High Level US team lead by Clinton Visiting Pakistan

[RazPaK]

Mod Edit:Tameez please

On a serious note though, shifting all the blame to Pakistan is a cheap tactic.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

hmmm... that preemptive strike by Gen Kayani did not work then??

Clinton's ranting is in response to the 'preemptive strike' by Kayani, but in terms of effectiveness, given that it is pretty much the same old same old from the US, Clinton's rants are likely not going to amount to much.

Of course it should be noted that Kayani did not make any of those comments publicly - they were made in briefing by the Army leadership to members of parliamentary committees, and any details we have regarding Kayani's comments are from participants in the briefing, and not the military.

 

[ashok321]

barking dogs seldom bite

Dont you remember the old adage?

Are you with us or against us?

And more:

'Be prepared to be bombed. Be prepared to go back to the Stone Age' Armitage

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Dont you remember the old adage?


And more:

And carrying out those threats, assuming they are being made currently, will accomplish what exactly for the US in terms of its goals for the region?

 

[JanjaWeed]

Clinton's ranting is in response to the 'preemptive strike' by Kayani, but in terms of effectiveness, given that it is pretty much the same old same old from the US, Clinton's rants are likely not going to amount to much.

Of course it should be noted that Kayani did not make any of those comments publicly - they were made in briefing by the Army leadership to members of parliamentary committees, and any details we have regarding Kayani's comments are from participants in the briefing, and not the military.

I like the way you put the spin on that argument. you can be a good spin doctor!
However i would like to add that selective leakage of confidential breafings are done for reason & a purpose!!

 

[Machoman]

My question is to all Pakistani members, what if things did not work out and USA decide to attack Pakistan? do you think China will get involve in this war with Pakistan?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

My question is to all Pakistani members, what if things did not work out and USA decide to attack Pakistan? do you think China will get involve in this war with Pakistan?

Directly involved? No.

Chinese support will likely be in the form of blocking any US attempts to legitimize their aggression and war-mongering at the UN and other international platforms.

 

[Emmie]

My question is to all Pakistani members, what if things did not work out and USA decide to attack Pakistan? do you think China will get involve in this war with Pakistan?

First off US can not attack Pakistan, a fully fledged attack I mean, like the one we saw in Afghanistan and Iraq. However US can carry out strikes in NW but this way US will loose an ally very much required for endgame in Afghanistan.

China will not jump into the war (if happens) physically but it will definitely oppose the act openly.

---------- Post added at 09:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:09 PM ----------

and what happend if India attack at the same time from east?

In this case surely China will help in terms of providing every possible military assistance.

 

[Patriot]

My Apologies to mods - Won't happen again.

 

[ashok321]

And carrying out those threats, assuming they are being made currently, will accomplish what exactly for the US in terms of its goals for the region?

What US did accompolish while Musharaf was at the helm.....Musharaf caved in and signed on the dotted line.

Here, the similar deal will be cut out to Uncle Sam - albeit different wording.

 

[somebozo]

They irony is that they are going to Pakistan for help on exit from Afghanistan and all the talk of rising and shining "India in Afghanistan" has settled down like shampoo foam!

Pakistani Army to tamp down the terrorist actions of the Haqqani network that are killing Americans in Afghanistan,

We have got em by their balls! The pressure on Pakistan due to Haqqani network is a benchmark of real situation in Afghanistan.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

What US did accompolish while Musharaf was at the helm.....Musharaf caved in and signed on the dotted line.

Here, the similar deal will be cut out to Uncle Sam - albeit different wording.

After 9/11, the US was acting in rage and only had one objective - killing OBL and those who supported him - US threats at that time did in fact carry legitimacy since the US had no goals beyond revenge.

Now, however, OBL is dead and AQ (in terms of its presence in Pakistan and Afghanistan) significantly weakened with the various leaders neutralized by Pakistan, so 'revenge' is no longer a 'goal'.

You might be able to answer my question in my last post if you first try and determine what US objectives in the region currently are - outline those objectives, and then try and answer how military aggression against Pakistan would help achieve them.

---------- Post added at 12:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:41 PM ----------

Stick to the topic please - this thread is not about Indian invasions and whatnot.

 

[Gandhi G in da house]

i don't understand why my posts are beign deleted today ? There was no trolling . mods are being extrememly intolerant of indians .

i just asked Agno , what approach according to him will work with Pakistan . i was actually looking forward to an answer , i come back to see if there is an answer but i see my question deleted. What BS is this ?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

i don't understand why my posts are beign deleted today ? There was no trolling . mods are being extrememly intolerant of indians .

i just asked Agno , what approach according to him will work with Pakistan . i was actually looking forward to an answer , i come back to see if there is an answer but i see my question deleted. What BS is this ?

I did not delete your post - I think it was deleted because of the way in which you phrased the earlier question. This time around your question is more clear.

I think Pakistan's position is basically that you cannot both attack the Haqqanis and Mullah Omar and at the same time try and negotiate with them - for negotiations to be really be given a chance, ISAF and the Taliban should declare a 'ceasefire' for a certain amount of time while they negotiate.

And another important reason behind Pakistan not wanting to eliminate the Haqqani and Mullah Omar Taliban leadership is that it is those leaders Pakistan has contacts with and some influence over, and, importantly, understands them in terms of what they are looking for. Eliminating the current leadership will mean potentially more aggressive and extremist leadership (like that of the TTP) taking charge, which will make political reconciliation even harder.

 

[illusion8]

After 9/11, the US was acting in rage and only had one objective - killing OBL and those who supported him - US threats at that time did in fact carry legitimacy since the US had no goals beyond revenge.

Now, however, OBL is dead and AQ (in terms of its presence in Pakistan and Afghanistan) significantly weakened with the various leaders neutralized by Pakistan, so 'revenge' is no longer a 'goal'.

You might be able to answer my question in my last post if you first try and determine what US objectives in the region currently are - outline those objectives, and then try and answer how military aggression against Pakistan would help achieve them.

---------- Post added at 12:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:41 PM ----------

Stick to the topic please - this thread is not about Indian invasions and whatnot.

The US goal might be to achieve some sort of semblance of governance in AF after they leave. They are looking at even getting the talibani's or haqqani's on board to have some sort of peaceful regime (a face saving one). They would hate to see AF go back to the taliban like pre 9/11. These ventures by the US is definitely backed and encouraged by the AF govt presently cos they have to live with it in the future. By the look of things the US are encouraging Pakistan to give up their support to the Taliban and help the US to set up a peaceful democratic regime in AF. But the problem for Pak is if peace returns to AF then India might still be playing its role in AF. So seems to keep India at bay Pak would be wanting a unstable regime in AF enforced by the Taliban. Cos India would be out when Taliban returns to AF. This also enables Pak to have some sort of covert grip over AF.