hand over azad kashmir over to india. oh we better give it to india cos we cant afford to antagonise america...

 

[lem34]

We have agreement with US/NATO in this regard. Our case is different from that of Iran.

And I am not just talking about supply routes. ?

i am sure that deal does not include blatent disregard for pakistani soldiers lives. In any event this american action is sufficient to state that they breached terms of any contract we may have had

---------- Post added at 07:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:59 PM ----------

And basis of your assumption is?

afghanistan, iraq, libya now syria iran .......

 

[VCheng]

but Chogy didnt allbright I think was her name the American ambassador to the UN give the green light to Saddam for Kuwait??..............

Not Albright, but April C. Glaspie, US ambassador to Iraq during 1980-88, leading up to the first Gulf War in 1991:

April Glaspie - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[gambit]

but Chogy didnt allbright I think was her name the American ambassador to the UN give the green light to Saddam for Kuwait??

Not Albright, but April C. Glaspie, US ambassador to Iraq during 1980-88, leading up to the first Gulf War in 1991:

April Glaspie - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There goes that loony conspiracy theory again. Glaspie's mission and meeting comments to Saddam was at best ambiguous either way: deterrence OR acquiescence. At worst, the US was guilty of incompetence. There was nothing in Glaspie's comments to Saddam, and they have been dissected to death, to mean that any sort of 'green light' for Saddam to invade Kuwait. Those who continues to use the 'green light' analogy are not interested in investing the time in reading those dissections. They already made up their minds and will always seek out 'commentators' who shares the same mindset about this item.