Does the USA want to destroy Pakistan

[VCheng]

I'm not blaming coercion just pointing it out . There is a very big difference
Your whole point is non sensical and totally pointless.
If you cant be an adult, Please stay out this thread,

Thank you for pointing out all the excuses you have tried to make for Pakistan's own failures.

 

[KAL-EL]

No

 

[Abid123]

@Zornix

Anything you find funny.

 

[MultaniGuy]

@Title,

no wonder why China is so popular vis-a-vis USA.

Everyone lets support China! Buy Chinese products instead of American ones!

Oh my God, all the amputations all the money lost of an imperial soldier:

Yeah, these soldiers deserved it.

 

[VCheng]

Yeah, these soldiers deserved it.

Just like these ones?

An overview of the Rehabilitation Medicine in Pakistan Armed Forces: The road covered so far and the journey ahead.

ALL soldiers deserve respect for doing their duties.

 

[omegared]

Pakistan will do that once Imran Khan comes back to power.

By the looks of it, he will eventually get back to power.

Then what? We move to more independent foreign policy, Move towards China and try not to piss off the USA too much?
Hopefully we stop dragging our feet with CPEC.
We should have built the pipeline from Iran to China by now, i'm guessing it would annoy the Saudis or Americans so it was never done.
We need the west for a strong economy or we need to do some serious trade with China and other nearby countries.
When IK comes back we could be in for a bumpy ride.

Thank you for pointing out all the excuses you have tried to make for Pakistan's own failures.

Thanks you for overusing the word blaming at every opportunity to make a non sensical argument .

 

[VCheng]

By the looks of it, he will eventually get back to power.

And then all will be well. When are the next elections?

 

[TheSolution]

This mythical idea of Pakistan (at least the Pakistani elites that have ruled the country from 1947 until today) somehow being anti-West, is one of the biggest myths out there. Pakistanis love the West and almost everything Western. To the point that millions of us are based in the very same West.

There's a difference between being politically anti-West and straight up hating the west.

No one can deny the Western influence on not just Pakistan, but the globe, and their accepting attitude towards other ethnicities, the opportunities they provide, as well as freedom of speech.

Won't find that in regards to China, so in that aspect the west will remain a favourite.

But political interference is a big no-no

 

[omegared]

There's a difference between being politically anti-West and straight up hating the west.

No one can deny the Western influence on not just Pakistan, but the globe, and their accepting attitude towards other ethnicities, the opportunities they provide, as well as freedom of speech.

Won't find that in regards to China, so in that aspect the west will remain a favourite.

But political interference is a big no-no

The westerners have huge influence over the globe.
The western influence is definitely on the wane.
Even many westerners hate the westerners now.
Many nations in the west are in rapid decline,

Many wealthy people in the west are taxed at ridiculous levels and get very little in return.
If our business or method of generating money is not dependent on living in the west, we are better suited to leaving.

The freedoms we get in the west are great and we are part and parcel of the societies in the west,
If I had a viable alternative I would leave in a year.

 

[omegared]

Another view

Pakistan's top gun seeks U.S.-China balance before retirement​

Gen. Bajwa's diplomatic ambitions clash with domestic political tensions
WAJAHAT S. KHAN, Nikkei staff writerOCTOBER 25, 2022 06:00 JST
NEW YORK -- With the clock ticking on his expected retirement, Pakistan's all-powerful army chief, Gen. Qamar Javed Bajwa, paid a long-delayed visit to Washington in early October. Some saw it as a valedictory trip. Others speculated that it was a signal he intends to stay on after his term ends next month, just as he secured an extension in 2019.
Either way, Bajwa's mission was clear: shoring up a crucial diplomatic relationship undermined by years of distrust, at a time when Islamabad faces an unprecedented storm of challenges, including political turmoil inflamed last Friday by the disqualification of former Prime Minister Imran Khan from holding public office.
Sources with firsthand knowledge of the general's recent meetings paint a picture of Pakistan seeking nothing less than a new arrangement with the U.S. -- one that balances ties with China, helps decrease tensions with India and boosts the struggling economy, while sustaining military relations.
Forging such a broad relationship would normally be up to civilian diplomats. Indeed, new Foreign Minister Bilawal Bhutto Zardari recently made his own lengthy stateside trip. But few would deny that it is the commander of the 600,000-man army and the only nuclear-armed Islamic military who wields the most clout in Pakistan, where the elected leadership relies on the top brass's patronage to stay in office.
As whispers swirl over Bajwa's future and who might succeed him -- late last week the general himself declared he is retiring -- a key question is whether his outreach to the U.S. can usher Pakistan onto firmer footing. The South Asian country's weak government is wrestling with high debt, dwindling foreign exchange reserves, catastrophic flooding and a raucous opposition further riled by Khan's disqualification.
Over the course of six days, from Oct. 1 to 6, the general held a flurry of meetings with senior officials from the State Department, Defense Department, the National Security Council and the intelligence community. According to one official familiar with the proceedings, Bajwa presented a vision for a bilateral relationship "much like the Americans' understanding with South Korea."

U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, left, hosts Gen. Qamar Javed Bajwa at the Pentagon in Washington on Oct. 4. (Courtesy of U.S. Department of Defense)
"He told them that we'd like to be a strategic partner of the U.S. not in name, but in action," said the official, speaking on condition of anonymity. The message was that there should be "a wider net connecting us -- infrastructure, tech, health and trade -- and not just the military and defense ties that we've depended on for decades."
Alluding to Pakistan's dire economic straits, the official noted the country can be a "more useful partner" if it is doing well. "Frankly, we'd rather [the Americans] invest in us."
While the Pentagon issued only a brief statement about the general's visit, commemorating 75 years of diplomatic relations, the State Department made a clear disclaimer: Pakistan's civilian government, and not the military that has ruled the country directly or indirectly since independence in 1947, is America's "primary interlocutor."
Still, another source confirmed that U.S. "follow-ups" to the general's visit are underway across different departments.

Bajwa's trip made it apparent that the U.S. wants Pakistan's advice on Afghanistan, particularly how to help Afghan women. A source said that Bajwa was consulted about the women at every meeting, and that he offered ideas such as incentivizing the Taliban to allow women to study and work by sponsoring all-female schools and hospitals.
Moreover, the U.S. and other partners last week removed Pakistan from the Financial Action Task Force's terrorism financing "gray list," after major efforts by Bajwa's security agencies.
But to restore its Cold War-era position as a trusted U.S. partner, Islamabad has its work cut out. Pakistan has lost America's confidence due to its support for the Taliban in Afghanistan, its tilt toward China, its never-ending rivalry with India and its expanding nuclear arsenal.
"Pakistanis have to be careful not to start expecting a return to the relationship of the past," warned Husain Haqqani, Pakistan's former ambassador to Washington and now a director of Central and South Asia at the Hudson Institute.
"At the same time, there is now potential for a new relationship," he added. "It will be based on a more realistic assessment, hopefully by both sides, of what the two countries can do for another. ... Pragmatic engagement is the only viable way forward."

 

[Turingsage]

exactly
which is why US gave 500 million for f-16 maintenance
also why Pak is still in the FATF list
also why Pak is still a MNNA

500 million is not even single peanut. At todays value that is about 0.0005% of free money Pakistan received from US.
You are no longer in FATF, you would never have been there had you made and applied the laws to prevent undocumented transferring of money to terror groups
and what is MNNA ?

 

[khansaheeb]

US doesn't wants to destroy Pakistan and even for the same matter India unless Pakistan poses direct and serious threat to the US interests or the main land. US only wants us to be kept on the life support economically and whenever we are needed can be used and abused for few 100 million dollars to full fill their agendas.
Imagine 220 million homeless people on the move if something happens to the Pakistan, will Europe or US or India can accommodate us? Answer is clear NO.
Then add a bit of spice there are plenty of train soldiers who can go rouge and can start new wars and destabilise the region or beyond. What if a single nuclear device is stolen and lands somewhere inside the container in Europe or US and culprit demands $100 billion to be safely disposed off.
Its too risky and too many unknown factors to grapple with and considering Pakistan is no threat to any US or Western interests and our generals are too eager to please and can be bought so easily. So why put hand in the hornets nest when one day same hornets can be set upon at others when need arises by just only giving green cards.
Why do you think our officers are given scholarships to be trained in the US/UK? Why Hillary Clinton said multiple times putting sanctions on the Pakistan in 80's they did lost all the influence on the Pakistan armed forces as no Pakistan officers were trained in the US?
We are shackled and controlled by the US by having weak economy and by our own dirty politicians who come into the power by their blessing and then those politicians are protected by the brown men wearing Khaki and the world carries on with their business.

What an Indian thought.

 

[Goritoes]

America will look after its interest, and will go to any extent to keep its Super power title, even if it means lighting the whole world on fire, but then who doesn't ? Give power to Russians they will do the same, Give power to Chinese they will do the same, Give Power to Germans/British they will do it, Give power to Indians ( Nah fuq it ), give Pakistan that super Power and our own Army will massacre's people for their own interest, I don't know why people expect US to be an Angel ? And why they believe America always to the right thing ? How many times the same thing has to be repeated?

 

[SQ8]

There are over 200 nuclear systems in redundant controls and storages scattered throughout Pakistani territory.
Unless a cohesive Pakistan state exists that can both control territory and these nuclear systems there is always a danger that during the chaos of a splinter states those weapons could run amok. No number of special forces and troops could find them - which the United States understands and therefore Pakistan’s survival and state control is in the interests of the United States.

However, if a Pakistani ruling system somehow comes to power(and regardless of current emotions this is not the Army) which decides to not only gather all the nuclear weapons and materials from all their locations And then dismantle them .. and then there is a ethnic situation with the Pakistan Army not honoring its backchannel connections with the US military to stabilize things.. then the US will not worry too much about holding Pakistan together and instead focus on who will control the coastlines and the border with China.

 

[Beidou2020]

As an outsider looking at what is happening to Pakistan, the answer is the empire wants Pakistan under its control. Anyone that disobey the empire will be removed from power using any and all means necessary.

From what I read, only true patriotic leader in Pakistan is Imran Khan. He has presence about him, he speaks well, he just looks like a good leader. He is independent minded, therefore the empire had to remove him from power by doing their usual regime change operation. Other Pakistani leaders are willing to obey the commands of the empire.