F-16s & Orions used as a threat

[EagleEyes]

US senator threatens punitive move in Congress
By Anwar Iqbal

WASHINGTON, Nov 4: Senator Joseph R. Biden, chairman of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said on Sunday that the United States should consider taking away F-16 fighter jets and other military equipment from Pakistan if the Musharraf regime does not withdraw the decree imposing an emergency rule.

Senator Biden told CBS television that he had “just exchanged” telephone calls with President Pervez Musharraf, urging him to reconsider his decision.

Asked what would be the first thing he would do on Monday, the first working day for the US Congress after the imposition of emergency in Pakistan, Mr Biden said: “The first thing I would do tomorrow is I would be on the phone with Musharraf, making it clear to him that there’s a price to pay if he does not rectify what he has just done.”

Senator Biden, who is also a Democratic candidate for the 2008 presidential election, said if elected, he would make it clear to Gen Musharraf “that our patience wasn’t unlimited” with him.

“And I would be making the point to him that to the extent that he has control of the military now, it’s questionable whether or not if we start to take away other things that they’re very concerned about -- F-16s and P-3s there, aircraft that are designed not to deal with the Taliban or Al Qaeda.” Mr Biden said that such equipment were designed to deal with Pakistan’s security relative to India and taking them away “may not have that kind of overwhelming support from his own military.”

The US senator said that what worries him most is the possibility that liberal political elements in Pakistan “will be in league with the extremists, not unlike what happened years ago with the Shah. ... We ended up with a circumstance where we not only had the overthrow of a Shah; we had an extreme government come into power.”

Mr Biden described President Musharraf’s appeal to the American people to understand his position as “pretty blatant,” indicating that it did not impress him.

The senator said that he was worried about a “total degeneration of that country,” which may allow the extremists to take control of the government and of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons.

Mr Biden said the Bush administration did not seem to know how to deal with this situation as “there’s still this faint hope that this martial law will last only a day or two. But I think we’re kidding ourselves.”

US senator threatens punitive move in Congress -DAWN - Top Stories; November 05, 2007

 

[roadrunner]

If the US embargoes F-16s for Pak for a second time, that's the last order that Pakistan would put for one of those. I don't know why Pak even wants F-16 when it can get J-10. It seems about as capable.

 

[ejaz007]

I don't think there shall be any serious reversal of US policy. Actually dictatorship suits them better than democracy. The reason is that it is easier to manage one person than an elected government who feels answerable to the people that have elected it.

 

[Quwa]

If the US embargoes F-16s for Pak for a second time, that's the last order that Pakistan would put for one of those. I don't know why Pak even wants F-16 when it can get J-10. It seems about as capable.

The Americans gave Pakistan credits to spend on U.S. arms...our money is going towards FC-20, JF-17, Chinese AEW&C, etc.

 

[Sena Lee]

I think this threat is unnecessary.

 

[IceCold]

If F-16 is blocked, it would be another blow to musharraf's regime and he might be criticized from within the army not openly though. It will also show him the real face of the US to whom he calls an ally, this war if we wouldnt had gone this far with it, today we would not be facing what we are right now.

 

[EagleEyes]

I just hope that enough spare parts are acquired with the F-16 deal. You never know the U.S Congress, Indians and Israeli's can easily buy them.

 

[roadrunner]

If F-16 is blocked, it would be another blow to musharraf's regime and he might be criticized from within the army not openly though. It will also show him the real face of the US to whom he calls an ally, this war if we wouldnt had gone this far with it, today we would not be facing what we are right now.

Get it through your head finally. Musharraf did not have a choice. He had to go through with being an ally in the WoT. If he did not ally with the US, then it would have bombed the country "to the stone age".

 

[roadrunner]

The Americans gave Pakistan credits to spend on U.S. arms...our money is going towards FC-20, JF-17, Chinese AEW&C, etc.

Thanks. Credits? Care to elaborate?

 

[bhangra12345]

The Americans gave Pakistan credits to spend on U.S. arms...our money is going towards FC-20, JF-17, Chinese AEW&C, etc.

No it doesnt work that way. America gives credit saying you can buy any of American equipment.

But you know, in a round about way, what you are saying is also true. You are freeing up resources which would have been used by Pakistan to buy American equipment instead to buy chinese.

{and I think you are canadian(your flag) right? When did it become your money. I differentiate between countries and do not put a standard line on all of them. Is canada also giving aid?}

Admin Edit: The above has nothing to do with the discussion, your asking a question on the basis of a "flag"?? He lives in Canada, but is a Pakistani himself. Thanks!

 

[EagleEyes]

The Americans gave Pakistan credits to spend on U.S. arms...our money is going towards FC-20, JF-17, Chinese AEW&C, etc.

I disagree with that mentality. The American funds didn't necessarily have to be contributed towards the F-16s. We currently have variety of options, and the most reliable is Rafale and the Super J-10, by getting the F-16s our air force becomes vulnerable to sanctions.

There are far many benefits to go for Rafale. You get the top-notch aircraft, which could have become a strong back bone of the air force for a long term!

I realize that there are benefits for the F-16s too, but we cannot rely on the U.S. unless we want to have the "Yes sir" policy.

I also salute to the decision makers in the PAF who only decided to go for 18 new F-16s initially, but i still believe that it could be ditched, and better cost effective solution would have been to acquire old F-16s with MLU kits -- if we really wanted the F-16s because of logistics & procurement benefits.

 

[EagleEyes]

My comments are also supported by the PAF decision to acquire a French radar and missile for the JF-17s.. So there.. They do acknowledge, that they are much safer there, but even in that they have the Chinese radar to keep diversification of the PAF technology.

 

[MastanKhan]

Hi,

The ugly head of the democrats has risen again----but the thing is that this statement came from a wannabe Joe Biden. These wannabe's are extremely dangerous and have a lots of venom. As they have failed to attain any higher office and are not in the running any more, they want to pick up other projects to get extra life.

Pakistan must still re-consider its purchase of Blk 52's. PAF still has the time to make the change. American politicians are back to black mailing pakistan one more time. Whatever free stuff we are getting is fine, but any purchases must be re-considered.

 

[IceCold]

Get it through your head finally. Musharraf did not have a choice. He had to go through with being an ally in the WoT. If he did not ally with the US, then it would have bombed the country "to the stone age".

Did you bother to read what i just wrote above or as usual your support is there for WOT without any logic to it. I said before and i say it now, it was not in our best interest to join this war and i have manytimes placed my arguments before on which i place a judgement like this. Did he had an option or not, thats another debate, but my point was about him drawining a line which he did not and as a result we are facing consequences, emergency is one of them. Now you wouldnt deny emergency unless you are infavour of it.

Admin Edit: Dont call for it. Avoid it. Thanks!

 

[roadrunner]

Did you bother to read what i just wrote above or as usual your support is there for WOT without any logic to it.

"It will also show him the real face of the US to whom he calls an ally, this war if we wouldnt had gone this far with it, today we would not be facing what we are right now." - your quote. So what choice did he have? Stop support for the US? Then what happens? Bombing, infrastructure gone, people killed, Pakistan needs to rebuild again.

The logic to the support on the WOT is very simple..

• The alternative to not joining would be US bombing
• To eliminate the radical Al Qaeda from Pakistani territory

On the first point
If Pakistan is not seen to be acting against the tribals who give shelter to Al Q, the US will go it alone, and bomb the place sucking the whole region into a war, which will destroy it. The US will then just leave and Pakistan is like Afghanistan. It is not in Pakistan's interest

On the second point
Al Qaeda's justification for suicide bombings in Pakistan is that Pakistan is helping support the US WoT. What sort of justification is this, when the US was going to bomb it if it did not help? Take the two scenarios. The US flattens Pakistan, infrastructure goes, many killed, take he other scenario where Al Q unleashes a couple of suicide bombers, there are some casualties but not many. It's called damage limitation, which IS very logical.

I said before and i say it now, it was not in our best interest to join this war and i have manytimes placed my arguments before on which i place a judgement like this.

It IS in Pakistan's best interests to join the WoT. 1) The US would have bombed it otherwise 2) It is not in Pakistan's interests to have suicide bombers roaming around the country. Sooner or later they will want something else, whether it's a law change or something, and if someone tries to halt them (like at Lal Masjid), they'll resort to suicide bombings.

Did he had an option or not, thats another debate, but my point was about him drawining a line which he did not and as a result we are facing consequences, emergency is one of them. Now you wouldnt deny emergency unless you are infavour of it.

Don't know what you mean here.