ajpirzada
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2008
- Messages
- 6,011
- Reaction score
- 11
- Country
- Location
so wats the causality? bombing to give money or giving money to bomb?
Pakistan doesn't reopen border despite US apology
- Thread starter Devil Soul
- Start date
so wats the causality? bombing to give money or giving money to bomb?
SekrutYakhni
BANNED
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2009
- Messages
- 3,284
- Reaction score
- -11
- Country
- Location
Hawkish
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2010
- Messages
- 227
- Reaction score
- 0
Last edited:
Hawkish
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2010
- Messages
- 227
- Reaction score
- 0
Aj: Here are some points to ponder
1) Were you happy with the way Afgan was run with the one eye mobster Mulla Omar 10 years back? He blew up statues, provided safe heaven to Alqueda and treated women worse than animal. We came in cleared the deck for Afgan people.
Cost to US: Trillions of dollars and Thousands of our solder's life. Mission: Nation building for greater good.
2) Majority of Pakistanis are moderates and peace loving like US. Do you want this to be hijacked by dirt bags gangsters like Haqquani, Baitullah Mehsud, Zaki-ur-Rehman Lakhvi, Ilyas Kashmiri etc. These are radicals and they DO NOT share the value of majority of Pakistanis.
Cost to US: Each Predator Drones -15 U$ Million - Multiply this with the number of thugs as* blown up everyday + Billions of AID to Pakistan to help build the infrastructure.
Mission: Help our long term friend Pakistan to be peaceful and a leading nation
Yes; You are right. There is no one else except US to save the world. I am not saying this arrogantly. I am saying this with a sense of a responsible leader.
NWO
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2009
- Messages
- 702
- Reaction score
- 0
And isn't that how life is still being run today, with Taliban still doing the same thing with large portions of the country under their control? The only difference is the civilians killed in crossfire.
What makes you think they'll take over now when they haven't for the past 31 years the the militants have been fighting in Afghanistan.
The billions of dollars of aid is not enough to cover the losses Pakistan has suffered. Also, the American government knows very well of the corruption that the Pakistani government has and that will lead to officials stealing from the aid.
That seems rather arrogant.
huzihaidao12
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2010
- Messages
- 3,043
- Reaction score
- 1
- Country
- Location
Omar1984
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2008
- Messages
- 12,296
- Reaction score
- 0
Do you honestly believe that US is some kind of superhero "Captain America" saving the world from the evil-doers?
The world is far more dangerous today than before US invaded Afghanistan.
US is in Iraq and Afghanistan because of America's own self interests. US wants a foothold in the region.
Have you ever looked at the map of Afghanistan? Oil-rich Middle East to the west, emerging superpower China to the east, and resource rich Central Asia to the north not to mention that Afghanistan itself has more than a trillion dollars worth of natural resources.
Why did the US invade Iraq? Did Iraq attack US on 9/11? Where are the WMD's?
I know not all Americans are like you. Many peaceful Americans are anti-war and want the war to be ended.
fatman17
PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 32,563
- Reaction score
- 98
- Country
- Location
ASIA PACIFIC
Date Posted: 08-Oct-2010
Jane's Defence Weekly
ISAF supplies remain vulnerable as Pakistan maintains hardline stance
Farhan Bokhari JDW Correspondent - Islamabad
This is an updated version of an article first published on 8 October
Pakistan's drawn-out closure of a critical land supply route for NATO trucks carrying fuel and other supplies to Western troops in Afghanistan, instigated after a 30 September NATO helicopter attack killed three Pakistani paramilitary soldiers, highlights an increasingly hardened position by the country's military and civilian leaders, Western defence officials have told Jane's .
Since the incident the US and NATO have apologised in an effort to repair damaged relations with Pakistan. On 7 October a letter written by Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, to General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, Pakistan's army chief of staff, was made public.
Adm Mullen wrote: "Please know that the families of the soldiers lost in this tragic incident are in our constant thoughts and prayers. I think you already know, but I want to reinforce, that we take this incident very seriously and our most senior commanders in theatre will review the investigation thoroughly with an eye toward avoiding recurrence of a tragedy like this."
Earlier, following a 4 October meeting with Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi in Brussels, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said: "I expressed my regret for the incident last week in which Pakistani soldiers lost their lives." He added: "I expressed my hope the border will be open for supplies as soon as possible."
However, a senior Pakistani official on 8 October told Jane's that, while his country remained committed to supporting NATO's International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan, "we are not going to be pushed over. The killing of our soldiers was a major breach of a very significant red line that we had relayed again and again: No 'boots on the ground', no physical crossing in to our area and certainly no intrusion of manned aircraft".
A NATO defence official based in Islamabad told Jane's on 8 October that "Pakistan's determination to delay opening of the supply line is probably because they want to deliver a tough message, which is that Pakistan will never tolerate a similar incident in future."
However, a second NATO official said: "Pakistan's strong position may be the result of its conviction that Project Afghanistan will not succeed unless Pakistan is fully on board. Pakistanis are confident that their tough line will force the Western powers to come closer to Pakistan's position."
For months, underlying frictions have grown between Pakistan's powerful military and Western powers engaged in Afghanistan, notably the United States. In spite of repeated calls from US officials for the Pakistani military to launch a vigorous new military campaign against Islamic militants in the North Waziristan region along the Afghan border, Pakistan's military leaders are believed to have refused to launch such an engagement in the immediate future. Meanwhile, the military has assumed added responsibility elsewhere since late July when it was called upon by Pakistan's civilian rulers to lead the effort for providing emergency relief to victims of widespread floods in parts of the country.
"Every time the US asks Pakistan to widen its focus in the campaign, the standard reply is: 'We are over stretched already and we do not have enough equipment to robustly spread out our campaign further'," one of the NATO officials told Jane's . In the past, Pakistani officials have also said they have the strongest ability of all Afghanistan's neighbours to influence the outcome of events in the central Asian country. This is in part because the route for fuel and other supplies through Pakistan is the shortest among those to land-locked Afghanistan.
While the US and other NATO member countries have sought alternative supply route such as through the former Soviet central Asian republics, they still rely on Pakistan for the transportation of well over half of their supplies required in Afghanistan.
Pakistani fire fighters extinguish burning oil tankers after militants attacked a terminal in Rawalpindi on 4 October. Such attacks amid Islamabad's closure of the main NATO supply route to Afghanistan may serve to strengthen Pakistan's bargaining power.
Date Posted: 08-Oct-2010
Jane's Defence Weekly
ISAF supplies remain vulnerable as Pakistan maintains hardline stance
Farhan Bokhari JDW Correspondent - Islamabad
This is an updated version of an article first published on 8 October
Pakistan's drawn-out closure of a critical land supply route for NATO trucks carrying fuel and other supplies to Western troops in Afghanistan, instigated after a 30 September NATO helicopter attack killed three Pakistani paramilitary soldiers, highlights an increasingly hardened position by the country's military and civilian leaders, Western defence officials have told Jane's .
Since the incident the US and NATO have apologised in an effort to repair damaged relations with Pakistan. On 7 October a letter written by Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, to General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, Pakistan's army chief of staff, was made public.
Adm Mullen wrote: "Please know that the families of the soldiers lost in this tragic incident are in our constant thoughts and prayers. I think you already know, but I want to reinforce, that we take this incident very seriously and our most senior commanders in theatre will review the investigation thoroughly with an eye toward avoiding recurrence of a tragedy like this."
Earlier, following a 4 October meeting with Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi in Brussels, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said: "I expressed my regret for the incident last week in which Pakistani soldiers lost their lives." He added: "I expressed my hope the border will be open for supplies as soon as possible."
However, a senior Pakistani official on 8 October told Jane's that, while his country remained committed to supporting NATO's International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan, "we are not going to be pushed over. The killing of our soldiers was a major breach of a very significant red line that we had relayed again and again: No 'boots on the ground', no physical crossing in to our area and certainly no intrusion of manned aircraft".
A NATO defence official based in Islamabad told Jane's on 8 October that "Pakistan's determination to delay opening of the supply line is probably because they want to deliver a tough message, which is that Pakistan will never tolerate a similar incident in future."
However, a second NATO official said: "Pakistan's strong position may be the result of its conviction that Project Afghanistan will not succeed unless Pakistan is fully on board. Pakistanis are confident that their tough line will force the Western powers to come closer to Pakistan's position."
For months, underlying frictions have grown between Pakistan's powerful military and Western powers engaged in Afghanistan, notably the United States. In spite of repeated calls from US officials for the Pakistani military to launch a vigorous new military campaign against Islamic militants in the North Waziristan region along the Afghan border, Pakistan's military leaders are believed to have refused to launch such an engagement in the immediate future. Meanwhile, the military has assumed added responsibility elsewhere since late July when it was called upon by Pakistan's civilian rulers to lead the effort for providing emergency relief to victims of widespread floods in parts of the country.
"Every time the US asks Pakistan to widen its focus in the campaign, the standard reply is: 'We are over stretched already and we do not have enough equipment to robustly spread out our campaign further'," one of the NATO officials told Jane's . In the past, Pakistani officials have also said they have the strongest ability of all Afghanistan's neighbours to influence the outcome of events in the central Asian country. This is in part because the route for fuel and other supplies through Pakistan is the shortest among those to land-locked Afghanistan.
While the US and other NATO member countries have sought alternative supply route such as through the former Soviet central Asian republics, they still rely on Pakistan for the transportation of well over half of their supplies required in Afghanistan.
Pakistani fire fighters extinguish burning oil tankers after militants attacked a terminal in Rawalpindi on 4 October. Such attacks amid Islamabad's closure of the main NATO supply route to Afghanistan may serve to strengthen Pakistan's bargaining power.
ice_man
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2009
- Messages
- 6,727
- Reaction score
- 2
- Country
- Location
well apparently according to my friends at "BR" pakistan wants more money to open the borders! the only solution is that USA & NATO asks india to intervene to speak to IRAN( to open its ports) and india can help liberate Balochistan too!
day dreaming is free!! but i guess the day india realizes it is not the center of the universe it will be devastated!
day dreaming is free!! but i guess the day india realizes it is not the center of the universe it will be devastated!
Areesh
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2010
- Messages
- 45,157
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
well apparently according to my friends at "BR" pakistan wants more money to open the borders! the only solution is that USA & NATO asks india to intervene to speak to IRAN( to open its ports) and india can help liberate Balochistan too!
OH my God these BR kdis are too funny.
Rafael
RETIRED MOD
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2008
- Messages
- 5,363
- Reaction score
- 1
- Country
- Location
well apparently according to my friends at "BR" pakistan wants more money to open the borders! the only solution is that USA & NATO asks india to intervene to speak to IRAN( to open its ports) and india can help liberate Balochistan too!
day dreaming is free!! but i guess the day india realizes it is not the center of the universe it will be devastated!
Bangalorean
BANNED
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2010
- Messages
- 223
- Reaction score
- 0
well apparently according to my friends at "BR" pakistan wants more money to open the borders! the only solution is that USA & NATO asks india to intervene to speak to IRAN( to open its ports) and india can help liberate Balochistan too!
day dreaming is free!! but i guess the day india realizes it is not the center of the universe it will be devastated!
Why do you guys bring BR into all discussions, and generalize Indians based on BR? BR is a known hardline right wing jingo site. Even joining that site is difficult. Why don't you talk about bharatmilitary.com/forums/, which is much more liberal, and invites Pakistanis, Chinese, and everyone else to join? A lot of members of defence.pk are also members there.
muse
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2006
- Messages
- 13,006
- Reaction score
- 0
Well you know that that ISAF/US/NATO (choose whichever acronym floats your boat) says that the closure has not hurt it's operations - so perhaps Pakistan and the acronym of your choice can both live without these supplies being routed through Pakistan - no hard feelings, OK?
Developereo
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2009
- Messages
- 14,093
- Reaction score
- 25
- Country
- Location
A few points to ponder...
- India has invested $1.2 billion in Afghanistan. Pakistan (with 1/7th the GDP) has invested $0.5 billion and we have housed 4 million Afghan refugees for almost a decade. This despite the fact that Afghanistan was the last nation on Earth to recognize Pakistan and has been a willing Indian poodle for much of its existence.
- NATO does not have the option to use alternative routes. They have been looking at it for almost a decade now, and they simply are not feasible. The Russians couldn't guarantee these northern routes through their own backyward for their own troops; does anybody really think NATO can do better?
- NATO, specifically the US, will never leave Afghanistan. It is the perfect listening post right next to Iran, Pakistan, China and close enough to Russia and the Middle East.
- If, however, NATO were to leave Afghanistan, it would be perfect for Pakistan since the Indians will get ejected the very next day and Pakistan will have a much easier time working with the Afghan powerbrokers. That is the only reason to keep the Taliban around.
- Once the Taliban have served their purpose to reunite Afghanistan post-NATO, Pakistan would most likely opt for a moderate, pro-Pakistan, majority Pashtun government along with pro-Pakistan Tajiks, Uzbeks etc, to replace the pro-India Northern Alliance crowd that has been instituted by NATO. Pakistan not support a Taliban-style government in Afghanistan; we simply cannot afford such a militant, repressive regime next door that can spill over its poison into our society.
- India has invested $1.2 billion in Afghanistan. Pakistan (with 1/7th the GDP) has invested $0.5 billion and we have housed 4 million Afghan refugees for almost a decade. This despite the fact that Afghanistan was the last nation on Earth to recognize Pakistan and has been a willing Indian poodle for much of its existence.
- NATO does not have the option to use alternative routes. They have been looking at it for almost a decade now, and they simply are not feasible. The Russians couldn't guarantee these northern routes through their own backyward for their own troops; does anybody really think NATO can do better?
- NATO, specifically the US, will never leave Afghanistan. It is the perfect listening post right next to Iran, Pakistan, China and close enough to Russia and the Middle East.
- If, however, NATO were to leave Afghanistan, it would be perfect for Pakistan since the Indians will get ejected the very next day and Pakistan will have a much easier time working with the Afghan powerbrokers. That is the only reason to keep the Taliban around.
- Once the Taliban have served their purpose to reunite Afghanistan post-NATO, Pakistan would most likely opt for a moderate, pro-Pakistan, majority Pashtun government along with pro-Pakistan Tajiks, Uzbeks etc, to replace the pro-India Northern Alliance crowd that has been instituted by NATO. Pakistan not support a Taliban-style government in Afghanistan; we simply cannot afford such a militant, repressive regime next door that can spill over its poison into our society.
Last edited:
Similar threads
