What's new

The Day A Nuclear Conflict Was Averted

Saifullah Sani

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
Apr 15, 2011
Messages
3,339
Reaction score
2
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
(Although it is an old artile but i feel it is worth discussing. I am clearing my side that I don't agree with writer)
In a book to be published this week, former US Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott tells the story of President Bill Clinton’s personal diplomacy in averting a possible nuclear war in South Asia. The conflict began in May 1999, when Pakistani commandos infiltrated the Indian part of Kashmir in the Kargil region. By the end of June, a furious Indian response with air and artillery assaults threatened to overwhelm Pakistan. Intelligence reports suggested that a cornered Pakistan might turn to the ultimate: nuclear weapons, which both India and Pakistan had tested in 1998. On July 4, 1999, while the US celebrated its Independence Day, an alarmed Clinton and his national security aides went to an unannounced meeting with Pakistan’s Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif – a meeting that US national security adviser Sandy Berger said could be “the single most important meeting with a foreign leader of his entire presidency.” The following story about that momentous day is adapted from Talbott's “Engaging India: Diplomacy, Democracy and the Bomb” (Brookings Institution Press). – YaleGlobal

The Day A Nuclear Conflict Was Averted

During the 1999 Kargil crisis, Clinton's forceful diplomacy pulled Pakistan back from the nuclear brink
Strobe Talbott
YaleGlobal, 13 September 2004

During the first week in June [1999], just as Milosevic was acceding to NATO’s demands over Kosovo, Clinton turned his own attention to India and Pakistan.

In letters to Nawaz Sharif and Vajpayee, the president went beyond the studied neutrality that both prime ministers were expecting—in Pakistan’s case with hope, and in India’s with trepidation. Clinton made Pakistan’s withdrawal a precondition for a settlement and the price it must pay for the U.S. diplomatic involvement it had long sought. Clinton followed up with phone calls to the two leaders in mid-June emphasizing this point.

The United States condemned Pakistan’s “infiltration of armed intruders” and went public with information that most of the seven hundred men who had crossed the Line of Control were attached to the Pakistani Army’s 10th Corps.

In late June Clinton called Nawaz Sharif to stress that the United States saw Pakistan as the aggressor and to reject the fiction that the fighters were separatist guerrillas. The administration let it be known that if Sharif did not order a pullback, we would hold up a $100 million International Monetary Fund loan that Pakistan sorely needed. Sharif went to Beijing, hoping for comfort from Pakistan’s staunchest friend, but got none.
Pakistan was almost universally seen to have precipitated the crisis, ruining the promising peace process that had begun in Lahore and inviting an Indian counteroffensive.

On Friday, July 2, Sharif phoned Clinton and pleaded for his personal intervention in South Asia. Clinton replied that he would consider it only if it was understood up-front that Pakistani withdrawal would have to be immediate and unconditional.

Sandy told the president that he was heading into what would probably be the single most important meeting with a foreign leader of his entire presidency. It would also be one of the most delicate. The overriding objective was to induce Pakistani withdrawal. But another, probably incompatible, goal was to increase the chances of Sharif’s political survival. “If he arrives as a prime minister but stays as an exile,” said Sandy, “he’s not going to be able to make stick whatever deal you get out of him.” We had to find a way to provide Sharif just enough cover to go home and give the necessary orders to Musharraf and the military.

The conversation had already convinced Clinton of what he feared: the world was closer even than during the Cuban missile crisis to a nuclear war. Unlike Kennedy and Khrushchev in 1962, Vajpayee and Sharif did not realize how close they were to the brink, so there was an even greater risk that they would blindly stumble across it.

Adding to the danger was evidence that Sharif neither knew everything his military high command was doing nor had complete control over it. When Clinton asked him if he understood how far along his military was in preparing nuclear-armed missiles for possible use in a war against India, Sharif acted as though he was genuinely surprised. He could believe that the Indians were taking such steps, he said, but he neither acknowledged nor seemed aware of anything like that on his own side.

Clinton decided to invoke the Cuban missile crisis, noting that it had been a formative experience for him (he was sixteen at the time). Now India and Pakistan were similarly on the edge of a precipice. If even one bomb were used…Sharif finished the sentence: “. . . it would be a catastrophe.”

[Clinton] returned to the offensive. He could see they were getting nowhere. Fearing that might be the result, he had a statement ready to release to the press in time for the evening news shows that would lay all the blame for the crisis on Pakistan.

Sharif went ashen.

Clinton bore down harder. Having listened to Sharif’s complaints against the United States, he had a list of his own, and it started with terrorism. Pakistan was the principal sponsor of the Taliban, which in turn allowed Osama bin Laden to run his worldwide network out of Afghanistan. Clinton had asked Sharif repeatedly to cooperate in bringing Osama to justice. Sharif had promised to do so but failed to deliver. The statement the United States would make to the press would mention Pakistan’s role in supporting terrorism in Afghanistan—and, through its backing of Kashmiri militants, in India as well. Was that what Sharif wanted?

Clinton had worked himself back into real anger—his face flushed, eyes narrowed, lips pursed, cheek muscles pulsing, fists clenched. He said it was crazy enough for Sharif to have let his military violate the Line of Control, start a border war with India, and now prepare nuclear forces for action. On top of that, he had put Clinton in the middle of the mess and set him up for a diplomatic failure.

Sharif seemed beaten, physically and emotionally. He denied he had given any orders with regard to nuclear weaponry and said he was worried for his life.

When the two leaders had been at it for an hour and a half, Clinton suggested a break so that both could consult with their teams. The president and Bruce briefed Sandy, Rick, and me on what had happened. Now that he had made maximum use of the “bad statement” we had prepared in advance, Clinton said, it was time to deploy the good one. ..Clinton took a cat nap on a sofa in a small study off the main entryway while Bruce, Sandy, Rick, and I cobbled together a new version of the “good statement,” incorporating some of the Pakistani language from the paper that Sharif had claimed was in play between him and Vajpayee. But the key sentence in the new document was ours, not his, and it would nail the one thing we had to get out of the talks: “The prime minister has agreed to take concrete and immediate steps for the restoration of the Line of Control.” The paper called for a cease-fire but only after the Pakistanis were back on their side of the line. It reaffirmed Clinton’s longstanding plan to visit South Asia.

The meeting came quickly to a happy and friendly end, at least on Clinton’s part.


Adapted from Strobe Talbott's "Engaging India: Diplomacy, Democracy and the Bomb" (Brookings Institution Press). Talbott, former Deputy Secretary of State is the President of the Brookings Institution. Copyright © 2004, The Brookings Institution.

http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/day-nuclear-conflict-was-averted
 
.
Pakistan was the principal sponsor of the Taliban, which in turn allowed Osama bin Laden to run his worldwide network out of Afghanistan. Clinton had asked Sharif repeatedly to cooperate in bringing Osama to justice. Sharif had promised to do so but failed to deliver.
A strong PM at that time would have said that Taliban is your illegitimate child and Osama is your Beirut playboy. USA should have controlled him. US bedded with Osama and NS was ready to do their dirty laundry. SHER was CHUHA for the sake of his power and appeasement of US.

The statement the United States would make to the press would mention Pakistan’s role in supporting terrorism in Afghanistan—and, through its backing of Kashmiri militants, in India as well. Was that what Sharif wanted?
And this bafoon was ready to accept that.

Clinton had worked himself back into real anger—his face flushed, eyes narrowed, lips pursed, cheek muscles pulsing, fists clenched. He said it was crazy enough for Sharif to have let his military violate the Line of Control, start a border war with India, and now prepare nuclear forces for action. On top of that, he had put Clinton in the middle of the mess and set him up for a diplomatic failure.

Shame on our leader who allowed conversation not on equal basis.

India was bleeding from all its holes during operation. Because of this person Pakistan had to face embarrassment and lose a number of people.
 
.
A strong PM at that time would have said that Taliban is your illegitimate child and Osama is your Beirut playboy. USA should have controlled him. US bedded with Osama and NS was ready to do their dirty laundry. SHER was CHUHA for the sake of his power and appeasement of US.
A strong PM would ALSO have reined in or disbanded a rogue military (Pakistan Army), that acts on its own without Parliamentary or Executive(Government) approval.
 
.
(Although it is an old artile but i feel it is worth discussing. I am clearing my side that I don't agree with writer)
In a book to be published this week, former US Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott tells the story of President Bill Clinton’s personal diplomacy in averting a possible nuclear war in South Asia. The conflict began in May 1999, when Pakistani commandos infiltrated the Indian part of Kashmir in the Kargil region. By the end of June, a furious Indian response with air and artillery assaults threatened to overwhelm Pakistan. Intelligence reports suggested that a cornered Pakistan might turn to the ultimate: nuclear weapons, which both India and Pakistan had tested in 1998. On July 4, 1999, while the US celebrated its Independence Day, an alarmed Clinton and his national security aides went to an unannounced meeting with Pakistan’s Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif – a meeting that US national security adviser Sandy Berger said could be “the single most important meeting with a foreign leader of his entire presidency.” The following story about that momentous day is adapted from Talbott's “Engaging India: Diplomacy, Democracy and the Bomb” (Brookings Institution Press). – YaleGlobal

The Day A Nuclear Conflict Was Averted

During the 1999 Kargil crisis, Clinton's forceful diplomacy pulled Pakistan back from the nuclear brink
Strobe Talbott
YaleGlobal, 13 September 2004

During the first week in June [1999], just as Milosevic was acceding to NATO’s demands over Kosovo, Clinton turned his own attention to India and Pakistan.

In letters to Nawaz Sharif and Vajpayee, the president went beyond the studied neutrality that both prime ministers were expecting—in Pakistan’s case with hope, and in India’s with trepidation. Clinton made Pakistan’s withdrawal a precondition for a settlement and the price it must pay for the U.S. diplomatic involvement it had long sought. Clinton followed up with phone calls to the two leaders in mid-June emphasizing this point.

The United States condemned Pakistan’s “infiltration of armed intruders” and went public with information that most of the seven hundred men who had crossed the Line of Control were attached to the Pakistani Army’s 10th Corps.

In late June Clinton called Nawaz Sharif to stress that the United States saw Pakistan as the aggressor and to reject the fiction that the fighters were separatist guerrillas. The administration let it be known that if Sharif did not order a pullback, we would hold up a $100 million International Monetary Fund loan that Pakistan sorely needed. Sharif went to Beijing, hoping for comfort from Pakistan’s staunchest friend, but got none.
Pakistan was almost universally seen to have precipitated the crisis, ruining the promising peace process that had begun in Lahore and inviting an Indian counteroffensive.

On Friday, July 2, Sharif phoned Clinton and pleaded for his personal intervention in South Asia. Clinton replied that he would consider it only if it was understood up-front that Pakistani withdrawal would have to be immediate and unconditional.

Sandy told the president that he was heading into what would probably be the single most important meeting with a foreign leader of his entire presidency. It would also be one of the most delicate. The overriding objective was to induce Pakistani withdrawal. But another, probably incompatible, goal was to increase the chances of Sharif’s political survival. “If he arrives as a prime minister but stays as an exile,” said Sandy, “he’s not going to be able to make stick whatever deal you get out of him.” We had to find a way to provide Sharif just enough cover to go home and give the necessary orders to Musharraf and the military.

The conversation had already convinced Clinton of what he feared: the world was closer even than during the Cuban missile crisis to a nuclear war. Unlike Kennedy and Khrushchev in 1962, Vajpayee and Sharif did not realize how close they were to the brink, so there was an even greater risk that they would blindly stumble across it.

Adding to the danger was evidence that Sharif neither knew everything his military high command was doing nor had complete control over it. When Clinton asked him if he understood how far along his military was in preparing nuclear-armed missiles for possible use in a war against India, Sharif acted as though he was genuinely surprised. He could believe that the Indians were taking such steps, he said, but he neither acknowledged nor seemed aware of anything like that on his own side.

Clinton decided to invoke the Cuban missile crisis, noting that it had been a formative experience for him (he was sixteen at the time). Now India and Pakistan were similarly on the edge of a precipice. If even one bomb were used…Sharif finished the sentence: “. . . it would be a catastrophe.”

[Clinton] returned to the offensive. He could see they were getting nowhere. Fearing that might be the result, he had a statement ready to release to the press in time for the evening news shows that would lay all the blame for the crisis on Pakistan.

Sharif went ashen.

Clinton bore down harder. Having listened to Sharif’s complaints against the United States, he had a list of his own, and it started with terrorism. Pakistan was the principal sponsor of the Taliban, which in turn allowed Osama bin Laden to run his worldwide network out of Afghanistan. Clinton had asked Sharif repeatedly to cooperate in bringing Osama to justice. Sharif had promised to do so but failed to deliver. The statement the United States would make to the press would mention Pakistan’s role in supporting terrorism in Afghanistan—and, through its backing of Kashmiri militants, in India as well. Was that what Sharif wanted?

Clinton had worked himself back into real anger—his face flushed, eyes narrowed, lips pursed, cheek muscles pulsing, fists clenched. He said it was crazy enough for Sharif to have let his military violate the Line of Control, start a border war with India, and now prepare nuclear forces for action. On top of that, he had put Clinton in the middle of the mess and set him up for a diplomatic failure.

Sharif seemed beaten, physically and emotionally. He denied he had given any orders with regard to nuclear weaponry and said he was worried for his life.

When the two leaders had been at it for an hour and a half, Clinton suggested a break so that both could consult with their teams. The president and Bruce briefed Sandy, Rick, and me on what had happened. Now that he had made maximum use of the “bad statement” we had prepared in advance, Clinton said, it was time to deploy the good one. ..Clinton took a cat nap on a sofa in a small study off the main entryway while Bruce, Sandy, Rick, and I cobbled together a new version of the “good statement,” incorporating some of the Pakistani language from the paper that Sharif had claimed was in play between him and Vajpayee. But the key sentence in the new document was ours, not his, and it would nail the one thing we had to get out of the talks: “The prime minister has agreed to take concrete and immediate steps for the restoration of the Line of Control.” The paper called for a cease-fire but only after the Pakistanis were back on their side of the line. It reaffirmed Clinton’s longstanding plan to visit South Asia.

The meeting came quickly to a happy and friendly end, at least on Clinton’s part.


Adapted from Strobe Talbott's "Engaging India: Diplomacy, Democracy and the Bomb" (Brookings Institution Press). Talbott, former Deputy Secretary of State is the President of the Brookings Institution. Copyright © 2004, The Brookings Institution.

http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/day-nuclear-conflict-was-averted

THIS WAS DISCUSSED MORE THAN 100 TIMES IN pdf..
THE NUCLEAR WAR WAS AVERTED BECAUSE PAKISTAN DON'T HAVE ANY NUCLEAR DELIVERY SYSTEM THAT CAN HIT MAJOR INDIAN CITIES.. THE ONLY MISSILE IN PAKISTAN THAT CAN CARRY A NUCLEAR WARHEAD WAS GHAURI MISSILE WHICH HAVE A FAULTY GUIDANCE SYSTEM...






ISLAMABAD – A retired Pakistani nuclear scientist has claimed that former Pakistani leader Gen. Pervez Musharraf’s 1999 military adventurism in the Kargil region of divided Kashmir failed in part because the North Korea-aided, nuclear-capable Ghauri missiles he wanted to deploy then had a faulty guidance system.

Speaking on condition of anonymity, the scientist said that during the Kargil crisis of May-July 1999, Musharraf, who was then army chief, “wanted to deploy Ghauri missiles, but air went out of his balloon when the top general in charge of the missile program told him the missile had a faulty guidance system.”

Over a year earlier, on April 6, 1998, Pakistan had carried out what it described as a successful first test of the intermediate-range ballistic missile, developed by Khan Research Laboratory with North Korean assistance.

Even Musharraf, who witnessed that Ghauri launch as a local corps commander, had been led to believe it was a success then, according to the nuclear scientist, who until recently had long been closely associated with the country’s nuclear and missile programs.

The truth, he said, is that the ballistic missile failed to reach its predesignated impact point in Pakistan’s southwestern province of Baluchistan and its debris could not be found :lol:— something that would have undermined the missile’s deterrent effect if it were made public.

Military experts and strategists have pondered why Musharraf, immediately after he became chief of the army staff in October 1998, began planning the ill-fated incursions across the volatile Line of Control in disputed Kashmir, sparking the worst outbreak of fighting since the India-Pakistan war of 1971 even though he knew Pakistan could not prevail in an all-out conventional war with its neighbor.

During the May-July 1999 conflict, the two sides fought a two-month limited war in Kargil that led to over 1,200 fatalities and added to fears of a nuclear showdown before then-U.S. President Bill Clinton helped broker a ceasefire and Pakistani withdrawal.

Musharraf’s gamble in Kargil has since been interpreted by many as an effort by Pakistan, aside from gaining a tactical advantage by occupying dominating positions in the Kargil Heights, to test the deterrence value of its nuclear weapons.

The untold story, according to the scientist, is that Musharraf was unaware of the Ghauri missile’s faulty guidance system even as he oversaw the covert occupation by Pakistan troops and mujahedeen “freedom fighters” of the inhospitable, snowbound outposts in Kargil that the Indian Army had vacated for the winter.

He said Musharraf only learned the truth in March 1999 from Lt. Gen. Zulfikar Khan, who then commanded the army’s Combat Division.

Musharraf then ordered another Ghauri test, which took place on April 14, 1999, just three days after India tested its Agni-2 intermediate-range ballistic missile and several weeks before India detected the extent of the Pakistani side’s penetration in Kargil.

But this test also failed, with the missile overflying its target and falling across the border in the Sistan region of southeastern Iran, the scientist said. It, too, was publicly declared a success, however.

The scientist’s remarks were corroborated by two other nuclear scientists and another knowledgeable source who confirmed that the two missiles tested in 1998 and 1999 both failed to impact at the predesignated points in Baluchistan.

While Pakistan claimed the Ghauri missiles were designed and produced indigenously, they were actually Nodong missiles supplied by North Korea and re-engineered in Pakistan to extend their strike range.

The scientist claimed that after the second test, North Koreans were invited to a meeting at army headquarters in Rawalpindi, where they were confronted with the fault in their technology.

“The North Koreans started talking left and right but were told to open their eyes and take care of the guidance system in their Nodong missiles,” said the scientist, who was privy to the meeting.

Musharraf, he said, initially wanted to return the Nodong missiles to North Korea, from which it had imported 40 in knocked down condition in the mid-1990s. But then the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission undertook to replace the guidance with that of the country’s Chinese-aided Shaheen missile, he said.

Last Nov. 28, the improved version of Ghauri was test-fired and the government — true to form — declared it a success. Soon afterward, however, it was found to have exploded in midair and rained metal debris over parts of Sindh Province.

Pakistan’s disgraced nuclear scientist, Abdul Qadeer Khan, whose laboratory develops nuclear warheads for Pakistan’s missiles, concedes there was a row about the Ghauri’s accuracy.

But he ridicules the assertion that Musharraf wanted to return them over their faulty guidance system, saying, “What difference does it make if a nuclear-tipped missile falls 1 km left or right of the predetermined impact point?”

Khan claims Musharraf merely sought to return them because Pakistan had insufficient funds to pay back what it owed for them.

The Kargil crisis happened in the wake of six nuclear tests carried out by Pakistan in May 1998, which triggered sanctions against the country and led a drastic fall in foreign exchange reserves.

Pakistan suffered a serious military and diplomatic setback after successful Indian military action and intense international pressure forced it to unconditionally pull back behind the Line of Control as part of the U.S.-brokered ceasefire.

In his autobiography, published in 2006, Musharraf called it a “myth” that the two sides had come to the brink of nuclear war during the conflict and dismissed as “preposterous” speculation that Pakistan was preparing for a possible nuclear strike on India then.

I can also say with authority that in 1999 our nuclear capability was not yet operational. Merely exploding a bomb does not mean that you are operationally capable of deploying nuclear force in the field and delivering a bomb across the border over a selected target,” he wrote.

Critics of Musharraf’s action often refer to the Kargil conflict as a “misadventure,” saying it was badly conceived and executed, while he wrongly assumed the world would sit back idly.

Instead of considering the Kargil as a blunder, Musharraf, who has been living in exile since quitting politics in 2008, claims it actually brought the Kashmir issue back into international focus and helped pave the way for a solution.

However, tension between the nuclear-armed neighbors, which have fought three wars since partition in 1947, two of them over Kashmir, has remained high since the Kargil conflict.
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/20...siles-tied-to-musharraf-blunder/#.WHpu6VN97IU
 
.
A strong PM would ALSO have reined in or disbanded a rogue military (Pakistan Army), that acts on its own without Parliamentary or Executive(Government) approval.
A rogue PM can neither be strong nor control patriot military.
Respect is not demanded but commanded, an inferior and non patriotic person cannot control a superior and patriotic person. To control the one holding arms one has to be better then them.
 
. .
A strong PM would ALSO have reined in or disbanded a rogue military (Pakistan Army), that acts on its own without Parliamentary or Executive(Government) approval.


You dont know much about us do you prick? We are not that concerned when the military acts without Govt approval, we are more concerned when govt acts without any approval from the military. There are very good reasons for that. Kanjar. I meant that (kanjar) in the nicest way possible, One more thing. Hindus havent governed anything or anyone for over 7 centuries. You take your cue from your Western handlers. Live a little before you start pointing fingers.
 
.
A rogue PM can neither be strong nor control patriot military.
Respect is not demanded but commanded, an inferior and non patriotic person cannot control a superior and patriotic person. To control the one holding arms one has to be better then them.
You are incorrect on so many counts, it would be a pain to write it all down.

A Prime Minister can not be Rogue if he has been elected. He is with all his faults and flaws, the Will of the People.

The defining aspect of Rule of Law and Democracy is not whether respect is 'commanded' or whether a person is 'patriotic' or not. S/He has been elected and the military is by law deemed to follow the Prime Minister who has been chosen by the people to exercise their collective will.

The military is not elected but selected. As such, it has no will of its own bar the will of the people exercised through the Government.

Military apologists who hide behind words like "superior", "inferior", "patriotism" like you don't get to decide who is inferior and who is superior, who is a patriot and who is not.
The people exercise that will. The rest have to obey. That is the law of the land.

I do infact agree with you that Nawaz Sharif was not a strong leader. Had he been, he would have collectively hung every last one of the Generals who went behind the Parliament and conducted operations and then conducted unconstitutional acts thereby committing treason against the State of Pakistan.

You dont know much about us do you prick? We are not that concerned when the military acts without Govt approval, we are more concerned when govt acts without any approval from the military. There are very good reasons for that. Kanjar. I meant that (kanjar) in the nicest way possible, One more thing. Hindus havent governed anything or anyone for over 7 centuries. You take your cue from your Western handlers. Live a little before you start pointing fingers.
Tell that to your military that you so follow, the same military that hands over Pakistani citizens to US authorities without any law, the same military that takes money from the West to do its bidding, the same military that cuts deals with western governments to allow them to bomb Pakistani land and Pakistani people.

I am not a Pakistani, so obviously I can't get into abuses when trying to answer facts the way it comes naturally to you.
 
.
Tell that to your military that you so follow, the same military that hands over Pakistani citizens to US authorities without any law, the same military that takes money from the West to do its bidding, the same military that cuts deals with western governments to allow them to bomb Pakistani land and Pakistani people.

What exactly are you rambling about? Come on spit it out, what is it? You can criticise and denigrate both Pakistan's military and civilian govt as much as you want, what have you actually achieved? If your issue is hypocrisy and realpolitik, then please show me one country in the world, including India, which hasn't 'cut deals' had 'double standards' etc etc. Do you in some way hold Pakistanis and Muslims to higher standards than yourself and India? That is sad and makes obvious a serious inferiority complex on your part. Dont feel bad about being Indian, shabash. Brush your teeth and go to bed boyo, you seem to be short-circuiting.
 
.
THIS WAS DISCUSSED MORE THAN 100 TIMES IN pdf..
THE NUCLEAR WAR WAS AVERTED BECAUSE PAKISTAN DON'T HAVE ANY NUCLEAR DELIVERY SYSTEM THAT CAN HIT MAJOR INDIAN CITIES.. THE ONLY MISSILE IN PAKISTAN THAT CAN CARRY A NUCLEAR WARHEAD WAS GHAURI MISSILE WHICH HAVE A FAULTY GUIDANCE SYSTEM...
You will be surprised.

A Prime Minister can not be Rogue if he has been elected. He is with all his faults and flaws, the Will of the People.
Exactly but a PM elected on majority of 5% of the total vote casted. can be very much rogue.

how can i post on defence ppk
you are and creating post will soon be as soon as you become full member
 
.
What exactly are you rambling about? Come on spit it out, what is it?
Did you not get it despite my quoting of your post? Not the sharpest tool in the shed.

You said 'take cues from Western handlers'. I wanted to tell you, that the only country in South Asia where the 'West' has a pull on major internal levers is - Pakistan. That is courtesty of your military.

Remember that before you try to pull the 'you follow West' line that you were trying to earlier.
 
.
Did you not get it despite my quoting of your post? Not the sharpest tool in the shed.

You said 'take cues from Western handlers'. I wanted to tell you, that the only country in South Asia where the 'West' has a pull on major internal levers is - Pakistan. That is courtesty of your military.

Remember that before you try to pull the 'you follow West' line that you were trying to earlier.


Let me explain something to you.Maybe I gave you the wrong impression inadvertently. So let me explain again. I do not give a shit what you think. Do you understand? What you say means nothing to me. Nothing. Nada. Zilch. You mean nothing, you are nothing. So, is that clear now?
 
.
Let me explain something to you.Maybe I gave you the wrong impression inadvertently. So let me explain again. I do not give a shit what you think. Do you understand? What you say means nothing to me. Nothing. Nada. Zilch. You mean nothing, you are nothing. So, is that clear now?
While giving the wrong impression - inadvertently, I am sure - you also had another issue - You thought your views mattered which is why you aired your views in the first place. They donot in the slightest bit. Do kindly correct that wrong impression as well.

regards
 
.
While giving the wrong impression - inadvertently, I am sure - you also had another issue - You thought your views mattered which is why you aired your views in the first place. They donot in the slightest bit. Do kindly correct that wrong impression as well.

regards

What?
 
.
Nawaz Sharif made smart move which ensured the longevity of Pakistan as nation for the time being. During that time, Pakistan was already convicted without evidence while the world was leaning towards USA for interfering. Today, it is quite opposite where the world is leaning towards Pakistan to eradicate the face of terrorism while USA had been hurled with unkind allegations in regards to TTP in Afghanistan, ISIS, Kurdish and certain groups in Middle East.

Those who agreed with the move of military takeover ended up witnessing Musharraf biggest pushover of USA from 2001 to 2007. Pakistan had no choice, but to go with the decision that partakes on the long term plan. Today, Nawaz Sharif's decision to pursue peaceful goal during that time seems like best decision now.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom