Pakistan blocks NATO supplies

[VCheng]

Defeating the terrorists and establishing the rule-of-law within Pakistan will go a long way towards resolving Pakistan's economic problems. The blockade stuff is a sideshow.

Your political class employs many distractions to keep the hoi polloi unfocused.

It is easier to distract than to actually deliver to the hoi polloi! Why work harder than necessary?

 

[Safriz]

Religious parties to stand against restoration of Nato supply – The Express Tribune

 

[Hulk]

Defeating the terrorists and establishing the rule-of-law within Pakistan will go a long way towards resolving Pakistan's economic problems. The blockade stuff is a sideshow.

Your political class employs many distractions to keep the hoi polloi unfocused.

Well from what I have seen they have actually done a great job at containing terrorism in Pakistan. The 2010 looked like serious trouble with many big attacks and 2011 there is hardly any big attack in Pakistan. Maybe one or two bomb blast, that is significant positive movement right? Am I missing something?

 

[Solomon2]

Religious parties to stand against restoration of Nato supply – The Express Tribune

Do the religious types really care about supplies to NATO or about exercising their will over other Pakistanis?

What battles, if any, will Pakistani liberals choose to fight the religious tyrants with? Or will they continue to let these tyrants choose the battlegrounds instead?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Default is one drastic option yes, but only if it is followed through with other drastic steps to get the economy going. It has been done by other countries successfully, and Pakistan may yet need to consider that path too.

I don't see either the PPP/ANP or PML-N implementing the needed reforms until they are forced upon them, which is why, as long as these two parties/coalitions are part of the government in Pakistan, default is a better option than US aid/IFI lending support that will only allow Pakistan to keep hobbling along on crutches.

---------- Post added at 11:51 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:49 AM ----------

Do the religious types really care about supplies to NATO or about exercising their will over other Pakistanis?

What battles, if any, will Pakistani liberals choose to fight the religious tyrants with? Or will they continue to let these tyrants choose the battlegrounds instead?

In this particular instance the position taken by the 'religious types' and/or nationalists such as IK and others, is a valid one - speak to the validity, or lack of, their stance on the restoration of NATO supplies alone please, given the subject of the thread.

You can discuss the rest of their politics elsewhere.

 

[VCheng]

I don't see either the PPP/ANP or PML-N implementing the needed reforms until they are forced upon them, which is why, as long as these two parties/coalitions are part of the government in Pakistan, default is a better option than US aid/IFI lending support that will only allow Pakistan to keep hobbling along on crutches.

I agree with you here as far as the politicos are concenred.

What about if the military takes over power and the chances of default?

 

[AbhimanyuShrivastav]

Well from what I have seen they have actually done a great job at containing terrorism in Pakistan. The 2010 looked like serious trouble with many big attacks and 2011 there is hardly any big attack in Pakistan. Maybe one or two bomb blast, that is significant positive movement right? Am I missing something?

A lot of people believe that Pakistan in 2011 has grossly understated sec forces deaths in encounters with terrorists. A lot of times you see news of a fire fight with 20-30 taliban killed but no word on sec forces casualties. And since press is not allowed in those areas, these claims are unverifiable. The consensus is that while bomb blasts in Pakistan have gone down from 2010, the military deaths have sky rocketed and the numbers are being fudged to show a positive movement on that front.

 

[Solomon2]

In this particular instance the position taken by the 'religious types' and/or nationalists such as IK and others, is a valid one -

You don't think a position opposing them would also be valid?

 

[Hulk]

A lot of people believe that Pakistan in 2011 has grossly understated sec forces deaths in encounters with terrorists. A lot of times you see news of a fire fight with 20-30 taliban killed but no word on sec forces casualties. And since press is not allowed in those areas, these claims are unverifiable. The consensus is that while bomb blasts in Pakistan have gone down from 2010, the military deaths have sky rocketed and the numbers are being fudged to show a positive movement on that front.

Any source to validate your claim or is it hearsay?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

A lot of people believe that Pakistan in 2011 has grossly understated sec forces deaths in encounters with terrorists. A lot of times you see news of a fire fight with 20-30 taliban killed but no word on sec forces casualties. And since press is not allowed in those areas, these claims are unverifiable. The consensus is that while bomb blasts in Pakistan have gone down from 2010, the military deaths have sky rocketed and the numbers are being fudged to show a positive movement on that front.

Consensus based on what? Belief based on what?

Without some sort of supporting evidence you might as well claim that the PA has mutants fighting for it.

---------- Post added at 12:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:59 AM ----------

You don't think a position opposing them would also be valid?

In my view, given the arguments already made, their position is valid.

You can read through the arguments made and offer a rebuttal.

---------- Post added at 12:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:01 PM ----------

I agree with you here as far as the politicos are concenred.

What about if the military takes over power and the chances of default?

The military does not appear to interested in taking over - it has had plenty of opportunity to do so.

IF the military took over, acquiescence to US demands would be inevitable, since that would form part of a long standing tradition of a US 'quid-pro-quo' of supporting dictatorships, autocracies and murderous tyrants in exchange for advancing 'US national interests'.

 

[Solomon2]

In my view, given the arguments already made, their position is valid. You can read through the arguments made and offer a rebuttal.

You're not answering the question put to you, which is whether you consider a position opposing the religious types would be valid as well. And if so, why wouldn't it be worth fighting for?

 

[VCheng]

..........................
The military does not appear to interested in taking over - it has had plenty of opportunity to do so.

IF the military took over, acquiescence to US demands would be inevitable, since that would form part of a long standing tradition of a US 'quid-pro-quo' of supporting dictatorships, autocracies and murderous tyrants in exchange for advancing 'US national interests'.

So what are you saying? The politicos are corrupt traitors, but the military will acquiesce to USA too, so what does that make them?

 

[Aamir Hussain]

To be fair to Pakistan, US is pushing the GoP into a corner. 2011 was one of the most challenging times for any government in Pakistan trying to keep an even keel on the relationship with US.

Raymond Davis, OBL, Mehran, Salala, open rehtoric by low and mid ranking military and civillian officals, and the pressure on Haqqani Netwrok, stopping or scalling down of aid and on and off reviews of the relationship.

Delay in supply of essential equipment etc. also did not help the Pak military high command infront of their own constituency. This kind of pressure was bound to eventually lead to some sort of readjustment in the relationship.

US Cogress every year reasses the relationship with Pakistan and in the process, some times embarrases it's own Government! Some times this process takes up to a year specially when agreeing to new packages.

It is time that we, given the multifacated dynamics of our relationship with US, specially given the withdrawl from Afghanistan and the upcomming elections, reveiw threadbare, the pros and cons of this relationship and the price and pressure points for continuing what we were doing before.

If it take six months to review it -- let it be six months -- if it takes more time than so be it. If we can wait endlessly for the promised funds/disbursments for money already spent than maybe it is time that the US also show some patience.

I for one think that OBL, Sallala incident were badly handled by US. If it was counter productive to lay blame on in theater commanders in Afghanistan because it will lower the morale of their troops than the same is true on this side of the border as well. The deciding factor should have been -- who has more to loose? It seems US saw the equation differently. Now it is time to pay for, in my opinion, a wrong decsion. The cost will be atleast six times more, if not higher to move goods overland through other routes.

Right now it is a game of patiance and what can be extracted on the plus side from both perspectives.

 

[VCheng]

To be fair to Pakistan, US is pushing the GoP into a corner. 2011 was one of the most challenging times for any government in Paksitan trying to keep an even keel on the relationship with US...................

Right now it is a game of patiance and what can be extracted on the plus side from both perspectives.

The GoP is not doing itself any favors either, but your last sentence is wise indeed.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

So what are you saying? The politicos are corrupt traitors, but the military will acquiesce to USA too, so what does that make them?

If an Army General/Brigadier/Colonel imposes Martial Law, the Pakistani Supreme Court has made clear that the action would be unconstitutional and treason - that does not however make the entire military 'corrupt traitors', if it happens.

In any case, what does that have to do with the topic? Stop hijacking threads please.

---------- Post added at 12:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:18 PM ----------

You're not answering the question put to you, which is whether you consider a position opposing the religious types would be valid as well. And if so, why wouldn't it be worth fighting for?

Beef up on your English comprehension please - I consider the argument being advanced/position being taken (of permanently halting NATO transit, given current criminal, hostile, illegal and deceitful NATO/US behavior) to be valid - the entities advancing that argument/taking that position have no bearing on the validity of the argument/position itself.

---------- Post added at 12:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:21 PM ----------

The GoP is not doing itself any favors either,

The GoP is in fact doing Pakistan a favor - whether it is doing so deliberately or inadvertently is up in the air - since, as pointed out, the GoP has been using US aid and IFI lending support as a crutch to avoid implementing the necessary economic and governance reforms.