"Hard talk with Pakistan does not work, they just dig in deeper", observe American analysts. NYT

[Vortex]

You are a Bangladeshi. I know what the U.S. government did in 1971. I accept your scornful attitude as deserved.

We can also see how the U.S. treats the Kurds today. So it's not beyond the realm of possibility that the Afghans could be dumped the same way. The difference is that U.S. troops are formally deployed, fighting, and approved of by the recognized Afghan government. There were no such troops in Pakistan in 1971 and the Kurds today are not recognized by the U.S. as a government.

Recognized by whom ?

 

[VCheng]

There is so much more that can be written here, but my point is that Pakistan is not the villain here and many of the Afghan people know this.

You were doing so well with your explanation, until this last line, Sir. There is no concept of villains or heroes in international geopolitics. If Pakistan is not the villain, then neither is USA, nor was USSR. Even with this tangled situation, what comes before all else is national interest, and each and every side is equally justified in pursuing it, as best as possible. Those who play this game better than their opponents reap the rewards, and any unintended consequences as well, till the next round.

 

[Straight Razor]

What are you talking about? we have more than enough evidence ( already submitted to US as well) that the indian government is directly involved in terrorist activities not just through its proxies in afghanistan but also directly through intelligence agencies.
We have a serving indian navy officer in custody arrested in Baluchistan involved in terrorist activites in the country confessing to the same.

First, I think the way 1373 is worded is that it has to be demonstrated that such terror sanctuaries exist on a member-state's territory but that its gov't wasn't taking action to eliminate them: the U.N. operates a clearing-house mechanism for some of the relevant information-sharing, mostly financial I think, though this isn't publicized any more. Second, 1373 nulls a member-state's sovereignty in these instances: Pakistan couldn't attack India or Afghanistan but only the terrorists there. So no, 1373 doesn't give Pakistan a green light to go to make war on either India or Afghanistan.

 

[Solomon2]

What are you talking about? we have more than enough evidence ( already submitted to US as well) that the indian government is directly involved in terrorist activities not just through its proxies in afghanistan but also directly through intelligence agencies.
We have a serving indian navy officer in custody arrested in Baluchistan involved in terrorist activites in the country confessing to the same.

Involuntary coerced confessions are not legal evidence and Pakistan's record does not give it benefit of doubt.

And as I pointed out, under 1373 attacks have to be on the terrorists, not the state that is accused of hosting them. Do you think the U.S. would have been justified to bomb Islamabad for OBL being sheltered in Pakistan? So you see, 1373 not only empowers member-states to pursue terrorists on another member-state's territory, it can protect that nation-state from a large conflict as well.

 

[idune]

You are a Bangladeshi. I know what the U.S. government did in 1971. I accept your scornful attitude as deserved.

We can also see how the U.S. treats the Kurds today. So it's not beyond the realm of possibility that the Afghans could be dumped the same way. The difference is that U.S. troops are formally deployed, fighting, and approved of by the recognized Afghan government. There were no such troops in Pakistan in 1971 and the Kurds today are not recognized by the U.S. as a government.

I do not carry scornful baggage from 45 years old history. Fact that my argument aligning with Pakistani one testament to that. Your fertile thinking can not even detect right from wrong, only knows run cheap mouth in max rpm.

"approved of by the recognized Afghan government" bit is an epic lie, no one in the world recognize as such. May be in the alternate world you live.

 

[axisofevil]

America wake up, pakistan is not your ally in the war on terror. No American will never, ever forget the fact that Osama bin laden was hiding with influential political support....

 

[MultaniGuy]

Well Pakistan should really not be a part of being a major non-NATO ally of USA.

Its absurd and useless.

Better for Pakistan to go into Russia and Chinese camp.

 

[idune]

America wake up, pakistan is not your ally in the war on terror. No American will never, ever forget the fact that Osama bin laden was hiding with influential political support....

At the root, much of the terror in the world were and are US and Israeli creation. When US says WoT, it is like "run with the hare and hunt with the hounds". There is no point sugar coating and place US-israeli nexus in moral high ground.

 

[blain2]

You were doing so well with your explanation, until this last line, Sir. There is no concept of villains or heroes in international geopolitics. If Pakistan is not the villain, then neither is USA, nor was USSR. Even with this tangled situation, what comes before all else is national interest, and each and every side is equally justified in pursuing it, as best as possible. Those who play this game better than their opponents reap the rewards, and any unintended consequences as well, till the next round.

I understand that as a Pakistani. I was just speaking to the narrative that is spun up in the western media as if they care more about Afghans than Pakistanis.

 

[BATMAN]

As I have been saying even the janitor at Pentagon knows that losing Pak isn't an option!!!!!

Whitehouse always use Pakistani politicians to its advantage!

 

[blain2]

Clearly the U.S. doesn't want more 9/11's based in Afghanistan so are you sure "altruistic" is the right word you're looking for?

Well the US is not helping its cause by putting boots on the ground in sizable numbers when a significant segment of the society has a problem with it. You can deny it, the reality on the ground clearly shows differently.

Didn't miss it before 9/11 so not a reason to stay.

A lot has changed since 9/11. Both China and Russia were not as big a threat as they are now to American supremacy.

What makes them "significant", exactly? That they are armed and violent? Then if Pakistan stops supporting them that will go a long way, yes?

What makes them significant is that they come from the largest minority in Afghanistan (the Pakhtuns @ 46% or so). They are resilient because the Pakhtuns support them, give them refuge and assistance as they go about doing what they are doing. Pakistan would not abandon them because of ethnic affinity with Pakhtuns (we have the world's largest population of Pakhtuns followed by those in Afghanistan) but Pakistan would use its influence to the extent possible if Pakistan's own security concerns were addressed with regards to its western borders.

Interesting, yet exaggerating the "Indian" threat invalidates the argument.

Sure it does to a non-Pakistani. To me not so much and that is the point I am making. One cannot tell me that I should not be worried about my security concerns without offering anything tangible which would allay my concerns.

Unlike your ex-countrymen, the East Pakistanis?

The same goes for BDs. We have a natural kinship with them as well despite the political differences the then government of Pakistan had with them. The people of Pakistan never wanted to split up with East Pakistan and even to this day have a certain affinity with them. The nation-state politics get in the way, but deep down the people of BD know we would support them and they too would do the same for Pakistan.

You can't judge that.

And its appropriate for you to judge us and our intentions towards Afghans? I can judge that because that is how I feel for Afghans and at least a few that I have met have said the same to me. Afghans and Pakistanis at a people to people level aren't very different. Political irritants do get in the way at the state level but the affinity that the people on both sides have for each other remains. This is something that no other outside power can change regardless of the aid etc.

Pakistanis always seem eager to "prove" that Pakistan is not the villain. To make it easy the government forbids many forms of criticism. So I take all such "arguments" with many grains of salt.

When what you are trying to do is something that the powers that be don't want, then you are vilified. This goes on all the time and Pakistanis are faced with a similar situation. We will stand our ground on what we believe secures us.

 

[MultaniGuy]

Well the US is not helping its cause by putting boots on the ground in sizable numbers when a significant segment of the society has a problem with it. You can deny it, the reality on the ground clearly shows differently.



A lot has changed since 9/11. Both China and Russia were not as big a threat as they are now to American supremacy.



What makes them significant is that they come from the largest minority in Afghanistan (the Pakhtuns @ 46% or so). They are resilient because the Pakhtuns support them, give them refuge and assistance as they go about doing what they are doing. Pakistan would not abandon them because of ethnic affinity with Pakhtuns (we have the world's largest population of Pakhtuns followed by those in Afghanistan) but Pakistan would use its influence to the extent possible if Pakistan's own security concerns were addressed with regards to its western borders.




Sure it does to a non-Pakistani. To me not so much and that is the point I am making. One cannot tell me that I should not be worried about my security concerns without offering anything tangible which would allay my concerns.



The same goes for BDs. We have a natural kinship with them as well despite the political differences the then government of Pakistan had with them. The people of Pakistan never wanted to split up with East Pakistan and even to this day have a certain affinity with them. The nation-state politics get in the way, but deep down the people of BD know we would support them and they too would do the same for Pakistan.


And its appropriate for you to judge us and our intentions towards Afghans? I can judge that because that is how I feel for Afghans and at least a few that I have met have said the same to me. Afghans and Pakistanis at a people to people level aren't very different. Political irritants do get in the way at the state level but the affinity that the people on both sides have for each other remains. This is something that no other outside power can change regardless of the aid etc.



When what you are trying to do is something that the powers that be don't want, then you are vilified. This goes on all the time and Pakistanis are faced with a similar situation. We will stand our ground on what we believe secures us.

I agree with you.

As for Bangladeshis, usually Pakistanis prefer them over Indians.

 

[VCheng]

I understand that as a Pakistani. I was just speaking to the narrative that is spun up in the western media as if they care more about Afghans than Pakistanis.

Pakistan is infinitely more important in the media here compared to Afghanistan, as a nuclear power. In the minds of the general public, two things hurt its image terribly: the fact that OBL was found there, and that it holds prisoner the doctor who helped catch him. It becomes easy for other allegations to stick once these two facts are repeated over and over again.

 

[MultaniGuy]

Pakistan is infinitely more important in the media here compared to Afghanistan, as a nuclear power. In the minds of the general public, two things hurt its image terribly: the fact that OBL was found there, and that it holds prisoner the doctor who helped catch him. It becomes easy for other allegations to stick once these two facts are repeated over and over again.

So what if Osama Bin Laden was found in Pakistan?

Many Nazi war criminals were found in South America. Nobody cries about them.

What about Japanese war criminal Hideki Tojo of Japan?

 

[Sinnerman108]

The U.S. is a strong nation but not an imperial power; it doesn't extract wealth from its allies or even its enemies for its own profit, rather they cost taxpayers money. A stable and peaceful Afghanistan = a smaller defense bill, lower taxes, and happier voters.

Do you believe your arguments are true ?