Embrace India, not Pakistan, says US columnist
- Thread starter ssheppard
- Start date
No thank you. We absolutely want the US to get into love with India. It'd be pretty interesting to see the relationship 20 years down the road with America exploiting your Red corridor to gain a foothold in China.
Nice plan USA
Thank you Sir for your genorocity ...... but you can keep USA... Akhir barasoh ka rista hai app logo ka!! Waise vi, Ham second hand maal nahi lete
oct605032048
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2009
- Messages
- 2,972
- Reaction score
- 0
Well generally speaking I don't want to get involved into pak-US relations but when it comes to China, well , China is Pakistan's second largest trade partner(after Saudi) and there is a FTA between the two sides.
In five years, the karakorum highway will be widened to 30 meters and In ten years there might be a railway that links two country, a pipe line might also be constructed to transport energy from Iran to China through Pakistan.
All the economic connections means one thing: the turmoil and weakness of Pakistan is inconsistent with Beijing's benefit. Let alone the geopolitical consideration.
Enigma SIG
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2009
- Messages
- 8,593
- Reaction score
- -5
- Country
- Location
LOL
The only redundant allies you had were Russia and or Israel. Pakistan had more allied states than you have right now
Pakistan paid in its own hard cash for the military assistance it got from the US. Indians are delusional that we were cash strapped back then
Regarding loans, the whole world is running on loans
Dubai was about to default on something around 26 Billion dollars; Pakistan is just a small fish in a big sea of sharks Sir , Pakistan and China are two independent countries.....and they have right to conduct themselves the way they want...no question asked...
My statement is a comment on how Pakistanis conduct their country....they simply don't plan for redundancy....and after the partner country gets tired of Pakistan....and moves away....they blame the country for using Pakistan....For example Look at US.
US was their All weather friend till the time US supported Pakistan...and its Plans against India ....the moment US went away..and asked the same favor back....they have labeled US as their worse enemy.
Donatello
RETIRED TTA
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2009
- Messages
- 10,531
- Reaction score
- 23
- Country
- Location
Thank you Sir for your genorocity ...... but you can keep USA... Akhir barasoh ka rista hai app logo ka!! Waise vi, Ham second hand maal nahi lete
See, that comment by this ignorant Indian fellow is funny, because i see that Indian Navy's biggest ships in history were second hand.....
examples?
INS Viraat,
INS Vikrant
INS Jalashwa,
INS Chara (K-43 Sub)....
and the list goes on.
Too bad, what you can't make, either you get "second hand maal" or you get them designed in Russia.
At least know what you are talking about. You are here to just spam, aren't you?
regards,
a ****.
I envy the Leadership that China had had in the last 20 years and their foresight..... Hope your embrace of Pakistan would not find Pakistan in a state that their embrace of USA had delivered.....
While the U.S. and Pakistan are allies in the fight against Islamic terror, you would not know that by the way the Pakistani foreign ministry is treating Americans. Police have been increasingly harassing American officials, and hundreds of visas for American government workers and contractors, being sent to Pakistan, have been delayed for no given reason. Many Pakistanis, including senior government officials, believe India, and its American ally, are bigger threats than the Taliban.
khanz
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2007
- Messages
- 4,514
- Reaction score
- 1
lol i read this article ages it's from newsweek one of the most anti-pakistan publications their editor in chief was fareed zakari was indian a notorious pakistan hater this was the same people who published the famous pakistan most dangerous place on earth article with the propoganda picture of the screaming anti-west bearded protestors on the front cover i don't take them seriously they don't know the first thing about pakistan.
Bushy
BANNED
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2009
- Messages
- 510
- Reaction score
- 0
No we will not shout anti-US slogans, we will bring those drones down.
No we will not shout anti-US slogans, we will bring those drones down.
No will not shout anti-US slogans, we will get our house rid of that super power, including the diplomats.
No we will not shout anti-US slogans, we will officially call that country our biggest enemy and cut down its presence in our country to the minimal. We did it with China.
No we will not despise, because we have not been blind to the conditions of the Polish and Yugoslavian forces right after the World War II. We will not be foolish and just keep some kind of insurance against this typical nature of American diplomacy.
No we will not be angry because anger is never an answer. As I mentioned before, we will use our insurance policies.
That is nothing more than utter hate, because double standards have always been there, and failure to see them is a sin you are paying for dearly.
It is still not too late, force the Americans out while you can.
Thomas
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2009
- Messages
- 2,688
- Reaction score
- 0
let me be very clear over here. we hate the hypocrties of this country more than US. they have always existed in our history and you are right on your point that why complain the enemy when your own people are betraying you?
we blame both our corrupt leaders and US stabbing for this condition. you said US can offer Pak money, but isnt US itself the cause of destruction of our economy so that we are forced to go for US money? remember the 90s US embargo? and now this war on terror has ripped us apart. even if US can really give us money, then US expects us to give us our thousands of lives in return?does US even have some humanism? and then obama gets Nobel Peace Award
Sometimes I get the feeling that many of the people that post here. Do not have the same views of the average Pakistani. I say that becuase I see so many rants and complaints about it's leaders. yet when there is an election many of the people they complain about get elected by the will of the people. then the complaints start all over again. if you knew they were so corrupt then why did you put them in office? If an election was held tomorrow I would wager that many of the same people that are being complained about here would get re-elected.
illuminatus
BANNED
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2009
- Messages
- 560
- Reaction score
- 0
yet when there is an election many of the people they complain about get elected by the will of the people.
That's because faces never change in Pakistan. Election in Pakistan means selection of rotten apples. Anyone that knows a little bit of Pakistani history also knows that after independence a bunch of crooks took charge and made politics their family business. Pakistani nation has ever since been strangled by these handful of elite thugs. Add to that, dollars that are poured in to secure US/Western interests with the help of the thugs and you know what I'm getting at. Fortunately, after all that has happened and is still happening there's a wind of change. People have had enough. The media is openly exposing the thugs and their corrupt practices each day. No one is being spared. The masses that were being kept in the dark are much more informed nowadays. Expect an uprising in the coming years. I can sense the frustration in the Pakistani people. The time bomb is ticking so to speak.
That's because faces never change in Pakistan. Election in Pakistan means selection of rotten apples. Anyone that knows a little bit of Pakistani history also knows that after independence a bunch of crooks took charge and made politics their family business. Pakistani nation has ever since been strangled by these handful of elite thugs. Add to that, dollars that are poured in to secure US/Western interests with the help of the thugs and you know what I'm getting at. Fortunately, after all that has happened and is still happening there's a wind of change. People have had enough. The media is openly exposing the thugs and their corrupt practices each day. No one is being spared. The masses that were being kept in the dark are much more informed nowadays. Expect an uprising in the coming years. I can sense the frustration in the Pakistani people. The time bomb is ticking so to speak.
Last edited:
Thomas
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2009
- Messages
- 2,688
- Reaction score
- 0
ANALYSIS: Kerry-Lugar and the domestic debate Dr Hasan-Askari Rizvi
The government should work towards accommodating some, if not all, concerns of the military and the opposition and explore the option with the US administration to dilute the undiplomatic formulation of the contentious provisions of the bill
The current debate on the Kerry-Lugar bill shows close linkages between domestic politics and foreign policy concerns and how the dynamics of domestic politics overrides Pakistans security and foreign policy issues.
The government found itself under heavy political attack on the Kerry-Lugar bill, mainly because of its failure to maintain cordial relations with the major opposition party, the PMLN. The PPP did not fully honour its pre-election commitments to the PMLN. Now, the opposition, especially the PMLN, has picked up the Kerry-Lugar bill as an opportunity to get even with the government.
The on-going debate has four major features that have implications for Pakistans foreign policy and domestic politics.
First, never in the past, Pakistan-US relations caused such controversies and emotionalism. Second, the US has never before offered assistance for socio-economic development to any Pakistani civilian government at such scale. In the past, the balance of US assistance was heavily tilted towards the military. Third, the Pakistan Army never publicly rebuked some provisions governing US assistance to Pakistan, although the army top brass have not rejected US military assistance and cooperation. Fourth, unconfirmed reports with the media and shared by the military circles and some opposition leaders suggest that the detailed stipulations about the military, the intelligence agencies, terrorism and nuclear proliferation were inserted in the bill on the initiative of or with the consent of the Pakistan government.
The Pakistan government is bound to defend the bill because it was consulted by the US government at various stages of its formulations. Its leaders take pride in arguing that they managed to dilute some provisions of the bill like the mention of Abdul Qadeer Khan by name.
If the Pakistan government was monitoring the bill so closely, it should have realised that some of its provisions would be sharply criticised in the domestic context because these provisions intrude into the domains of powerful interests in Pakistan.
The provisions of the bill are not binding on the government of Pakistan and its directives apply to the US administration. Military assistance is subject to certification and economic assistance is subject to monitoring and reviews by the US administration. The government of Pakistan is not bound to submit reports on each item relating to certification and monitoring.
The certification provision, like the Pressler Amendment (1985), provides the US administration with an exit option. If Pakistan loses its relevance to the on-going efforts to control terrorism in and around Afghanistan, the US can stop military assistance by refusing to certify, as was done in 1990.
The monitoring and political assessment will be done by the Holbrooke team and its associates, but their approval is not a pre-requisite for grant of economic assistance. Therefore, Pakistan can follow any policy it wants to pursue.
The major opposition objection relates to the inclusion of some issues in the bill that pertain to, in their opinion, Pakistans exclusive internal domain. Further, they argue that such references amount to framing a charge sheet against Pakistan. It needs to be mentioned that the US Congressional hearings have been taking up all these issues since 2002 and other European government, including the UK, have raised these issues from time to time. Should Pakistan delink itself from all these countries?
This said, there are two major problems with the bill which could have been avoided.
First, some of the provisions have been written in undiplomatic and rude language without taking into account the sensitivities of Pakistans domestic politics. The Pakistan experts associated with the State Department and Pakistans Foreign Office should have known that direct reference to the details of civilian primacy, intelligence agencies and militancy, mentioning of specific places with reference to terrorism and three references to nuclear proliferation are bound to provide enough political ammunition to the opposition in Pakistan to mount a strong political assault on the government whose political support has eroded since the 2008 elections.
The funds to be provided to Pakistan under the Kerry-Lugar bill relate to social and economic development and these have nothing to do with military and security fields. However, section 203 of the bill provides details of certification conditions for military assistance. These should have been legislated separately because these do not seem to apply to the assistance under the bill.
Pakistani critics have mixed military assistance conditions with monitoring provisions to show that these are extremely intrusive and bound Pakistan to follow them in letter and spirit. Further, there is an overlap between these two sets of provisions on terrorism, military and non-proliferation, giving an opportunity to the critics that Pakistans policy options have been restricted.
The most troubling development is public denunciation of some provisions of the bill by the army top commanders. The decision of the top commanders to go public on this issue rather than communicate their concerns quietly to the government has strong political implications. It seems that the top commanders thought that the government would not pay attention unless they join with the anti-bill discourse in the parliament and outside. This statement is bound to embolden the opposition because they now know the most powerful institution of the state is not on board with the government.
Traditionally, the military top brass, especially the Army high command, have taken a strong exception to civilian government interference in militarys internal organisational matters, including promotions, postings and related matters. They think if political leaders are allowed to interfere in these matters their professionalism and internal coherence will be adversely affected.
Similarly, they do not want unilateral civilian decision-making on defence expenditure and its disbursement, their salary, perks and privileges, economic and business interests, key security and defence issues, including the nuclear programme, and military-related intelligence agencies. However, they are prepared to discuss these issues with the civilian government and work towards shared decision-making.
The army top command must have thought that the civilian government would use the cover of section 302 (15) of the bill that goes into minute details of civil-military relations and the provisions regarding terrorism and non-proliferation to interfere with the armys internal organisational affairs. The army top brass have resisted such attempts during the earlier phase of civilian rule (1988-1999) and took a strong exception to the present governments attempt to bring the ISI under complete civilian control.
The public statement by the top commanders has serious implications in the currently polarised political environment. This statement shows the alienation of the army top brass from the civilian government, emboldening the PMLN to take a tough line because it would be much happy if the current controversy makes this government dysfunctional and new elections are forced.
Therefore, if the impression of differences between the civil and the military persists, the opposition parties may explore the option of going to the streets, expecting that the army will not support the civilian government.
The current nationalist euphoria should not be employed to deny Pakistans troubled internal realities and live in self-cultivated delusions. Rather, the political leadership should mobilise human and material resources to strengthen the economy and reduce dependence on foreign economic assistance.
Meanwhile, the government should work towards accommodating some, if not all, concerns of the military and the opposition and explore the option with the US administration to dilute the undiplomatic formulation of the contentious provisions of the bill.
Dr Hasan-Askari Rizvi is a political and defence analyst
The government should work towards accommodating some, if not all, concerns of the military and the opposition and explore the option with the US administration to dilute the undiplomatic formulation of the contentious provisions of the bill
The current debate on the Kerry-Lugar bill shows close linkages between domestic politics and foreign policy concerns and how the dynamics of domestic politics overrides Pakistans security and foreign policy issues.
The government found itself under heavy political attack on the Kerry-Lugar bill, mainly because of its failure to maintain cordial relations with the major opposition party, the PMLN. The PPP did not fully honour its pre-election commitments to the PMLN. Now, the opposition, especially the PMLN, has picked up the Kerry-Lugar bill as an opportunity to get even with the government.
The on-going debate has four major features that have implications for Pakistans foreign policy and domestic politics.
First, never in the past, Pakistan-US relations caused such controversies and emotionalism. Second, the US has never before offered assistance for socio-economic development to any Pakistani civilian government at such scale. In the past, the balance of US assistance was heavily tilted towards the military. Third, the Pakistan Army never publicly rebuked some provisions governing US assistance to Pakistan, although the army top brass have not rejected US military assistance and cooperation. Fourth, unconfirmed reports with the media and shared by the military circles and some opposition leaders suggest that the detailed stipulations about the military, the intelligence agencies, terrorism and nuclear proliferation were inserted in the bill on the initiative of or with the consent of the Pakistan government.
The Pakistan government is bound to defend the bill because it was consulted by the US government at various stages of its formulations. Its leaders take pride in arguing that they managed to dilute some provisions of the bill like the mention of Abdul Qadeer Khan by name.
If the Pakistan government was monitoring the bill so closely, it should have realised that some of its provisions would be sharply criticised in the domestic context because these provisions intrude into the domains of powerful interests in Pakistan.
The provisions of the bill are not binding on the government of Pakistan and its directives apply to the US administration. Military assistance is subject to certification and economic assistance is subject to monitoring and reviews by the US administration. The government of Pakistan is not bound to submit reports on each item relating to certification and monitoring.
The certification provision, like the Pressler Amendment (1985), provides the US administration with an exit option. If Pakistan loses its relevance to the on-going efforts to control terrorism in and around Afghanistan, the US can stop military assistance by refusing to certify, as was done in 1990.
The monitoring and political assessment will be done by the Holbrooke team and its associates, but their approval is not a pre-requisite for grant of economic assistance. Therefore, Pakistan can follow any policy it wants to pursue.
The major opposition objection relates to the inclusion of some issues in the bill that pertain to, in their opinion, Pakistans exclusive internal domain. Further, they argue that such references amount to framing a charge sheet against Pakistan. It needs to be mentioned that the US Congressional hearings have been taking up all these issues since 2002 and other European government, including the UK, have raised these issues from time to time. Should Pakistan delink itself from all these countries?
This said, there are two major problems with the bill which could have been avoided.
First, some of the provisions have been written in undiplomatic and rude language without taking into account the sensitivities of Pakistans domestic politics. The Pakistan experts associated with the State Department and Pakistans Foreign Office should have known that direct reference to the details of civilian primacy, intelligence agencies and militancy, mentioning of specific places with reference to terrorism and three references to nuclear proliferation are bound to provide enough political ammunition to the opposition in Pakistan to mount a strong political assault on the government whose political support has eroded since the 2008 elections.
The funds to be provided to Pakistan under the Kerry-Lugar bill relate to social and economic development and these have nothing to do with military and security fields. However, section 203 of the bill provides details of certification conditions for military assistance. These should have been legislated separately because these do not seem to apply to the assistance under the bill.
Pakistani critics have mixed military assistance conditions with monitoring provisions to show that these are extremely intrusive and bound Pakistan to follow them in letter and spirit. Further, there is an overlap between these two sets of provisions on terrorism, military and non-proliferation, giving an opportunity to the critics that Pakistans policy options have been restricted.
The most troubling development is public denunciation of some provisions of the bill by the army top commanders. The decision of the top commanders to go public on this issue rather than communicate their concerns quietly to the government has strong political implications. It seems that the top commanders thought that the government would not pay attention unless they join with the anti-bill discourse in the parliament and outside. This statement is bound to embolden the opposition because they now know the most powerful institution of the state is not on board with the government.
Traditionally, the military top brass, especially the Army high command, have taken a strong exception to civilian government interference in militarys internal organisational matters, including promotions, postings and related matters. They think if political leaders are allowed to interfere in these matters their professionalism and internal coherence will be adversely affected.
Similarly, they do not want unilateral civilian decision-making on defence expenditure and its disbursement, their salary, perks and privileges, economic and business interests, key security and defence issues, including the nuclear programme, and military-related intelligence agencies. However, they are prepared to discuss these issues with the civilian government and work towards shared decision-making.
The army top command must have thought that the civilian government would use the cover of section 302 (15) of the bill that goes into minute details of civil-military relations and the provisions regarding terrorism and non-proliferation to interfere with the armys internal organisational affairs. The army top brass have resisted such attempts during the earlier phase of civilian rule (1988-1999) and took a strong exception to the present governments attempt to bring the ISI under complete civilian control.
The public statement by the top commanders has serious implications in the currently polarised political environment. This statement shows the alienation of the army top brass from the civilian government, emboldening the PMLN to take a tough line because it would be much happy if the current controversy makes this government dysfunctional and new elections are forced.
Therefore, if the impression of differences between the civil and the military persists, the opposition parties may explore the option of going to the streets, expecting that the army will not support the civilian government.
The current nationalist euphoria should not be employed to deny Pakistans troubled internal realities and live in self-cultivated delusions. Rather, the political leadership should mobilise human and material resources to strengthen the economy and reduce dependence on foreign economic assistance.
Meanwhile, the government should work towards accommodating some, if not all, concerns of the military and the opposition and explore the option with the US administration to dilute the undiplomatic formulation of the contentious provisions of the bill.
Dr Hasan-Askari Rizvi is a political and defence analyst
Hulk
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2009
- Messages
- 7,582
- Reaction score
- -18
- Country
- Location
That is because those who talk on these forums does not go to vote and those who vote does not care about USA that much, they have other things to worry. Plus in democracy it is said "if donkeys are in majority they will elect a donkey". The same thing happens in India where bandits got elected.
About the drone strikes and all. Pakistan created that kind of relationship with India where it was obliging the former by doing what is asked and getting benefits out of it. Now what they expect from you is part of that kind of relationship.
Also drone attack in Pakistan is sanctioned by GOP and PA otherwise why ISI is providing the USA will intelligence for these strikes. Why cry foul when you are party to it, or blame ISI also, why just blame USA.
Everyone is free to walkout of relationship any point in time, but what Pakistan wants to have benefits but do away with negatives waoo. There are not free lunches in this world.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Article
