India may talk to ISI, Taliban

[Windjammer]

Its only a news report from a media..Nobody knows its true or now.

Trust me we are not holding our breath.

as for kids starving first you feed the starving kids of your country and then point finger at us..

And i wonder who jumps on every boat that sets sail.??

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

Pakistan doesn't want a stable afghan.

Why is that?coz ur fed on propoganda by dordarshan?

It wants WOT to continue in afghanistan to get aid from all the countries.

LOL ur posts is pretty retarded i wonder where u got ur education from?
Anyways afghan govt. recieves AID from internional community by sittin in Kabul and it isnt channeled by Pakistan.Any sane person will understand tht.

 

[Iggy]

How Much money India spent on Afghans when Taliban were there. Big Zero 0.

tell me Jana which country has close relationship with Afgahn taliban at that time?is it India or Pakistan?why should India help Afgan taliban..they were hostile towards us because we were supporting NA..it clearly shows that Pakistan commited to devalopment work in Afganistan because India is gaining influence there..other wise you guys didnt care about them

 

[Iggy]

Trust me we are not holding our breath.

Thats nice to hear..i am about to give you advice on that

And i wonder who jumps on every boat that sets sail.??

you do a lot of repetition like the statement above and one thing about the beast.what happenend??lack of words??

 

[r3alist]

can any indian give a rational and moral justification of why an afghan should be getting aid when many thousands/millions in india are dying form poverty and starvation?

is an afghan worth more than an indian?

 

[Iggy]

can any indian give a rational and moral justification of why an afghan should be getting aid when many thousands/millions in india are dying form poverty and starvation?

is an afghan worth more than an indian?

Before talking about my country ..have a look at the ground realities of your country mate and think is the aid given to Afgan by your country is justifiable??if you get an answer please let me know..then i will give my answer too..till then have a tight sleep ..

 

[Windjammer]

How much money pakistan spent on afghan development when taliban where there. Big Zero 0..

Likewise

Now pak trying to spend $500mil even it is with its famous bowl at IMF and word bank door..

Damn, we should also open up child labor sweat shops and let our farmers go into oblivion

Afghan is a chip for pakistan to get more aid.

Hence the brains of Bombay is awarded to you.

 

[thebrownguy]

Its rather retarded for a country whose 75% people live on less then 2$ per day to invest in a country thousands of miles aways with no land,air or sea links without any special reason except so called helping build the country?
.Especially in a war torn country tht has no ethnic or religious similarites with her.And it borders ones enemy state which is complaining about financial,training and all kind of support for terrorists in more then 2 dozen indian consulates all near PAK-AFGHAN border?and indian equipment be it explosives,weapons or finance is being captured from dead and arrested milotants or trucks.
Dont u think its a reason to be concern?Especially coz india can NEVER be trusted be it mukti bhani or self confessing Ms gandi commenting of playing sindh card?
Or be it terrorists themselves saying tht they accept help from everybody including india?


Nobody is dragging china anywhere.But i do want to quote senior indian journalist Kulpeed nayer on ur so called economy=
To hell with this economy if it cant help 75% indians living under poverty line or 2$ per day.
Our eonomy is weak and we accept it and Inshallah we will revive it to the same level it was till 2008.

What is the source of this information?Please stop reading Dawn or listening to Zaid Hamid!
If you are willing to debate on India and Pakistan economic condition, we can do that on another thread, but whats the point? We all know what the scenario is. Also comments on economic conditions was not started by me, I was only replying. You can look at the first page of the thread to refer that. Also some random idiot stands up everyday to criticize the state and earn some publicity. So please before you start talking about Arundhati Roys and Kuldeep Nayers, who are more popular on yur side of the border, even i can post a lot of stuff from najam Sethis, which can embarrass you guys. My point is stop digging into such kind of media people too seriously!!
thank you

 

[Jagjit_Singh]

Why is that?coz ur fed on propoganda by dordarshan?


LOL ur posts is pretty retarded i wonder where u got ur education from?
Anyways afghan govt. recieves AID from internional community by sittin in Kabul and it isnt channeled by Pakistan.Any sane person will understand tht.

Kerry, Lugar aim to triple nonmilitary aid to Pakistan

WASHINGTON - Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman John F. Kerry and ranking Republican Richard Lugar introduced a bill yesterday that would triple nonmilitary assistance to Pakistan to $1.5 billion annually for the next five years in a bid to help stabilize the democratically-elected government of President Asif Ali Zardari, who is besieged with a festering insurgency and a domestic financial crisis.
Discuss
COMMENTS (20)
Related Coverage

* Pakistan, US in weapons talks, officials say
* Kerry, Lugar aim to triple nonmilitary aid to Pakistan
* Karzai picks warlord as VP
* Pakistan peace deal threatened

The aid plan, which Kerry attempted to get passed last summer, would fund roads, schools, and clinics at a time when many average Pakistanis have grown disillusioned with their government and the US-prompted war against Taliban militants who have taken control of large parts of the country.

When asked at a news conference whether the funding would come too late to help Zardari, Kerry acknowledged that "we have lost a lot of time."

But the Massachusetts Democrat said the money would be an important signal of America's long-term commitment to Pakistan, where many see the United States as a fair-weather friend that will withdraw its aid as soon as its goals are accomplished.

"This legislation is the first time we have made a longer-term commitment," Kerry said. "While governments may change, I don't believe the country itself is about to fall apart."

Zardari is due to meet President Obama for the first time tomorrow as part of a summit with Afghan President Hamid Karzai aimed at countering growing violence in the region. On Thursday, Kerry and Lugar, of Indiana, will host a 70-person lunch at the Capitol for Zardari, Karzai, and the US special envoy to the region, Richard Holbrooke, to discuss the plan.

Aides said that the bill was aimed at giving the Obama administration and US Agency for International Development wide discretion, given the rapidly-changing situation on the ground.

Kerry urged the administration to use "the vast majority of these funds" on nonmilitary economic assistance, but left the door open for some of the money to be used for military purposes, if necessary.

The bill authorizes, but does not appropriate, the money, so Obama will still have to go through the formal process of requesting the funds. Once the money comes, the challenge will be to spend it effectively, said Daniel Markey, a former State Department policy planner.

A separate program launched by the Bush administration to spend $750 million over five years on development aid in Pakistan's lawless tribal areas has faced "enormous difficulties" because of poor security and a lack of local institutions to partner with, Markey said.

A House version of the Kerry-Lugar bill that included pages of detailed conditions drew scathing criticism from Pakistani officials who said they could not accept aid with such strings attached. But Kerry's bill, which has been endorsed by the Obama administration, contains only a few conditions - such as the requirement that Obama certify that the Pakistani military is fighting terrorists and not meddling in politics - although Obama can also waive the conditions.

Husain Haqqani, Pakistan's ambassador to the United States, could not be reached for comment. But Mark A. Siegel, a partner at Locke Lord Strategies, a lobbying firm retained by Pakistan, praised the bill.

"The world has a lot at stake in the success of the government of Pakistan in defeating terrorism," he said.

 

[Spring Onion]

tell me Jana which country has close relationship with Afgahn taliban at that time?is it India or Pakistan?why should India help Afgan taliban..they were hostile towards us because we were supporting NA..it clearly shows that Pakistan commited to devalopment work in Afganistan because India is gaining influence there..other wise you guys didnt care about them

As per Indian claims, Afghans were more oppressed under Taliban hence they needed more help so why India did not have love for Afghan people at that time Why NOW when almost entire world is at the door of Afghans and helping the Afghans.




India is also investing their to get strategic influence so please keep aside this mantra of help.

Its all about infulence.

 

[r3alist]

Before talking about my country ..have a look at the ground realities of your country mate and think is the aid given to Afgan by your country is justifiable??if you get an answer please let me know..then i will give my answer too..till then have a tight sleep ..

haha, typical, stop being a chicken and answer the question.

you find yourself in an impossible position of havng to positively justify the death of your own people so you chicken out.


in any case pakistan has taken in millions of afghanrefugees, there are historical, religious, ethnic,family and religious ties with afghanistan.

there is so much overlap between the 2 nations, afghanistan is very much our business.

 

[Spring Onion]

Kerry, Lugar aim to triple nonmilitary aid to Pakistan

WASHINGTON - Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman John F. Kerry and ranking Republican Richard Lugar introduced a bill yesterday that would triple nonmilitary assistance to Pakistan to $1.5 billion annually for the next five years in a bid to help stabilize the democratically-elected government of President Asif Ali Zardari, who is besieged with a festering insurgency and a domestic financial crisis.
Discuss
COMMENTS (20)
Related Coverage

* Pakistan, US in weapons talks, officials say
* Kerry, Lugar aim to triple nonmilitary aid to Pakistan
* Karzai picks warlord as VP
* Pakistan peace deal threatened

The aid plan, which Kerry attempted to get passed last summer, would fund roads, schools, and clinics at a time when many average Pakistanis have grown disillusioned with their government and the US-prompted war against Taliban militants who have taken control of large parts of the country.

When asked at a news conference whether the funding would come too late to help Zardari, Kerry acknowledged that "we have lost a lot of time."

But the Massachusetts Democrat said the money would be an important signal of America's long-term commitment to Pakistan, where many see the United States as a fair-weather friend that will withdraw its aid as soon as its goals are accomplished.

"This legislation is the first time we have made a longer-term commitment," Kerry said. "While governments may change, I don't believe the country itself is about to fall apart."

Zardari is due to meet President Obama for the first time tomorrow as part of a summit with Afghan President Hamid Karzai aimed at countering growing violence in the region. On Thursday, Kerry and Lugar, of Indiana, will host a 70-person lunch at the Capitol for Zardari, Karzai, and the US special envoy to the region, Richard Holbrooke, to discuss the plan.

Aides said that the bill was aimed at giving the Obama administration and US Agency for International Development wide discretion, given the rapidly-changing situation on the ground.

Kerry urged the administration to use "the vast majority of these funds" on nonmilitary economic assistance, but left the door open for some of the money to be used for military purposes, if necessary.

The bill authorizes, but does not appropriate, the money, so Obama will still have to go through the formal process of requesting the funds. Once the money comes, the challenge will be to spend it effectively, said Daniel Markey, a former State Department policy planner.

A separate program launched by the Bush administration to spend $750 million over five years on development aid in Pakistan's lawless tribal areas has faced "enormous difficulties" because of poor security and a lack of local institutions to partner with, Markey said.

A House version of the Kerry-Lugar bill that included pages of detailed conditions drew scathing criticism from Pakistani officials who said they could not accept aid with such strings attached. But Kerry's bill, which has been endorsed by the Obama administration, contains only a few conditions - such as the requirement that Obama certify that the Pakistani military is fighting terrorists and not meddling in politics - although Obama can also waive the conditions.

Husain Haqqani, Pakistan's ambassador to the United States, could not be reached for comment. But Mark A. Siegel, a partner at Locke Lord Strategies, a lobbying firm retained by Pakistan, praised the bill.

"The world has a lot at stake in the success of the government of Pakistan in defeating terrorism," he said.

Before posting more rants try to understand Kerry Lugar bill is supposed to be related to US cooperation with Pakistan NOT an aid for Afghanistan.

 

[ambidex]

with you post i am getting an image that in Pakistan Afghan refugees are in worse condition. in Pakistan they are treated like pay cheques. So with this i guess Afghanistan is better for them. Why dont they go back to afghanistan. With india there helping them with the whole world. They'll surely get better condition than this. As we are same much affected by terrorism and taliban taking over our nukes .

now Did we seal the border.?? Are we not allowing them to go back. The borders are open brother. If they want to go they are free to go. Our own refugees of Bajor and Swat faced the same situation. Did we made some 2000 sq foot banglows for refugees of Swat and bajor and keeping Afghans in tents. our own refugees also lived in the same tents. The fact is Pakistan is now kind of tourist spot for most of the afghans. In Winter they'll come to Pakistan. In Summer they'll go to afghanistan. Why dont they go there and stay there as Pakistan is like hell for them with these conditions. They come back because they like it here.

you are talking far away from realities.

Sorry mate.. I was expecting this answer. Let not say any thing what Afghans are doing for their convenience in Pakistan.

As a bigger and more prosper nation they all look upon you and people those who are saying that Pakistan is doing some kind of ''Ehasaan'' on them is not correct".
We all know the problems related to Afghanistan were thrust upon Pakistan. Pakistan never asked Russians to attack AF. Pakistan rightly helped US at that time and gained its friendship out of the way.
Same situation is with WOT. Pakistan never invited USA to come and start the war.

But the problem here is that you are fighting a war withing your own country and every day drones are hitting your villages blah blah blah..

Have you ever blamed your own people for all this mess. Same Pakistani on this very forum will one day abuse USA, another day Afghans and everyday India for whatever wrong is happening in Pakistan now.

Have you ever requested any single military pros. in PDF to explain why India can not use Afghanistan as a military deterrence against Pakistan.

What we are doing now by planning to talk with ISI is to create pressure of GoA as well as to tell upfront to ISI that Indian mission has no other design but to help building Afghanistan. We have nothing to hide. We all know the problem is with ISI not us and we are trying to negotiate with them. If the situation and security of Indians will become more vulnerable india will pack its bags for sure.

Many people ask why India is helping Afghanistan.
We been helping Nepal, Bangladesh, Bhutan, srilanka and Afghanistan since our independence nothing new..
Unstable Afghanistan effects us due to our on going animosity with Pakistan.
More unstable Afghanistan means more infiltration.
More nourished Pakistan with aid and cutting edge weapons.
Taliban regime was a dead lock for us to recognise, we learnt this during Kandahar high jacking. It is essential for our foreign policy to support a more friendly and democratic regime in Afghanistan.

Warm regards.

 

[Iggy]

As per Indian claims, Afghans were more oppressed under Taliban hence they needed more help so why India did not have love for Afghan people at that time Why NOW when almost entire world is at the door of Afghans and helping the Afghans.


India is also investing their to get strategic influence so please keep aside this mantra of help.

Its all about infulence.

I agree with gaining influence..In the end its the main thing we are all there is about..but we cant help a country with out its governments approval and taliaban's least concern is the devalopments of its own Afganistan..We can invest in a country where its government is hostile towards us..when the climate is changed and there is friendly government in Afganistan like a friend we went to help them..keep that in mind that Afgan taliban government was recognized by three countries in the world,UAE,Saudi and Pakistan

 

[ramu]

India has millions and millions of its own poor people, suddenly the welfare of foreigners is more important than your own people?

ROFL ROFL ROFL

lets stop pretending that the indian investment in afghanistan is anything more than an attempt to get a foothold in the region!!! thanks.

Even if you use a font on the higher side of 48, make it bold and maybe underline it to seek attention, a rant will be viewed as a rant. Helping Afghans does not make it more important than tackling poverty in our country. If counties are so uni focused then you we can argue about every other program of GoI and call it more important than the other.

What is wrong in having a friendly Afghanistan that understands India's concerns and in turn we understand theirs? If you call that foot hold we call it foreign policy.