How so? I dont think we can call sanctioning Pakistan during a time of war(65, 71) could be called a defense umbrella. You are just making a baseless claim without any facts.
token sanctions to appease the Western allies. USA was right behind Pakistan during the 1971 Bangladesh liberation war.
When's the last time any modern US leader has condemned or criticized Pakistan, ever?
So you rate performance on the basis of kill ratios and not total gains
, am i getting this right. I guess in this case Nazi Germany was the victor on the Eastern Front in World War 2 since they killed 27 million Soviets. The Americans can kill as many foot soldiers of the Taliban as they want, the Taliban will just go to the villages and recruit more. What matters more is how much territory are the Americans controlling and what infleunce they have among the people. The Americans are loosing the war day by day because they are loosing the infleunce among the oridnary Afghans. I dont know how you came up with the conclusion that US has a edge by a mile, your simply dreaming too much.
Performance is based on K/R, not # of kills and territorial gains.
Pakistan has committed more troops to Afghanistan, but its performance on a per capita basis is a fraction of the USA.
Get it?
Why should the americans send their soldiers to die when Pakistan is willing to accept thousands of dead Pakistani soldiers?
USA simply doesn't have the stomach for such casualties.
To fight the Taliban, Absolutely Yes. Afterall it were the Americans whom started this bloody war.
Ah yes, because American became a home for Osama Bin Laden and provided tacit support for the Taliban and LeT.
Right.
Atleast they kept the peace, whether you like it or not Taliban are engraved in the Afghan Society. The Americans are learning it the hard way, you cannot simply impose Democracy on people who simply dont want it.
Pakistan used the Taliban to keep the peace. It supported the Taliban. The Taliban could have been disbanded after the soviets left.
They have spent much more than that on Pakistan's Infrastructure, the amount of cooperation that exists between China and Pakistan far outstrips that with the USA. Your just making claims without the support of any evidence, next time better do your homework
I doubt it.
AID America gives us is in their own interest.. All equipment they give us are all in their own interest. They cannot expect us to help them to get out of their pathetic situation free of cost.. Everything has a price and nothing is free.
Of course American aid is in its own interest. Duh.
Pakistan has failed to live up to its commitment. I mean dear god, US weapons are finding themselves in the hands of TALIBAN MILITANTS!
Perhaps Pakistani should stop blaming Americans for their own corruption and self-inflicted wounds.
Pakistan was a SEATO/CENTO signatory for a brief period in the 50s and early 60s. As a consequence of the 1965 war with India, not only did the US not assist Pakistan, it embargoed us. Same thing happened in '71. This can be contrasted with US assistance to Israel, for example, which allowed Israel to narrowly escape being completely over-run by Arab forces in 1974. The US not only "gifted" Israel nuclear technology, but also re-armed it and made up its losses while the war was in progress, and then also sent USAF pilots to help the Israelis dig themselves out of a fairly deep hole. At the end of the day, you can look at these two war scenarios and drastically different US behaviour in both and your question is answered
A) Israel was embargoed by Europe and almost sanctioned by the USA in 1967. It was forced to retreat out of Egypt and agree to cease-fire, when it was in a position to destroy the Arab states for good. This paved the conditions for the yom kipurr war.
B) US never gifted US technology, ever. Eisenhower was prepared to sanction Israel because of its occupation of Gaza (taken in a defensive war with Egypt - see Sinai war), and Kennedy was threatening to turn Israel into the UN over its nuclear program.
c) US support during the yom kippur war was predicated on agreements made during 1967 where the US promised Israel's security in exchange for a cease-fire with the Arabs. Without the aid Israel would have been defeated.
Pakistan has never been on the brink of extinction, cept for the old India-Pakistan nuclear threats.
Then, through the 90s, as soon as the Soviet Union was defeated in Afghanistan and Pakistan was no longer needed, the country was sanctioned heavily as Bush the Elder refused to extend assurances regarding Pakistan's nuclear program. All the while, the US has aided Israel which is known to have over a hundred nuclear weapons.
A) Bush 1 sanctioned Israel of the settlements in spite of long-standing agreements with the USA over them
B) Pakistan was not an ally in the sense Israel was. Pakistan's nuclear program was bankrolled by Saudi Arabia, USA didn't care about it.
If Pakistan had actually been under the US umbrella, as you suggest, we would not be where we are, with a chequered history as allies. What we see as repeated US betrayal, disengagement and callousness - mostly now confirmed by Petraeus, Hillary Clinton and other American leaders in their elucidations on our past history - is what has shaped our attitude towards the US.
Nearly 30% of Pakistan's military is subsidized directly by the USA. 60,000+ US soldiers are fighting in a concerted effort with the Pakistani military. USA has spent 50,000,000,000+ protecting Pakistan and supporting its own operations in the country.
This says a lot considering Pakistan's ISI had a hand in 9/11 (reason why US is in afghanistan).
Pakistan and US are like old couple , they fight on issues but need each other for their interests too even though US is in love with the girl next door "India".
Hardly. USA has turned the other way because of Pakistan's support for LeT militants that have killed 100,000+ hindus since 1989. In fact, Obama planned on pressuring India to ends its occupation of Kashmir and force an agreement with Pakistan without demanding Pakistan end support for terrorist movements.
USA gives nothing to India, which should be an ally considering it is a natural ally (democracy, etc..)
