Nice going SHEEPLE! You just spent another $1 BILLION on weapons for Pakistan

[Bman]

This is directed as all of you enemies of the United States that support George Bush


Congratulations! You just spent another $1 BILLION arming the country ranked NUMBER ONE in the world in HATRED for the United States.. the country most closely associated with the Taliban and Al Qaeda....

Keep voting for the incumbents... you get what you deserve.

Its not like we could use that $1 billion in the US for anything... NAAAAAWWWW

Copyright 2005 HT Media Ltd.
Indo-Asian News Service

May 8, 2005 Sunday 7:34 AM EST


Pakistan navy to get Orion aircraft, Harpoon missiles

Indo-Asian News Service

Islamabad


Islamabad, May 8 -- The Pakistan Navy has placed an order worth $1.3 billion with the US for supply of eight P3-C Orion aircraft, six Phalanx close-in weapon systems and at least 60 Harpoon missiles, Xinhua reported.

The Pentagon has notified the sale of the aircraft and equipment to the US Congress, which is expected to approve it within the next 30 days.

According to an official, the eight P3-C aircraft with T-56 engines and associated equipment and services will cost $970 million.

He said the deal would be paid for from the US military assistance to Pakistan.

A media report said the aircraft would help the navy develop a long-needed fleet of maritime and border surveillance aircraft.

It said the command-and-control capabilities of the P3-C aircraft would help improve Pakistan's ability to restrict littoral movement of terrorists along its southern border.

Published by HT Media Ltd. with permission from Indo-Asian News Service.

[Leonidas]

Its called the carrot and the stick. In my limited knowledge of geo-political affairs, I do not agree with or understand why we give aid to these Middle Eastern countries with populations that hate us.

I would like to read some thinking peoples thoughts on this matter including the pro's and con's of these kind of decisions.

Its funny though Bman, even though we give out aid throughout the world we are still perceived as evil imperialists by Al Qaeda and lunatic Westerners like yourself.

It doesnt seem to be working.

[Bman]

Its funny though Bman, even though we give out aid throughout the world we are still perceived as evil imperialists by Al Qaeda and lunatic Westerners like yourself.


OF COURSE we're perceived that way.. I WONDER WHY???

We're propping up one of the most authoritarian dictators in the world! A man who overthrew a democracy and installed himself as dictator..

You think the Paki people don't laugh out loud when they hear Bush yammering about "freedom" and democracy, all the while GIVING AWAY BILLIONS in military hardware to this despot?

Think man!!! What would you think, if you lived there???

Bman

[God]

Think man!!! What would you think, if you lived there???

Bman

"I gotta get me to the US so I can open yet another 7-11."

[Lotimer]

I wonder how many years it'll be until Pakistan stabs us in the back and fights us with weapons we gave them. I give it 15 tops.

[Leonidas]

OF COURSE we're perceived that way.. I WONDER WHY???

We're propping up one of the most authoritarian dictators in the world! A man who overthrew a democracy and installed himself as dictator..

You think the Paki people don't laugh out loud when they hear Bush yammering about "freedom" and democracy, all the while GIVING AWAY BILLIONS in military hardware to this despot?

Think man!!! What would you think, if you lived there???

Bman


Trust me Bman, I am thinking when I take the word of Time magazine over your amateur political opinions about Pakistan.

http://www.time.com/time/asia/covers/1101020722/story.html

[candypreet]

I wonder how many years it'll be until Pakistan stabs us in the back and fights us with weapons we gave them. I give it 15 tops.
Thats being Optimistic.

[Bman]

Thats being Optimistic.


Agreed


Musharraff, if he's still in power will side with China, when they move on Taiwan...That'll be within a few years

If Pakistan ever holds another election, the winner will most surely be extremely anti-American, if he reflects the attitudes of the voting population



Bman

[candypreet]

read this too please

http://wincoast.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6157

[latent aaaack]

What's your plan for relations with Pakistan, Bman?

[Pghredneck]

Congratulations! You just spent another $1 BILLION arming the country ranked NUMBER ONE in the world in HATRED for the United States.. the country most closely associated with the Taliban and Al Qaeda.…Couldn’t we at least make it performance based? Something along the lines of you (Pakistan) give us Osama first and then we’ll give you the ship (which potentially could be used against us if Mooshie gets overthrown)? No Osama, no boat. Fuck!

[Bman]

What's your plan for relations with Pakistan, Bman?



No weapons sales, first of all.. until they agree to full nuclear disarmament.

Secondly, AQ Khan must be turned over to international authorities for interrogation/trial.. to determine the full extent of his nuclear proliferation.

Pakistan should be cut off from all US aid and a full embargo (like the one maintained on Cuba) but put in place until certain conditions are met, including but not limited to:

1., full nuclear disarmament
2. Capture or killing of Osama and Zawahiri, OR.. letting US troops into Pakistan to hunt for them
3. Stop funding terrorism
4. Restoration of human rights to Pakistani's, to the level they were before Musharaff's coup



None of this is new stuff... Prior to Bush's Administration, Pakistan was an international pariah.. it was illegal for the US to sell them arms, etc..

Bush changed all of that

Bman

[Bman]

Couldn’t we at least make it performance based? Something along the lines of you (Pakistan) give us Osama first and then we’ll give you the ship (which potentially could be used against us if Mooshie gets overthrown)? No Osama, no boat. Fuck!


See my post

We're thinking along the same lines

Bman

[candypreet]

No weapons sales, first of all.. until they agree to full nuclear disarmament.

Secondly, AQ Khan must be turned over to international authorities for interrogation/trial.. to determine the full extent of his nuclear proliferation.

Pakistan should be cut off from all US aid and a full embargo (like the one maintained on Cuba) but put in place until certain conditions are met, including but not limited to:

1., full nuclear disarmament
2. Capture or killing of Osama and Zawahiri, OR.. letting US troops into Pakistan to hunt for them
3. Stop funding terrorism
4. Restoration of human rights to Pakistani's, to the level they were before Musharaff's coup



None of this is new stuff... Prior to Bush's Administration, Pakistan was an international pariah.. it was illegal for the US to sell them arms, etc..

Bush changed all of that

Bman
The last three points are valid. But they will never agree to Nuclear disramament coz of us Indians here. And I dont thinl India will go for nuclear disarmament, being a nighbour of both China and Pakistan.

[Elli]

No weapons sales, first of all.. until they agree to full nuclear disarmament.

Secondly, AQ Khan must be turned over to international authorities for interrogation/trial.. to determine the full extent of his nuclear proliferation.

Pakistan should be cut off from all US aid and a full embargo (like the one maintained on Cuba) but put in place until certain conditions are met, including but not limited to:

1., full nuclear disarmament
2. Capture or killing of Osama and Zawahiri, OR.. letting US troops into Pakistan to hunt for them
3. Stop funding terrorism
4. Restoration of human rights to Pakistani's, to the level they were before Musharaff's coup



None of this is new stuff... Prior to Bush's Administration, Pakistan was an international pariah.. it was illegal for the US to sell them arms, etc..

Bush changed all of that

Bman

This is the thinking man's solution. I'm so angry at this and we continue to do this over and over again never learning.

[Pghredneck]

See my post

We're thinking along the same lines

BmanI agree with what you said. Furthermore, I still wonder why we continue to piss off Pakistan's neighbor; A country having ~750 million people; one which would be a great ally to have; one which hates the Jihadi fuckwits even more than we do…

[Bman]

The last three points are valid. But they will never agree to Nuclear disramament coz of us Indians here. And I dont thinl India will go for nuclear disarmament, being a nighbour of both China and Pakistan.


Well, the difference between India and Pakistan is that Indian DIDN'T GIVE NUCLEAR WEAPONS TECHNOLOGY to terrorist nations all over the world...


I'm not saying Pakistan will agree to do it, but if they don't , then they should be completely cut off from US aid, and CERTAINLY absolutely no military equipment... I mean its ridiculous that the US can sell these advanced weapons to Pakistan, yet its illegal to sell them to China.. how does that make any sense??


Bman

[latent aaaack]

No weapons sales, first of all.. until they agree to full nuclear disarmament.

Secondly, AQ Khan must be turned over to international authorities for interrogation/trial.. to determine the full extent of his nuclear proliferation.

Pakistan should be cut off from all US aid and a full embargo (like the one maintained on Cuba) but put in place until certain conditions are met, including but not limited to:

1., full nuclear disarmament
2. Capture or killing of Osama and Zawahiri, OR.. letting US troops into Pakistan to hunt for them
3. Stop funding terrorism
4. Restoration of human rights to Pakistani's, to the level they were before Musharaff's coup



None of this is new stuff... Prior to Bush's Administration, Pakistan was an international pariah.. it was illegal for the US to sell them arms, etc..

Bush changed all of that

Bman

Pakistan is helping to fight terrorists in the region though are they not? Your plan might jeopardize that. Would you make fighting al Qaeda in SW Asia twice as difficult and possibly let American soldiers die as a result just so have some mosty insignificant effect on Pakistani politics?

[Bman]

I agree with what you said. Furthermore, I still wonder why we continue to piss off Pakistan's neighbor; A country having ~750 million people; one which would be a great ally to have; one which hates the Jihadi fuckwits even more than we do…


If you figure it out... let me know

There's something VERY fishy about Bush's relationship with Musharraff

My guess is that it has something do with 9/11 and who knows what about what really went on

Bman

[Bman]

Pakistan is helping to fight terrorists in the region though are they not? Your plan might jeopardize that. Would you make fighting al Qaeda in SW Asia twice as difficult and possibly let American soldiers die as a result just so have some mosty insignificant effect on Pakistani politics?


A couple points

If Pakistan wasn't harboring the terrorists, they wouldn't be there.. WHY do you suppose the terrorists are in SW Asia to begin with??? Why aren't they in , say... Yemen.. or the Sudan?? They're in Pakistan because that is where they are safest


Secondly, what's more important?? Catching "Al Libbi" .. or even Osama... OR stopping the proliferation of nuclear weapons to terrorist nations??

Bman

[candypreet]

I agree with what you said. Furthermore, I still wonder why we continue to piss off Pakistan's neighbor; A country having ~750 million people; one which would be a great ally to have; one which hates the Jihadi fuckwits even more than we do…

Thats not exactly true. The US and India are getting along well. Things were slightly better during Clinton's time at the white house.

(I think the trouble started in the early sixties, when the US aand americans thought India and USSR were allies. That was not true. India was always a non- alligned country, friendly with Russia though.)

[latent aaaack]

A couple points

If Pakistan wasn't harboring the terrorists, they wouldn't be there.. WHY do you suppose the terrorists are in SW Asia to begin with??? Why aren't they in , say... Yemen.. or the Sudan?? They're in Pakistan because that is where they are safest


Secondly, what's more important?? Catching "Al Libbi" .. or even Osama... OR stopping the proliferation of nuclear weapons to terrorist nations??

Bman

Terrorists are in western Pakistan because it's a remote, lawless, tribal area where it's easy to find locals that support them. Being able to work closely with Pakistani forces helps us to work against terrorists in Pakistan. The Pakistani leadership is obviously not harboring al Qaeda, they're foremost on al Qaeda's hit list.

Pakistan would still retain nuclear weapons no matter how much America tried to isolate and intimidate it. Distancing ourselves from Pakistan in this critical region would have little to no benefit but would certainly cost us a lot.

[Leonidas]

Pakistan would still retain nuclear weapons no matter how much America tried to isolate and intimidate it. Distancing ourselves from Pakistan in this critical region would have little to no benefit but would certainly cost us a lot.

Thanks for being the voice of reason.

I'm always willing to listen to alternatives from thinking people willing to give a nonbiased analysis of the situation. Thats not going to happen from wannabe armchair generals over the internet. Especially ones that refer to our troops as Nazis.

[Bman]

Terrorists are in western Pakistan because it's a remote, lawless, tribal area where it's easy to find locals that support them. Being able to work closely with Pakistani forces helps us to work against terrorists in Pakistan. The Pakistani leadership is obviously not harboring al Qaeda, they're foremost on al Qaeda's hit list.

Pakistan would still retain nuclear weapons no matter how much America tried to isolate and intimidate it. Distancing ourselves from Pakistan in this critical region would have little to no benefit but would certainly cost us a lot.


So you simply accept nuclear proliferation to terrorists as unavoidable??

What's the big deal with North Korea and Iran, then... or even Iraq for that matter?? Why did we go to Iraq again?

There's a breakdown in logic here on your part....

Bman

[Leonidas]

:add09:
If you figure it out... let me know

There's something VERY fishy about Bush's relationship with Musharraff

My guess is that it has something do with 9/11 and who knows what about what really went on

Bman

Obviously.

:rolleyes:

[Mr. Drags]

I agree with what you said. Furthermore, I still wonder why we continue to piss off Pakistan's neighbor; A country having ~750 million people; one which would be a great ally to have; one which hates the Jihadi fuckwits even more than we do…
it's very baffling is it not. India should be our primary ally in that region

[candypreet]

US confirms missiles for Pak

May 09, 2005 15:25 IST


The US has confirmed the sale of some of the missiles from a package of $1.3 billion of military equipment Pakistan has ordered, reports the Dawn, Islamabad.

The order placed by the Pakistan navy, includes eight P3-C Orion aircraft, six Phalanx close-in weapons systems and at least 60 Harpoon missiles, the paper said Monday.

The purchase is part of the US military assistance for Pakistan announced in 2003. Confirming the report, the US Defence Security Cooperation Agency said that the United States has approved the sale of two sets of advanced missiles to Pakistan valued at a total of $226 million .

The agency notified Congress of two potential foreign military sales to Pakistan: $180 million in Harpoon Block II missiles and $46 million in AIM-9M-1/ 2 Sidewinder missiles.

http://in.rediff.com/news/2005/may/09pak.htm

[latent aaaack]

So you simply accept nuclear proliferation to terrorists as unavoidable??

What's the big deal with North Korea and Iran, then... or even Iraq for that matter?? Why did we go to Iraq again?

There's a breakdown in logic here on your part....

Bman

If terrorists gained control of Pakistans arsenal then yes, military action would be considered. As it is though, Pakistan's gov't is not extremist or inflexible and is working towards peaceful ends. Khan's proliferation was stopped when it was uncovered.

[candypreet]

Terrorists are in western Pakistan because it's a remote, lawless, tribal area where it's easy to find locals that support them. Being able to work closely with Pakistani forces helps us to work against terrorists in Pakistan. The Pakistani leadership is obviously not harboring al Qaeda, they're foremost on al Qaeda's hit list.

Pakistan would still retain nuclear weapons no matter how much America tried to isolate and intimidate it. Distancing ourselves from Pakistan in this critical region would have little to no benefit but would certainly cost us a lot.

The terrorists are there coz they are safe and protected there.

[latent aaaack]

it's very baffling is it not. India should be our primary ally in that region

India is not in the strategically critical location that Pakistan is and is not anywhere near as relevant to the war against Islamist terrorists.

[Pghredneck]

Terrorists are in western Pakistan because it's a remote, lawless, tribal area where it's easy to find locals that support them. Being able to work closely with Pakistani forces helps us to work against terrorists in Pakistan. The Pakistani leadership is obviously not harboring al Qaeda, they're foremost on al Qaeda's hit list.

Pakistan would still retain nuclear weapons no matter how much America tried to isolate and intimidate it. Distancing ourselves from Pakistan in this critical region would have little to no benefit but would certainly cost us a lot.I get the impression that, every time Mooshie throws the US an occasional bone, a few days later we learn that the US just agreed to give him a herd of cattle and a tanker truck full of barbeque sauce. I just think that we’re being myopic rather than taking a long-term and rational view of the relationship. I predict that our support of Mooshie will end up biting us in the ass down the road. Given the overall attitude in Pakistan, it’s not reasonable to expect that a US-friendly regime is sustainable in that country. In a few years, are we going to end up getting harpooned by the harpoons that we gave them?

[latent aaaack]

The terrorists are there coz they are safe and protected there.

The locals often protect them but the government goes after them, so that's why America has a working relationship with the government.

[Leonidas]

What amazes me the most is a couple self proclaimed Republicans on this board that would take the word of a guy that thinks our gov plotted Sept 11th and calls our soldiers nazis, than a source like Time magazine.

But then in the same breath they call Time Magazine a liberal rag.

Unfuckingbelievable.

[candypreet]

India is not in the strategically critical location that Pakistan is and is not anywhere near as relevant to the war against Islamist terrorists.

If you mean the war which only the USA is fighting you are correct.
BUT if YOU MEANT A GLOBAL WAR AGAINST ISLAMIC TERRORISTS, THEN INDIA HAS SUFFERRED MUCH MORE - MUCH MORE THAN EVEN iSRAEL.

oVER A HUNDRED THOUSAND hINDUS AND SIKHS HAVE BEEN KILLED IN THE PAST TEN YEARS ALONE IN jAMMU AND KASHMIR.

[latent aaaack]

I get the impression that, every time Mooshie throws the US an occasional bone, a few days later we learn that the US just agreed to give him a herd of cattle and a tanker truck full of barbeque sauce. I just think that we’re being myopic rather than taking a long-term and rational view of the relationship. I predict that our support of Mooshie will end up biting us in the ass down the road. Given the overall attitude in Pakistan, it’s not reasonable to expect that a US-friendly regime is sustainable in that country. In a few years, are we going to end up getting harpooned by the harpoons that we gave them?

In order for that scenario to be worrying it would have to be somewhat likely that Pakistan's gov't would be overthrown by fanatics, would go to war directly against the US in the near future, and that the weapons we've given them would present a significant problem for our armed forces to deal with. None of this is likely. Plus, Pakistani public opinion had a heavy anti-American slant before we started buddying up with the new regime anyway.

[latent aaaack]

If you mean the war which only the USA is fighting you are correct.
BUT if YOU MEANT A GLOBAL WAR AGAINST ISLAMIC TERRORISTS, THEN INDIA HAS SUFFERRED MUCH MORE - MUCH MORE THAN EVEN iSRAEL.

oVER A HUNDRED THOUSAND hINDUS AND SIKHS HAVE BEEN KILLED IN THE PAST TEN YEARS ALONE IN jAMMU AND KASHMIR.

Yes that's what I meant, I mispoke. I mean the US wouldn't have that much more to gain by being strongly allied with India because we're both fighting Islamist terror already anyway, as is Russia.

[Spectre]

In order for that scenario to be worrying it would have to be somewhat likely that Pakistan's gov't would be overthrown by fanatics, would go to war directly against the US in the near future, and that the weapons we've given them would present a significant problem for our armed forces to deal with. None of this is likely. Plus, Pakistani public opinion had a heavy anti-American slant before we started buddying up with the new regime anyway.

Umm, didn't the EXACT same thing happen with Iraq? Is it really that hard to imagine?

[Bman]

In order for that scenario to be worrying it would have to be somewhat likely that Pakistan's gov't would be overthrown by fanatics, would go to war directly against the US in the near future, and that the weapons we've given them would present a significant problem for our armed forces to deal with. None of this is likely. Plus, Pakistani public opinion had a heavy anti-American slant before we started buddying up with the new regime anyway.



that's not the only scenario



A more likely scenario is that the US faces a conflict with China.. over Taiwan, or perhaps trade routes on the seas, etc...

Pakistan is a strong ally of China.. and now is ever strong in its naval power

Bman

[latent aaaack]

Umm, didn't the EXACT same thing happen with Iraq? Is it really that hard to imagine?

No with Iraq the US was already dealing with an overthrown radical violent government and the US knew it but considered him the lesser of two evils. Plus any weapons that were given to Baathist Iraq didn't pose a significant problem to the US. The current Pakistani leadership is not comparable to 1980's era Saddam.

[Bman]

The part of this story that you Bushies won't address.. regardless of the wisdom of whether or not we should be selling these weapons to Pakistan is this:

WHY IN THE HELL is the US taxpayer picking up the tab??

This is how fucked up Bush is.. .follow the money flow here


The US BORROWS money from China (through the sale of US Treasury Bonds)... then GIVES that money to Pakistan... so they can buy US military weapons

In the end, we're deeper in debt (TO CHINA, of all people), and the net effect was simply to transfer borrowed money (that taxpayers have to pay back) from the US Treasury to military suppliers

Oh, and some day we'll probably have to borrow MORE MONEY to fight the threat of Pakistan, who we're now building up to be our next enemy

and if we ever do have a conflict with China, they own so much of our debt, they could inflict serious damage to our economy and banking system with the push of a button.

LOL

Bman

[Pghredneck]

What amazes me the most is a couple self proclaimed Republicans on this board that would take the word of a guy that thinks our gov plotted Sept 11th and calls our soldiers nazis, than a source like Time magazine.

But then in the same breath they call Time Magazine a liberal rag.

Unfuckingbelievable.I just checked my voter registration card and no where on it does it say that I'm not allowed to agree with someone when they communicate something which is correct. I even got out my magnifying glass just to make sure that wasn't written there. And it wasn't. What does your card say?

PS: I’m thinking seriously about reverting to my former party affiliation (Libertarian). All this “we ain’t gonna enforce immigration laws” and “We say we’re conservatives but act like a bunch of liberals when it comes to spending and other stuff” but “we’re stupid enough to cozy up to the far Christian right even though they’d still vote for us if we didn’t do so” stuff is what’s turning me off to the Republican party…

[Spectre]

No with Iraq the US was already dealing with an overthrown radical violent government and the US knew it but considered him the lesser of two evils.

Sounds like the Pakistan terrorism comparison to me but whatever


Plus any weapons that were given to Baathist Iraq didn't pose a significant problem to the US.

If even one of our own missiles killed one of the 1500 currently dead, that's significant IMO.


The current Pakistani leadership is not comparable to 1980's era Saddam.

Whatever, I guess that's your opinion and I'll just say I respectfully yet totally disagree.

[latent aaaack]

Whatever, I guess that's your opinion and I'll just say I respectfully yet totally disagree.

My opinion more specifically: is the current Pakistani gov't rooted in an idealogy inspired by Nazism? How many wars has Musharaf started? How often has he used WMD's against his own people? Does he publically support terrorism and pay off suicide bombers?

[Leonidas]

The part of this story that you Bushies won't address.. regardless of the wisdom of whether or not we should be selling these weapons to Pakistan is this:

WHY IN THE HELL is the US taxpayer picking up the tab??

This is how fucked up Bush is.. .follow the money flow here


The US BORROWS money from China (through the sale of US Treasury Bonds)... then GIVES that money to Pakistan... so they can buy US military weapons

In the end, we're deeper in debt (TO CHINA, of all people), and the net effect was simply to transfer borrowed money (that taxpayers have to pay back) from the US Treasury to military suppliers

Oh, and some day we'll probably have to borrow MORE MONEY to fight the threat of Pakistan, who we're now building up to be our next enemy

and if we ever do have a conflict with China, they own so much of our debt, they could inflict serious damage to our economy and banking system with the push of a button.

LOL

Bman

Latent is about as much as a Bushie as Time magazine.

However, half of your groupies our "Bushies" though. Remember, the same people you consider more of your mortal enemies than Al Qaeda.

[Bman]

Does he publically support terrorism and pay off suicide bombers?


Yes.. in Kashmir

Bman

[Pghredneck]

...The current Pakistani leadership is not comparable to 1980's era Saddam.Agreed. The Paki leadership’s grip on power is much more tenuous than Saddams was. Pakistan is just an IED away from a regime change. On the other hand, it took the might of the UK, US and few of their buddies to topple that bastard Saddam. Once Mooshie is gone, the Jihadi boyz are going to be in charge of Pakistan…

[latent aaaack]

Yes.. in Kashmir

Bman

I guess it's possible he has a two faced behavior towards the Kashmir dispute like Arafat's, but I haven't seen evidence of it. He's shown willingness to make peace with India.

[Leonidas]

I just checked my voter registration card and no where on it does it say that I'm not allowed to agree with someone when they communicate something which is correct. I even got out my magnifying glass just to make sure that wasn't written there. And it wasn't. What does your card say?

PS: I’m thinking seriously about reverting to my former party affiliation (Libertarian). All this “we ain’t gonna enforce immigration laws” and “We say we’re conservatives but act like a bunch of liberals when it comes to spending and other stuff” but “we’re stupid enough to cozy up to the far Christian right even though they’d still vote for us if we didn’t do so” stuff is what’s turning me off to the Republican party…

Like I give a shit if you vote Republican.

We lost 7 soldiers this past weekend, thats what I care about. And I'm not going to sit here and let assholes denigrate their sacrifice.

Anybody that calls our soldiers nazis is my enemy. Anybody that cozies up to an asshole that calls our soldiers nazis can also go fuck themselves.

[Pghredneck]

Like I give a shit if you vote Republican.

We lost 7 soldiers this past weekend, and I'm not going to sit here and let assholes denigrate their sacrifice.

Anybody that calls our soldiers nazis is my enemy. Anybody that cozies up to an asshole that calls our soldiers nazis can also go fuck themselves.Define "cozies up". Does it mean "agrees with a specific correct point that he's made?"

[Bman]

I guess it's possible he has a two faced behavior towards the Kashmir dispute like Arafat's, but I haven't seen evidence of it. He's shown willingness to make peace with India.


Are you denying that Pakistan allows Al Qaeda to train and operate camps IN PAKISTAN, for the purpose of going across the border to kill American soldiers in Afghanistan?

Bman

[latent aaaack]

Are you denying that Pakistan allows Al Qaeda to train and operate camps IN PAKISTAN, for the purpose of going across the border to kill American soldiers in Afghanistan?

Bman

I'm not aware of any evidence of the Pakistani gov't letting al Qaeda do that.

[candypreet]

didnt he start the kargil war?

[NYC]

Agreed. The Paki leadership’s grip on power is much more tenuous than Saddams was. Pakistan is just an IED away from a regime change. On the other hand, it took the might of the UK, US and few of their buddies to topple that bastard Saddam. Once Mooshie is gone, the Jihadi boyz are going to be in charge of Pakistan…

That's going to be a real mess

[candypreet]

I'm not aware of any evidence of the Pakistani gov't letting al Qaeda do that.
check it out. Pakistan has terrorist camps and madrasas all over the place which preach hatred against the US, India
and Israel,( in that order)

[Bman]

I guess it's possible he has a two faced behavior towards the Kashmir dispute like Arafat's, but I haven't seen evidence of it. He's shown willingness to make peace with India.


Oh, well let me show you some "evidence" of it, since you've "seen none"

US House panel urges Musharraf to dismantle terror camps
Author: Vasantha Arora (IANS)
Publication: The Hindustan Times
Date: June 7, 2002
URL: http://www.hindustantimes.com/nonfram/070602/dlfor43.asp

A US House of Representatives subcommittee on South Asia has asked Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf to immediately dismantle terrorist training camps and permanently halt incursions into Kashmir.

The house panel said these would be the most important steps needed to defuse the India-Pakistan military standoff.

It underlined the need for Pakistan to give up its "suicidal policy" of supporting terrorists in Jammu and Kashmir, whose ownership Islamabad disputes and where escalating terrorism has brought the two nuclear-armed neighbours to the brink of war.

Republican Benjamin Gilman, who heads the Subcommittee on South Asia and the West Asia, said: "If Musharraf is serious about averting a war, he needs to match his words with deeds. He should agree to joint monitoring of the India-Pakistan border as suggested by Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee.

"The US has delivered over $1 billion worth of assistance to Pakistan since the war on terrorism began. While we appreciate all that Musharraf has done to help us since the September 11 attacks, we must remember he and the Pakistani military were given an ultimatum soon after September 11 to stop nurturing and supporting Taliban and other Islamic militants or else face the consequences.

"He made the right decision then, and we expect him to follow through with it now.

"People who kill innocent men, women and children for any cause are not freedom fighters. They are cold-blooded murderers who must be hunted down and brought to justice. Any support for them is totally and equally unacceptable."

Gilman, who set the tone for deliberations during the hearing Thursday, referred to President George W. Bush's oft-repeated statement that "any nation that harbours terrorists is a terrorist nation".

Democrat Rep. Gary Ackerman said if Pakistan wants to remain a member of the global coalition against terror, support for terrorists in Jammu and Kashmir must end -- completely and permanently.

Ackerman mentioned how Musharraf made a "courageous decision on September 13 and supported Operation Enduring Freedom. Without that support, we would have had a much more difficult time prosecuting the war in Afghanistan".

But in return, he said, the US has provided significant economic assistance including $600 million during the past fiscal year.

He said the Supplemental Appropriations Bill that just passed the house has $40 million more and the administration is requesting another $250 million in economic and development assistance for the coming fiscal. This excludes $73 million for border security, additional $75 million in foreign military aid in the supplemental and $50 million in military assistance for the coming fiscal.

"After all this, it's time to make clear to Musharraf that no further economic or military support will go to Pakistan if he continues to support militant organisations... No military assistance should go to Pakistan during the current crisis," said Ackerman, who has visited Kashmir and India several times.

"Musharraf is the architect of the Kargil incursion that brought the subcontinent to the brink of nuclear war in 1999. What makes anyone believe a cause for which he was ready to go to war three years ago is any less dear to him now?"

Ackerman said past experience only shows Musharraf does not intend to abandon Pakistan's support for terrorists in Jammu and Kashmir but intends to continue to use violence in the region to push the global community to intervene.

"We have seen this strategy earlier. And we have found the next front in the war on terror, Mr. Chairman, and it is in Kashmir."

Almost all Congressmen on the panel, including Henry Hyde, Shelley Berkley, Adam Schiff and Joseph Pitts, echoed Gilman and Ackerman's sentiments and spoke largely in favour of India.

But Rep. Dan Burton and Dana Rorbacher criticised India for its human rights issue in Kashmir.

Witnesses who testified before the panel were from Washington DC-based think tanks and included Michael Krepon, founding president of the Henry L Stimson Centre, and Amit Pandya, senior fellow for South Asia, Institute for Global Democracy.

Krepon, who has just returned after a two-week visit to Kashmir, dwelt on the roots of the crisis in Kashmir. "One of these is Pakistan's designs to wrest the Kashmir valley from India by force of arms or by diplomacy. Both of these designs have failed in the past and are bound to fail again and Pakistan has to give up this strategy to bring stability to the region."

He said avoidance of a nuclear exchange on the subcontinent demand demonstrable changes in Pakistan's failed Kashmir policy.

"While failing to wrest control of Kashmir from India, it has succeeded in generating domestic violence and the Kalashnikov culture at home. In fact the future of 140 million Pakistanis has been mortgaged to the fate of five million Kashmiri Muslims who live in the valley."

Krepon said economic development in Pakistan had been badly constrained by policies that place a premium on bleeding India.

[Bman]

I'm not aware of any evidence of the Pakistani gov't letting al Qaeda do that.



Read this... now you can be "aware"



It's Pakistan, Stupid!
By Paul Sperry
FrontPageMagazine.com | May 6, 2005


Law enforcement has a term for the period after a crisis when things revert to norm -- condition white. Well, the American people are just about there, three-and-a-half years after the 9/11 attacks.

But as the media obsess over Michael Jackson's favorite lubricants and Paula Abdul's dalliances with idol wannabes, al-Qaida is "very active" recruiting and planning to attack the United States again. "As months and years pass," Vice President Dick Cheney warns, "they are hoping that our country will grow complacent" and forget the horror of 9/11. And they're getting their wish, judging from the picayune issues that are catching the nation's attention now.

Cheney echoed President Bush's own warning a few days earlier to resist the urge to lower our guard. "One of my concerns after September the 11th is the farther away we got from September the 11th, the more relaxed we would all become and assume that there wasn't an enemy out there ready to hit us," Bush asserted.



Do they know something we don't? Short answer: yes.



Behind the scenes, homeland security officials are wringing their hands over intelligence indicating al-Qaida is preparing to attack major American cities, including Washington, using Pakistani nationals and possibly Pakistani-Americans.


Internal Department of Homeland Security documents I've obtained show officials fear Pakistan-based al-Qaida may be sending terrorists our way, including ones trained in terror camps up and running inside Pakistan -- that's right, Pakistan. The terror-training camps we shut down in Afghanistan are now open for business on the other side of the border, despite Islamabad's apparent efforts to crack down on them.


According to the closely held intelligence bulletins, officials worry Pakistanis trained in the camps are trying to sneak into America to carry out terrorist attacks. In fact, U.S. border authorities are reminded each day in shift musters that Pakistanis pose the No. 1 terrorist threat to America right now. And for the past several months, they have been under orders to increase scrutiny of travelers of Pakistani origin.

The latest advisory puts authorities on high alert for Pakistani terrorists trying to enter the U.S. with fake British passports.

"A number of Pakistani-based young men in their 20's may be traveling to the U.S. with altered United Kingdom passports in order to engage in terrorist-related activity," says the highly sensitive DHS action memo.

"Of most interest may be individuals fitting this description traveling to Washington D.C., Houston, Chicago or New York."



The FBI says al-Qaida leaders -- many of whom are believed to be hiding in Pakistan, as evidenced most recently by the capture there of senior operative Abu Farraj al-Libbi -- have discussed plans for a 9/11-type attack in which hijackers would board planes in Britain so they wouldn't have to use U.S. visas. Customs inspectors are questioning all male Pakistani travelers between the ages of 18 and 35 bearing British passports, as part of the latest DHS directive known as Intelligence Driven Special Operation #2005-07.



Even Pakistani-Americans have been subjected to special screening.



Fearing some may be returning from terrorist camps in their ancestral homeland, customs officials have been directed to not only question them about their trip and activities but to also search their arms and legs for signs of having had terrorist training. They've been told to look for anything from rope burns to bruises to possible injuries suffered from using firearms or explosives. The body searches stopped after the Pakistani Embassy complained, but they are still being asked a battery of questions.



"Many of the individuals trained in the Pakistani camps are destined to commit illegal activities in the United States," says the two-page DHS warning that launched IDSO #2004-022. (Click here to view page one and page two, parts of which I have redacted to protect some of the more sensitive countermeasures.)



The unusual steps show how desperate homeland security officials are to disrupt what they believe is a major attack planned by terrorists of Pakistani origin.



At the same time, U.S. immigration authorities are targeting Pakistanis living illegally in America for deportation. Since 9/11, they've rounded up and removed three times more Pakistani absconders than they did during the comparable period before 9/11. DHS data also show the number of Pakistani removals dwarfs those of illegals from all other Muslim nations.


Pakistanis account for most of the OTMs -- other than Mexicans – crossing the U.S. border with Mexico illegally from countries considered high risk for terrorism. And officials fear some may try to smuggle nuclear or radiological weapons across the porous border into America.


Osama bin Laden, who has long sought a nuclear weapon or radioactive materials to make a so-called dirty bomb, recently secured from a Saudi cleric a religious ruling giving him the green light to use nuclear weapons against Americans. He and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, along with much of al-Qaida's inner circle, are thought to be hiding in Pakistan's northern badlands. In fact, they've recently used couriers to deliver video- and audio-taped messages to Al-Jazeera TV's bureaus in Islamabad and Karachi. And just yesterday it was announced that one of their top operatives --al-Libbi -- was captured in that same badlands area.


Pakistan, which husbanded al-Qaida and served as a base of operations for the 9/11 plotters, has long been a hotbed of terrorist activity. The war on terror started in Pakistan, and many officials believe it will end there.

But for that to happen, they say Bush must pressure Islamabad to shut down the terrorist camps in Pakistan, because U.S. forces can't do it unilaterally. Islamabad refuses to allow our troops based in Afghanistan to cross the border into neighboring Pakistan.


After the 9/11 attacks, President Bush demanded the Taliban close terror camps in Afghanistan. On Sept. 20, 2001, he warned: "Tonight the United States of America makes the following demands on the Taliban ... Close immediately and permanently every terrorist training camp in Afghanistan."

Yet Pakistan, the cradle of the Taliban movement, gets no such ultimatums regarding its own terror camps. Too be sure, Islamabad cut formal ties with the Taliban after 9/11, and has vowed to crack down on terrorists in its country. But the seeming double standard over the camps still gripes law enforcement here.


"What gets me is while we were going after the Taliban in Afghanistan, there were a lot of training camps in Pakistan. I mean, there was like a ton. That was where the terrorists were getting most of their training -- in Pakistan -- and they're still getting training there," says John M. Cole, who until last year worked at FBI headquarters as program manager for foreign intelligence investigations covering Pakistan, India and Afghanistan.

While the arrest of al-Libbi was a blow to al-Qaida and a win for our side, untold numbers of terrorists are still plotting and training inside Pakistan -- and preparing to launch attacks against America. Cole and others don't understand why Washington is taking the unnecessary risk of trying to catch the bad guys here when Islamabad could be doing more to stop them over there -- or at least letting our troops help stop them.



Sperry, a Hoover Institution media fellow and Investor's Business Daily veteran, is author of the just-released book, INFILTRATION: How Muslim Spies and Subversives Have Penetrated Washington (Nelson Current, 2005). He can be reached at sperry@sperryfiles.com.


http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=17968

[Leonidas]

Define "cozies up". Does it mean "agrees with a specific correct point that he's made?"

Can you name any influential person in American politics today that agrees with any of Bmans 4 proposed "correct" ultimatums to Pakistan.

You have a very niave view of the world if you think we have the ability to just tell Pakistan to disband their nuclear program and they will do it.

[Bman]

Can you name any influential person in American politics today that agrees with any of Bmans 4 proposed "correct" ultimatums to Pakistan.

You have a very niave view of the world if you think we have the ability to just tell Pakistan to disband their nuclear program and they will do it.



That's interesting

Isn't that EXACTLY Bush's strategy with North Korea and Iran, the two countries now in possession of nukes, thanks to Pakistan?

Bman

[latent aaaack]

Those were interesting articles but Musharraf is one of al Qaeda's top targets. There's no motive for him personally to be of any assistance to jihadists and Pakistani forces have directly helped eliminate terrorists repeatedly. It does look like he has his hands in violence in Kashmir though.

There's still no benefit in cutting relations with Pakistan however when we need help against al Qaeda. It would be nice if idealistic principled approaches worked in the real world but they don't. I don't agree with Bush's approach either when it's overly idealistic and naive.

[Leonidas]

That's interesting

Isn't that EXACTLY Bush's strategy with North Korea and Iran, the two countries now in possession of nukes, thanks to Pakistan?

Bman

Go fuck yourself psycho. I meant destroy their nuclear weapons.

I could explain to you our strategies for all 3 countries because all 3 have vastly different circumstances, but it would be a waste of time. You will continue to fall back on your self delusions that you and only you have all the answers and everything our government is doing is the exact opposite of what your brilliant intellect would do.

[Pghredneck]

Can you name any influential person in American politics today that agrees with any of Bmans 4 proposed "correct" ultimatums to Pakistan.

You have a very niave view of the world if you think we have the ability to just tell Pakistan to disband their nuclear program and they will do it.You have a very naive view of the world if you think that the current pro-US regime is sustainable in a country where the majority of the people believe that the US is evil and at the root of all their problems. IMHO, it’s nothing short of stupid to arm a country in which most of the people want to kill us. You apparently see it differently though so we’ll have to agree to disagree on this one.

PS: You're even more cynical than I am if you believe that not a single US politician would not agree that the Pakis should not "3. Stop funding terrorism" point. Think before you respond to this one. The obvious comeback will get you in trouble...

[Leonidas]

You have a very naive view of the world if you think that the current pro-US regime is sustainable in a country where the majority of the people believe that the US is evil and at the root of all their problems. IMHO, it’s nothing short of stupid to arm a country in which most of the people want to kill us. You apparently see it differently though so we’ll have to agree to disagree on this one. ...

We never disagreed on the tenuous situation we are in. This was never in question. We disagree on whether or not Bmans lunatic ultimatums are the best solution.




PS: You're even more cynical than I am if you believe that not a single US politician would not agree that the Pakis should not "3. Stop funding terrorism" point. Think before you respond to this one. The obvious comeback will get you in trouble...

I did have to think. Nope, I still have no idea what you are talking about.

Name me any influential political thinker in this country that would even remotely dream of making the same ultimatums to Musharraf as Bman is suggesting. You wont find any.

[Bman]

Copyright 2004 News Bites Pty Ltd
All Rights Reserved


August 8, 2004 Sunday
BILL TABLED TO LIMIT US AID TO PAKISTAN


By Our Monitoring Desk

A bill has been introduced in the US Congress which calls for limiting Washington’s aid to Pakistan unless President George Bush certifies that Islamabad has halted nuclear and missile proliferation activities and is cooperating in the probe on the alleged nuclear black-marketing network of Abdul Qadeer Khan, reported ZEE TV and Doordarshan on Sunday.

The bill, sponsored by Representatives Tom Lantos, Ilena Ros. Lehtinen, Howard Berman, Gary Ackerman and Brad Sherman, has been referred to the Congressional Committee.

It says the President may not provide more than 75 per cent of the US assistance to Pakistan unless he can certify that Islamabad has verifiably halted any alleged cooperation with any state in the development of nuclear or missile technology, material or equipment that is useful for the development of weapons of mass destruction. It also wants the Administration to state that Islamabad is fully sharing with the United States all information relevant to the alleged nuclear proliferation network of A Q Khan.

However, in view of the strong support by President George Bush for President Musharraf, the bill may face some resistance.

[Bman]

Copyright 2005 HT Media Ltd.
All Rights Reserved
Indo-Asian News Service

April 6, 2005 Wednesday 2:53 PM EST

Ackerman to introduce bill against F-16 sale to Pakistan

Indo-Asian News Service

Washington


Washington, Apr 6 -- US Congressman Gary Ackerman, a longtime India ally, says he will introduce legislation that calls for prohibiting F-16 fighter plane sales to Pakistan unless Islamabad allows American investigators to question its nuclear scientist A.Q. Khan.

Ackerman, the Democratic Party co-chair of the Congressional Caucus on India and Indian Americans, announced that the legislation he plans to bring to the floor does allow for assistance to Pakistan to encourage continued cooperation on counter-narcotics, anti-terrorism as well as peacekeeping.

In addition, the measure allows military to military contact programmes even as it prohibits sale of F-16. However, the Bush administration is going ahead with the sale.

Washington has promised the sale of these aircraft to both India and Pakistan. "The bill is still being drafted so we do not have a final version of it yet," Ackerman's spokesperson told IANS, ".... we expect to introduce it later this week, probably Thursday."

Late last month Ackerman co-signed a letter urging President Bush to oppose the sale of F-16s to Pakistan. The letter written with Florida Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (the Republican Caucus Co-Chair) was signed by other members of the caucus as well.

"It is incomprehensible that we would provide sophisticated military equipment to Pakistan when its president, General Pervez Musharraf refuses to let us interview A.Q. Khan," Ackerman said. "After all, Khan is only the world's biggest individual proliferator of nuclear technology to two countries of President Bush's evil axis and he tried to sell to the third."

In 2003, it was revealed that Khan headed a covert nuclear smuggling network, the full extent of which is still filtering out little by little. "What is known is that they provided nuclear weapons related technology to several rogue nations including Iran, North Korea and Libya. They also attempted to sell to Iraq," Ackerman pointed out.

United States intelligence agencies have attempted to interview Khan about his activities but Musharraf - who pardoned Khan in 2004 for illegally selling the nuclear goods and put him under house arrest - has refused to allow the US access to him. Even publicly, Musharraf has acknowledged that he cannot allow this questioning as it would jeopardize his own position considering the esteem in which Khan is held by the general public.

The Bush administration has quietly complained about this but got nowhere and Bush has several times over the year acknowledged that Khan is considered a national hero of sorts in Pakistan and regarded as the 'father of Pakistan's nuclear programme'.

"If they couldn't control their own nuke programme, how would you expect them to safeguard our 'stuff?'" asked Ackerman.

[Leonidas]

Where do we demand them give up their nuclear weapons?

[TaYo]

Well, Musharraf might not be the ideal alternative, but he is the only one. And it is the inherent hypocrisy of supplying a "friendly" dictator while ridding the other one based on false accusations that he had WMD's. It happends in Saudi Arabia aswell.

Now, many Saudis are pissed off, and rightly so at the suppressing regime of the Saudi elite, and they naturally see the US having a major role in that repression. So, with this in mind, I agree with the article. Selective support and hypocrisy will not benefit US PR relatons in Pakistan nor Saudi Arabia.

Although there are limits to what Musharraf can do, the guy survived like 5 - 6 assasinations last year, and his reach does not extend to much outside Islamabad, at certainly not in rural Pakistan where they have Talebanic ways of Sharia rule already.

Why Pakistan should be demanded to give up their nukes with the crazy hindu nationalist party down south in India is beyond me. India is occupating Kashmir, a strategic mountainous region largely muslim. Their rule there is very repressive, and to rationalize India being a democratic developed country next to Pakistan would be wrong.

Question is, should the US give assistance to enforce the same situation as in Saudi Arabia? Mind you, the 911 terrorists got their training in US flight schools, not in Pakistan.

It's a lose-lose situation either way you look at it. If you continue to support a suppressive regime, the more negative picture fanatics can paint about the US, if the US would support "popular" and democratic elections in Pakistan, with opposition leaders who have a very different view than the US on how regional politics should be like.. well, then I guess losing a short term ally should be the better lose situation in the long run.

[Pghredneck]

....well, then I guess losing a short term ally should be the better lose situation in the long run. Bingo!

[oxy]

I wonder how many years it'll be until Pakistan stabs us in the back and fights us with weapons we gave them. I give it 15 tops.

I agree that it will only be a matter of time before Pakistan attempts to use our weapons against us or an ally of ours. It won't happen while Mussharaf (sp) is dictating things but his hold on power won't last too much longer and then who knows.

BMan, your opening statement is just wrong!!

[Bman]

BMan, your opening statement is just wrong!!


Point it out

Bman

[Bman]

Why Pakistan should be demanded to give up their nukes with the crazy hindu nationalist party down south in India is beyond me. India is occupating Kashmir, a strategic mountainous region largely muslim. Their rule there is very repressive, and to rationalize India being a democratic developed country next to Pakistan would be wrong.
.




I don't understand this argument


Pakistan is the world's greatest proliferator of nuclear weapons to TERRORIST NATIONS... this is not even disputed.

If Pakistan has a legitimate use for nuclear weapons for their own defense, as you are suggesting here, then WHO DOESN'T???

Doesn't Iran need them.. and didn't Iraq need them to deter the Iranians?? and doesn't North Korea need them too?

I mean, if Pakistan can have nukes, why not everyone else???

That's the question

Bman

[TaYo]

I don't understand this argument


Pakistan is the world's greatest proliferator of nuclear weapons to TERRORIST NATIONS... this is not even disputed.

If Pakistan has a legitimate use for nuclear weapons for their own defense, as you are suggesting here, then WHO DOESN'T???

Well, although I do agree that Pakistan does have a bad record in not abiding by the NPT, so does Russia, who is currently helping the Iranians. And the India-Pakistan conflict is the cold war of our time, I think the Indians should be equally pressed to dismantle their arsenal.


Doesn't Iran need them.. and didn't Iraq need them to deter the Iranians?? and doesn't North Korea need them too?

I mean, if Pakistan can have nukes, why not everyone else???

That's the question

Bman

I don't think any dictators nor fundamentalists should have any nuclear weapons at their disposal. That is beyond redemption with the current antagonism in the middle east. For example you have to see the larger picture here, the Chinese are infuriated because of the prospect of american weapons on Taiwan, the Iranians because they think that can deter the US from making any pre-emptive strikes from Israel there, and North Korea have the same ideal.

Now I don't really care if yours and UK's is a democracy or not, and furthermore whether one is "better" than the other. Friends or no friends. What is important is to understand that an aggressive US foreign policy has not done anything to deter countries from developing nuclear weapons, especially because it's an open secret that the US gave the Israelis the bomb.

If there had been a more consistent attitude with regard to the NPT, issues like these might have been non-existent, however, in today's dog eat dog world.. I can understand the historical role the US expects of itself being the only superpower left, though the choices being made over the years have not really been for the better.

[Bman]

Here's how the Paki's thank us for our generosity

LOL



Copyright 2005 The Financial Times Limited
Financial Times (London, England)

May 10, 2005 Tuesday


Pakistan agrees jet deal with Chinese

By Washington

DATELINE: ISLAMABAD and WASHINGTON



Pakistan and China have agreed to start joint production of a new fighter aircraft intended as a replacement for the ageing French and Chinese aircraft used by Pakistan's air force, a senior Pakistani air force officer said yesterday.

The agreement comes only two months after the US offered to sell F-16 fighter aircraft to Pakistan, reversing sanctions applied almost 15 years ago over Islamabad's nuclear weapons programme.

The move also comes as the US voices concern about the rise of the Chinese military. China passed an anti-secession law in March that would require its military to use force to block any Taiwanese moves towards independence.

Tom Donnelly, defence analyst at the American Enterprise Institute, said the new JF-17 would enhance China's ability to intimidate Taiwan and mount an air campaign following a missile attack on the island.

"These are pieces of the puzzle that China are putting together that work together very well in a complementary fashion," said Mr Donnelly. "Each piece per se you would be able to deal with, but it will all complicate a quick US response (to any attack on Taiwan)." The first four of the JF-17 "Thunder" aircraft would be delivered to Pakistan next year for trial flights, while the supply of 150 aircraft would begin in 2007, said Air Vice Marshal Shahid Latif, project director.

China's Chengdu Aircraft Design Institute is the architect of the JF-17 while its prototypes, first flown last year by Pakistani test pilots, were made by the Chengdu Aircraft Company based in Sichuan province.

"The (JF-17) project is not only of strategic importance to the air force but it has far-reaching implications both for the national defence and economic prosperity of Pakistan," Air Vice Marshal Latif said in a rare press briefing.

Pakistan and China were planning to produce at least 400 JF-17 fighters, with the balance of 250 of them on order for China's air force. Pakistani air force officials said half would be produced on an assembly line in China while the other half would be made in Pakistan.

[candypreet]

Well, although I do agree that Pakistan does have a bad record in not abiding by the NPT, so does Russia, who is currently helping the Iranians. And the India-Pakistan conflict is the cold war of our time, I think the Indians should be equally pressed to dismantle their arsenal. I.

WHY? What danger does the world have from INDIA?

[candypreet]

Why Pakistan should be demanded to give up their nukes with the crazy hindu nationalist party down south in India is beyond me. India is occupating Kashmir, a strategic mountainous region largely muslim. Their rule there is very repressive, and to rationalize India being a democratic developed country next to Pakistan would be wrong. .

why dont you read more news. India has the congress party in power, which is secular, with a sikh prime minister and a muslim president

[jimb]

If you want to help Pakistan help the starving and the needy for most of them could be our friends.

Arms do not help poverty people of the world.

[Bman]

If you want to help Pakistan help the starving and the needy for most of them could be our friends.

Arms do not help poverty people of the world.


Yes, but you see Jim... if you were to give out foreign aid with the stipulation that it had to be spent on food, how would Lockheed Martin or General Dynamics or General Electric or United Technologies get any of that money??

Bman

[jimb]

Yes, but you see Jim... if you were to give out foreign aid with the stipulation that it had to be spent on food, how would Lockheed Martin or General Dynamics or General Electric or United Technologies get any of that money??

Bman

It is true that some of our industries do profit from wars.

It is also true that hungry people in Pakistan needs more help than a few fat farts who profits from death.

[candypreet]

It is true that some of our industries do profit from wars.

It is also true that hungry people in Pakistan needs more help than a few fat farts who profits from death.
provided the charity given is not used for terrorism, like it was recently

[V-Agent]

This is directed as all of you enemies of the United States that support George Bush


Congratulations! You just spent another $1 BILLION arming the country ranked NUMBER ONE in the world in HATRED for the United States.. the country most closely associated with the Taliban and Al Qaeda....

Keep voting for the incumbents... you get what you deserve.

Its not like we could use that $1 billion in the US for anything... NAAAAAWWWW

Copyright 2005 HT Media Ltd.
Indo-Asian News Service

May 8, 2005 Sunday 7:34 AM EST


Pakistan navy to get Orion aircraft, Harpoon missiles

Indo-Asian News Service

Islamabad


Islamabad, May 8 -- The Pakistan Navy has placed an order worth $1.3 billion with the US for supply of eight P3-C Orion aircraft, six Phalanx close-in weapon systems and at least 60 Harpoon missiles, Xinhua reported.

The Pentagon has notified the sale of the aircraft and equipment to the US Congress, which is expected to approve it within the next 30 days.

According to an official, the eight P3-C aircraft with T-56 engines and associated equipment and services will cost $970 million.

He said the deal would be paid for from the US military assistance to Pakistan.

A media report said the aircraft would help the navy develop a long-needed fleet of maritime and border surveillance aircraft.

It said the command-and-control capabilities of the P3-C aircraft would help improve Pakistan's ability to restrict littoral movement of terrorists along its southern border.

Published by HT Media Ltd. with permission from Indo-Asian News Service.

I wouldn't go so far as to say Pakistan is the number one hater of the US, I reckon that'd be Australia.
Outside of the isolated government and tourist traps, Yanks are not exactly welcome.

And with all the cultural swill they are dumping in this nation, who can blame us?

[oxy]

:add09: This is the furthest from the truth. Looks like the angry Aussie is just out trolling for a conflict.
Why am I not surprised :rolleyes:

I wouldn't go so far as to say Pakistan is the number one hater of the US, I reckon that'd be Australia.
Outside of the isolated government and tourist traps, Yanks are not exactly welcome.

And with all the cultural swill they are dumping in this nation, who can blame us?

[sidthereal]

Aussies dont go around bankrolling and recruitng and training terrorists willing to attack America, Israel and India.


Lets not get so Anti-America that it becomes delusional to the issues at hand.

[Bman]

Fucking sheeple.. hahaha.. Freeman is right.. this country really is a nation of sheeple.

When did I start this thread? HOW LONG ago?? and now, here we are.. Congress gets around to looking in to just where that money is going.. hmmmm.. what a grand idea.


HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS;

GAO Documents Lack of Oversight, Accountability for U.S. Anti-Terrorism Funds to Pakistan



As a result of an investigation requested by the House Foreign Affairs Committee, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report showing a troubling lack of oversight and accountability for U.S. funds to Pakistan that were meant to combat terrorism along its border with Afghanistan (see also House Committee on Foreign Affairs (http://www.newsrx.com/library/topics/House-Committee-on-Foreign-Affairs.html)).

"I'm shocked at the lack of oversight of billions of dollars that have been doled out in Pakistan in an effort to fight terrorism," said Committee Chairman Howard L. Berman (http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/search/XMLCrossLinkSearch.do?bct=A&risb=21_T4110149221&returnToId=20_T4110157154&csi=246798&A=0.04899826075900804&sourceCSI=9369&indexTerm=%23PE000A0TO%23&searchTerm=Howard%20L.%20Berman%20&indexType=P)

The United States has provided Pakistan about $5.6 billion in payments, known as Coalition Support Funds, since the 9/11 attacks. In its investigation, the GAO found several cases where the Bush Administration could not explain or account for such payments, including millions of dollars for road construction with no evidence that any roads were built, and reimbursement costs to the Pakistan military that may be duplicative.

"The report documents how U.S. funds were used without any evidence that they supported counter-terrorism efforts," Berman noted. "The U.S. government is being asked to reimburse Pakistan for non-incremental air defense radar maintenance when Al Qaeda is not even known to have an air force. The purpose of these funds is to support the fight against extremists, not to boost Pakistan's conventional warfare capability."

In early May, the Foreign Affairs Committee examined some of the conclusions of an earlier GAO report it had commissioned on U.S.-Pakistan policy. Berman said the committee will continue to follow the matter closely to ensure that the Administration puts in place improved systems of accountability for funding to Pakistan's counter-terrorism efforts.

To view the new GAO report visit:

http://www.hcfa.house.gov/110/gao062408.pdf (http://www.hcfa.house.gov/110/gao062408.pdf).

[Mars S]

Pakistan probably has a lot of problems with corruption. What do you propose to solve the issue while simultaneously addressing the need to fight terrorism?

[spotdogg]

Pakistan probably has a lot of problems with corruption. What do you propose to solve the issue while simultaneously addressing the need to fight terrorism?

Who knows?...They have never been a staunch ally...Even though you think Mushareff is an ally...Dumb fuck...

[oxy]

Fucking sheeple.. hahaha.. Freeman is right.. this country really is a nation of sheeple.

When did I start this thread? HOW LONG ago?? and now, here we are.. Congress gets around to looking in to just where that money is going.. hmmmm.. what a grand idea.
I posted this in one of your threads well over a week ago. You didn't seem too interested then...


http://www.wincoast.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1289222&postcount=371

[Bman]

I posted this in one of your threads well over a week ago. You didn't seem too interested then...


http://www.wincoast.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1289222&postcount=371


I must have been on vacation that day.. I didn't see this.. Thanks! That's the same report

Just one more instance of the US taxpayer being fleeced.

[DarthShady]

Well, Musharraf might not be the ideal alternative, but he is the only one. And it is the inherent hypocrisy of supplying a "friendly" dictator while ridding the other one based on false accusations that he had WMD's. It happends in Saudi Arabia aswell.

Now, many Saudis are pissed off, and rightly so at the suppressing regime of the Saudi elite, and they naturally see the US having a major role in that repression. So, with this in mind, I agree with the article. Selective support and hypocrisy will not benefit US PR relatons in Pakistan nor Saudi Arabia.

Although there are limits to what Musharraf can do, the guy survived like 5 - 6 assasinations last year, and his reach does not extend to much outside Islamabad, at certainly not in rural Pakistan where they have Talebanic ways of Sharia rule already.

Why Pakistan should be demanded to give up their nukes with the crazy hindu nationalist party down south in India is beyond me. India is occupating Kashmir, a strategic mountainous region largely muslim. Their rule there is very repressive, and to rationalize India being a democratic developed country next to Pakistan would be wrong.

Question is, should the US give assistance to enforce the same situation as in Saudi Arabia? Mind you, the 911 terrorists got their training in US flight schools, not in Pakistan.

It's a lose-lose situation either way you look at it. If you continue to support a suppressive regime, the more negative picture fanatics can paint about the US, if the US would support "popular" and democratic elections in Pakistan, with opposition leaders who have a very different view than the US on how regional politics should be like.. well, then I guess losing a short term ally should be the better lose situation in the long run.




India is the worlds last stand against the lunatics in Pakistan, and the Middle East, in general. That's why they get to keep the bomb.:happy_11:

[Mars S]

Who knows?...They have never been a staunch ally...Even though you think Mushareff is an ally...Dumb fuck...

So who do you think stopped AQ Khan, idiot?? Who risked HIS life to fight jihadists in an Islamic nation, moron? You must have a lot of experience running nations huh? Its easy to condemn people from behind a computer, hero.
Ever had to deal with anything larger than your ego? Probably not.

Pakistan has more problems than you can imagine in the form of primitive conditions, lack of infrastructure, a shortage of paved roads, lack of sanitary water, disease outbreaks, incursions by militants from other countries all of which were exacerbated by a massive earthquake a few years back and you think the solution to all of that is to invade them. How exactly, given your well-known contempt for the Iraq war, do you think that could be pulled off?

You think a pack of rag-tag jihadists stuck in the backwoods of Pakistan is such a great threat to our security that Pakistan should be attacked and invaded. You're just another idiot who whines that Saddam was no threat to us but you want to attack Pakistanis.
'Dumb fuck' describes you to a "T". You pathetic, squealing shit-for-brained mouse.
:add09:

[Bman]

and now Bush wants to spend ANOTHER quarter billion to "upgrade" Pakistan's F-16s, that YOU, the jackass taxpayer, bought for them.. LOL

hahaha.. I'm glad I'm not rich, and I've got two kids.. heck I'm in a low tax bracket.. .I say send Pakistan another Trillion.. what the hell.. why not??

I'm slowly adopting wanderers point of view.. The American people get what they deserve.. the sooner the better!


US wants counterterror funds for Pakistan F-16s

Thu Jul 24, 2008 11:58am EDT


WASHINGTON, July 24 (Reuters) - The Bush administration has proposed shifting $226.5 million in U.S. counterterrorism aid to Pakistan to upgrade Pakistani F-16 fighters, U.S. officials said on Thursday.

The plan has provoked some opposition in the U.S. Congress, where an influential lawmaker questioned how upgraded F-16s, which are widely seen as aimed at countering any threat from India, would be used against al Qaeda and Taliban forces.

U.S. officials have long been frustrated at what they view as Pakistan's failure to do enough to combat militants along its border with Afghanistan, where the United States has some 35,000 troops, many of whom are fighting a Taliban insurgency.

News of the proposal to shift the funds broke ahead of next week's White House meeting between Pakistani Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani and U.S. President George W. Bush, triggering speculation that the Bush administration was trying to curry favor with the newly elected Pakistani leader.

A State Department official denied this, saying the timing was dictated by the need to make a payment to the military contractor that would upgrade the planes, Lockheed Martin Corp (LMT.N: Quote (http://www.reuters.com/stocks/quote?symbol=LMT.N), Profile (http://www.reuters.com/stocks/companyProfile?symbol=LMT.N), Research (http://www.reuters.com/stocks/researchReports?symbol=LMT.N), Stock Buzz (http://reuters.socialpicks.com/stock/r/LMT)), by the end of July.

The New York Times first reported the Bush administration's decision to ask U.S. lawmakers to shift the money. The White House and the State Department later confirmed the request.

"The F-16s that they have are used in counterterrorism operations," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said. "We made them available to the Pakistanis and they need to be maintained."

The new Pakistani government is facing economic pressures partly from rising food and energy prices and needs aid from the United States, she said. U.S. officials said paying for the F-16 upgrades would free up money for other purposes.

PAKISTAN'S 'CASH-FLOW PROBLEMS'

"This shift comes about as a result of a request from the newly elected Pakistani government, partly because of their cash-flow problems and partly because they are re-evaluating the equipment they need to fight the war on terror," said a State Department official who spoke on condition of anonymity.

"NATO forces use F-16s right across the border ... in Afghanistan for similar purposes and frankly, Pakistan has already used its F-16s in sorties against terrorist targets," the State Department official said. "So it's a legitimate use and it supports a democratic government."

Rep. Nita Lowey, the New York Democrat who chairs the State and foreign operations subcommittee of the powerful House appropriations committee, said in a written statement that the administration's request "raises serious concerns."

"Congress provided these funds specifically for counter-terrorism and law enforcement," she said. "It is incumbent on the State Department and Pakistan to demonstrate clearly how these F-16s would be used to fight al Qaeda and the Taliban in order to get congressional support."

Asked if the the U.S. request was designed to curry favor with Gilani, the State Department official replied: "No, we're not that good.

"This has been under discussion for a while," he said. "We are trying to work with the new elected government and this is part of that but it's not specifically to curry favor for one particular visit."

Speaking on Wednesday, Lisa Curtis, a South Asia expert at the Heritage Foundation think tank in Washington, said that to address U.S. frustration over Pakistan's failure to do more to fight militants along its border with Afghanistan "Pakistan is going to have to adjust its strategic perspective.

"It's going to have to make defeating the Taliban, rather than countering India, its main focus," she said. (Reporting by Tabassum Zakaria, Paul Eckert and Arshad Mohammed; Editing by Bill Trott)


http://www.reuters.com/article/asiaCrisis/idUSN24410608

[Mars S]

bman. If you want to do something constructive for Pakistan, why don't you send a donation to the Central Asia Institute and Greg Mortenson. He is building schools for remote villages in Pakistan and actualy doing something for the citizens who desperately need help. Absent his efforts, the other "educational force" are the Saudi-funded madrassas which promote the growth of violent jihad.
I cannot agree that attacking the Pakistani people or the frontier areas are any kind of a solution. The Taliban must be routed, but the Pakis need help and unfortunately, our best ally there- Musharraf, can no longer help them.

[Bman]

bman. If you want to do something constructive for Pakistan, why don't you send a donation to the Central Asia Institute and Greg Mortenson. He is building schools for remote villages in Pakistan and actualy doing something for the citizens who desperately need help. Absent his efforts, the other "educational force" are the Saudi-funded madrassas which promote the growth of violent jihad.
I cannot agree that attacking the Pakistani people or the frontier areas are any kind of a solution. The Taliban must be routed, but the Pakis need help and unfortunately, our best ally there- Musharraf, can no longer help them.


When did I say I wanted to do something constructive for Pakistan?

Of all the countries on earth that I could help out with my money, Pakistan would be near the bottom of the list.


That's the point of this thread. Why does Bush choose to arm and support the nation where hatred of America is the highest? The nation that harbors al Qaeda, spreads WMD to terrorists and where human rights are nonexistent?

Does this sound to you like the country that should be the fourth highest dollar amount of US aid, which they USE TO BUY WEAPONS?

Its not like they take the money and help the needy people. This money goes directly to Lockheed Martin... do not pass go

If the American people can't seem to figure this out, then the hell with them..... let them keep paying.. I'm all for it..

[Mars S]

When did I say I wanted to do something constructive for Pakistan?

Of all the countries on earth that I could help out with my money, Pakistan would be near the bottom of the list.


That's the point of this thread. Why does Bush choose to arm and support the nation where hatred of America is the highest? The nation that harbors al Qaeda, spreads WMD to terrorists and where human rights are nonexistent?

Does this sound to you like the country that should be the fourth highest dollar amount of US aid, which they USE TO BUY WEAPONS?

Its not like they take the money and help the needy people. This money goes directly to Lockheed Martin... do not pass go

If the American people can't seem to figure this out, then the hell with them..... let them keep paying.. I'm all for it..
You didn't but it only demonstrates the poverty of your argument when you bluster about forcing them or attacking them to do something about the terrorists. You're ignorant about the nation and probably don't read the articles you post.
The citizens of Pakistan would prefer not to have to be subjected to violent jihadists. Your response to that is to talk about bombing them.
Its a complex situation and your thinking is invariably simple-minded.

[Bman]

You didn't but it only demonstrates the poverty of your argument when you bluster about forcing them or attacking them to do something about the terrorists. You're ignorant about the nation and probably don't read the articles you post.
The citizens of Pakistan would prefer not to have to be subjected to violent jihadists. Your response to that is to talk about bombing them.
Its a complex situation and your thinking is invariably simple-minded.


blah blah blah, I don't give a shit about what the citizens of Pakistan "prefer"

I care about my taxdollars being spent to arm this hostile nation that habors al Qaeda, proliferates weapons of WMD and sponsors terrorist attacks against US and NATO forces in Afghanistan and against India.

[pambo]

lol "sheeple" sounds really dated in 2008 doesn't it?

[Rightwingnut]

blah blah blah, I don't give a shit about what the citizens of Pakistan "prefer"

I care about my taxdollars being spent to arm this hostile nation that habors al Qaeda, proliferates weapons of WMD and sponsors terrorist attacks against US and NATO forces in Afghanistan and against India.

:happy_01:

Fuckin A....funny how criticism of Pakistan brings out the "Peace" loving right wingers, aint it?

Why though? Is Pakistan sacrosanct because Mushy is a perceived Bush Pet, or do the Hawks (and yes, I used to be one of them..still am in some ways) fear a confrontation with the Mighty Pakistanis?

Curious.

[Bman]

:happy_01:

Fuckin A....funny how criticism of Pakistan brings out the "Peace" loving right wingers, aint it?

Why though? Is Pakistan sacrosanct because Mushy is a perceived Bush Pet, or do the Hawks (and yes, I used to be one of them..still am in some ways) fear a confrontation with the Mighty Pakistanis?

Curious.



Neoconservatism is a mental disorder


How else can you explain a government that takes out Iran's biggest enemy and replaces him with a pro Iranian regime, while at the same time arming Pakistan.. a nation that ACTUALLY DOES what Saddam was falsed accused of, that is proliferating WMD and harboring al Qaeda

Madness.

[Rightwingnut]

Neoconservatism is a mental disorder


How else can you explain a government that takes out Iran's biggest enemy and replaces him with a pro Iranian regime, while at the same time arming Pakistan.. a nation that ACTUALLY DOES what Saddam was falsed accused of, that is proliferating WMD and harboring al Qaeda

Madness.

Hmmm...not sure madness explains it well enough. In fact, I doubt very much that what you describe is an unintentional side effect of bad foreign policy. If it was simply the stupidity of an Iraqi invasion without benefit of an occupation plan or exit strategy that would be one thing. But if you couple that with the ignorance of arming Pakistan while allowing afganastan (With the emergance of the Taliban) to fester and boil, while doing all to mollify Saudi Arabia, ignoring Darfur and antagonizing Iran and Syria, you can see the makings of a strategy meant to keep the region in a destabalized state. Sometimes it feels like we are manipulating the religion to destabalize the region...maybe as a means to feed the machine here. I have my own theory as relates to the evangelical influence...but I think it may be too crazy.

[Mars S]

:happy_01:

Fuckin A....funny how criticism of Pakistan brings out the "Peace" loving right wingers, aint it?

Why though? Is Pakistan sacrosanct because Mushy is a perceived Bush Pet, or do the Hawks (and yes, I used to be one of them..still am in some ways) fear a confrontation with the Mighty Pakistanis?

Curious.

Hogwash. I'm fairly articulate and capable of expressing myself well enough to state that if it was my intent.
I'm not in favor of invading Pakistan for several reasons. 1. we don't know the territory. Its a remote underdeveloped nation without much infrastructure. We'd have to build roads which are subject to many earthquakes anyway. Building roads would be good, even better to build schools to counter the madrassas.
2. The current crop of Taliban and Al Qaeda are not the ones who attacked us. Those guys are all dead. Or in jail. The most likely victims of this crop are Paki civilians or Afghan civilians.
Mushy, as you call him, was the first Pakistani leader to try to end the regional corruption, to stop AQ Khan and to take a stand against jihadism. Don't like him? BFD. Point to someone else who did better by us? Oh right- you can't.
I don't really give a shit what you "used to be". If you haven't thought your positions through it doesn't matter one way or another. It doesn't sound like you have.
The US took out the original crop of AQ and Talis; and bman and ilk have done nothing but complain about it. Now they want to go back and attack Pakistan while they piss and moan about how unfair it was we attacked Iraq.
bman is talking about attacking Pakis who haven't done anything to the U.S.
You evidently aren't familiar with the region. I suggest you get a detailed map and study it so you can understand what the logistical difficulties are before you mock someone for urging caution.
:happy_12:

[Bman]

Hmmm...not sure madness explains it well enough. In fact, I doubt very much that what you describe is an unintentional side effect of bad foreign policy. If it was simply the stupidity of an Iraqi invasion without benefit of an occupation plan or exit strategy that would be one thing. But if you couple that with the ignorance of arming Pakistan while allowing afganastan (With the emergance of the Taliban) to fester and boil, while doing all to mollify Saudi Arabia, ignoring Darfur and antagonizing Iran and Syria, you can see the makings of a strategy meant to keep the region in a destabalized state. Sometimes it feels like we are manipulating the religion to destabalize the region...maybe as a means to feed the machine here. I have my own theory as relates to the evangelical influence...but I think it may be too crazy.


I agree 100%. I was giving Bush the benefit of the doubt by simply chalking it up to grotesque ignorance and incompetence.

The truth is most likely much more sinister.

[Bman]

EXCELLENT NEWS.


a rare act of leadership from the Democratic Congress!

Bravo!


Agence France Presse -- English

July 30, 2008 Wednesday 1:26 AM GMT

US Congress acts to suspend bid to upgrade Pakistan fighter fleet
WASHINGTON, July 29 2008


The US Congress moved Tuesday to suspend a bid by President George W. Bush's administration to shift millions of dollars in aid to Pakistan from counter-terrorism programs to upgrading Islamabad's F-16 fighter jets.

"We have requested a hold on the administration's planned reprogramming pending additional information," said a joint statement by Democratic lawmakers Howard Berman and Nita Lowey, who head key panels in the House of Representatives.

"We are concerned that the administration's proposal to use military assistance to pay for the F-16 upgrades will divert funds from more effective counterterrorism tools like helicopters, TOW missiles, and night-vision goggles," said Berman, chairman of the House foreign affairs committee, and Lowey, chairwoman of the appropriations subcommittee on foreign programs.

The White House said last week that it wanted to shift 230 million dollars in aid to Pakistan from counter-terrorism programs to upgrading Pakistan's aging F-16 fighter jets.

The move, it said, was aimed at easing fiscal pressures faced by the Pakistani government stemming partly from soaring food and energy costs.

US lawmakers were reportedly angered by the move.

They felt that Pakistan did not use its F-16s in support of the campaign against fighters in its remote tribal areas out of a fear that civilian casualties could fuel support for extremists.

US President George W. Bush held talks with Pakistan Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani on Monday focused on cooperation to fight Taliban and Al-Qaeda extremists and easing Pakistan-Afghanistan tensions.

Gilani, whose new government has been facing intense US pressure to crack down on Pakistan-based militants, told reporters after the meeting that Pakistan was committed to fighting extremists.

The package for the F-16 fighters would run about two-thirds of the 300 million dollars that Pakistan will get this year in US aid for military equipment and training, the Times said.

The 2008 fiscal year state and foreign operations bill that passed Congress last December specifically required that military aid to Pakistan be used for counter-terrorism and law enforcement activities directed against Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, according to lawmakers Berman and Lowey.

The hold requested by the legislature would "provide time for Congress to make a more considered judgment in consultation with the administration and the government of Pakistan," their statement said.

Requests for a hold by lawmakers are usually abided by the administration, congressional aides said.

Berman and Lowey also said that they were proposing that Congress provide 200 million dollars in economic assistance to Islamabad to relieve some of Pakistan's budgetary constraints.

"This will help Pakistan set its own spending priorities while preserving US military aid for its intended purpose -- counterterrorism activities against Al-Qaeda and the Taliban."

"We are committed to helping Pakistan's new democratic government address the current economic crisis, brought on by rising food and fuel prices, which has impacted its ability to fund its F-16 upgrades," the lawmakers said.

Meanwhile, a key US Senate panel unanimously passed a bill Tuesday tripling non-military aid to Pakistan and sustaining it over at least five years.

The legislation, which cleared the Senate foreign relations committee, authorizes 7.5 billion dollars over five years in aid that can be used for development purposes, such as building schools, roads and clinics.

"This legislation represents a bold new strategy for Pakistan," said committee chairman Democratic Senator Joseph Biden.

The bill also imposes greater accountability on security assistance to improve Pakistani counterterrorism capabilities.

[Rightwingnut]

They'll cave as soon as they remember Bush has their balls in his pocket.

[candypreet]

PROBABLY. F-16 fighter jets to fight terrorists!

[Bman]

No weapons sales, first of all.. until they agree to full nuclear disarmament.

Secondly, AQ Khan must be turned over to international authorities for interrogation/trial.. to determine the full extent of his nuclear proliferation.

Pakistan should be cut off from all US aid and a full embargo (like the one maintained on Cuba) but put in place until certain conditions are met, including but not limited to:

1., full nuclear disarmament
2. Capture or killing of Osama and Zawahiri, OR.. letting US troops into Pakistan to hunt for them
3. Stop funding terrorism
4. Restoration of human rights to Pakistani's, to the level they were before Musharaff's coup



None of this is new stuff... Prior to Bush's Administration, Pakistan was an international pariah.. it was illegal for the US to sell them arms, etc..

Bush changed all of that

Bman



almost 6 years ago, to the day, I presented my "solution" to the Pakistan problem

[Simon666]

No public trial either for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Wouldn't want to find out he planned 911 out of Pakistan instead of Bin Laden out of Afghanistan. :rolleyes:

[Bman]

No public trial either for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Wouldn't want to find out he planned 911 out of Pakistan instead of Bin Laden out of Afghanistan. :rolleyes:



I support a public, civil trial for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Absolutely.

It might still happen. you never know

[Rightwingnut]

I support a public, civil trial for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Absolutely.

It might still happen. you never know

No it wont.

Been thinking about this a lot. There is no way we are going to do anything to weaken the existing regime in Pakistan. Bad as they are, I can guarantee you that our policy on that revolves around the fear of the "what if"....

What if real, uncontrollable extremists get thier hands on power in Pakistan...and thus...Pakistani nukes?

[Bman]

No it wont.

Been thinking about this a lot. There is no way we are going to do anything to weaken the existing regime in Pakistan. Bad as they are, I can guarantee you that our policy on that revolves around the fear of the "what if"....

What if real, uncontrollable extremists get thier hands on power in Pakistan...and thus...Pakistani nukes?

it would give us an excuse to nuke them back to the Stone age, and repopulate that country with radiation resistant Japanese people

[Bman]

Lawmakers Question U.S. Aid Program To Pakistan In Wake Of Bin Laden's Death


Thursday, May 05, 2011


Rep. Kay Granger (R-Texas) on Wednesday "urged a halt to an aid program for flood victims in Pakistan in the wake of revelations that slain al-Qaeda chief Osama Bin Laden lived there unperturbed for years," Agence France-Presse (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hBuJVZvF1vaL3WtAKpcCEkksaRFA?docId=CNG.c4e5a aec1a6b9ae498dbebf05c7cebdc.10d1) reports.

Granger, "who chairs a key committee with oversight over foreign assistance, pressed Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to shelve nearly $200 million in 'cash payments' to Pakistan agencies." In a letter (http://kaygranger.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=12&sectiontree=4,12&itemid=1024) to Clinton, Granger said the finding of Bin Laden "reinforces my greater concern that the government may be incapable of distributing U.S. funds in a transparent manner that allows proper oversight of taxpayer dollars" (5/4).
On Tuesday, "a wide range of powerful lawmakers" also questioned whether the U.S. should continue to deliver "billions in foreign aid" to Pakistan, Politico (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/54240.html) reports. "President Barack Obama has requested $3 billion for Pakistan next year, adding to the roughly $13 billion the U.S. gave the country over the last decade, making it one of the leading recipients of U.S. dollars. About $6 billion has been spent on development and humanitarian aid," Politico notes.

The article quotes several members of Congress, including House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.), Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), Foreign Affairs Chair Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.), and others (Raju/Sherman, 5/3).

"Amid the harsh criticism of Pakistan, Boehner and others said this was not the time to back away from Pakistan," the Associated Press (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jnNIDjudYO9SBz7OZQ1rdwfNxtPQ?docId=e12d4d84a 91d451ba6a0ceb8958dadb3) reports. "I think we need more engagement, not less," he said. "Al-Qaeda and other extremist groups have made Pakistan a target. ... Having a robust partnership with Pakistan is critical to breaking the back of al-Qaeda and the rest of them."

"Boehner said it was premature to talk about cutting off U.S. aid to Pakistan. When pressed on the level of funds, however, he said it was imperative that the U.S. have an 'eyeball to eyeball conversation about where this relationship is going'" (5/4).

Even before the announcement that Bin Laden had been killed, the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/02/world/asia/02pakistan.html?_r=2) examined issues that have slowed U.S. delivery of aid in Pakistan. The newspaper reported that the U.S. aid program to Pakistan was "foundering because Washington's fears of Pakistani corruption and incompetence has slowed disbursal of the money, undermining a fundamental goal of the United States in Pakistan, officials from both nations say" (Perlez, 5/1).

http://globalhealth.kff.org/Daily-Reports/2011/May/05/GH-050511-Pakistan-Aid.aspx?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+kff%2Fkdghpr+%28Kaiser+Daily+ Global+Health+Policy+Report%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher

[Bman]

You gotta love John Boehner.. He thinks its "premature" to talk about cutting US taxpayer funding of Pakistan.

But, if you want to talk about freezing the pay of the CIA (who tracked down Bin Laden, despite Pakistan's effort to conceal him)

Well , hey.. no better time than NOW !!!!!

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/11/10/eveningnews/main7042290.shtml

[Rightwingnut]

it would give us an excuse to nuke them back to the Stone age, and repopulate that country with radiation resistant Japanese people

We could rename the country too.

Something like Isotopistan.

[Bman]

We could rename the country too.

Something like Isotopistan.

Radioactistan

[TXKEVIN]

I don't think we will ever know what sort of support we are actually getting from Pakistan officials behind the scenes. Obviously, it is not full support and they are clearly trying to play both sides by keeping the US money coming and their radical Muslim population satisfied. It appears that they lean heavily to the radical Muslim side. Personally I would not give them another dime until they provide direct intelligence to produce at least 5 top level Al Qaeda or Taliban militants to prove where their loyalties lie. In fact, I would follow Bush's original doctrine that any county harboring terrorists is an enemy of the US. I would immediately label them an enemy and terrorist supporting state simply to prove a point that any country supporting or harboring terrorist is an enemy.

[Simon666]

In October 2002, Nashwan Abd al-Razzaq Abd al-Baqi, aka (Abd al-Hadi al-Iraqi),ISN US9IZ-010026DP (IZ-10026), contacted and asked detainee to work with him in Peshawar. Detainee accepted the offer and spent the next five to six months working underIZ-10026 organizing the purchase of supplies for fighters including medicine, lights,batteries, food, and clothing. In July 2003, detainee received a letter from UBL’s designated courier, Maulawi Abd al-Khaliq Jan, requesting detainee take on the responsibility ofcollecting donations, organizing travel, and distributing funds to families in Pakistan. UBLstated detainee would be the official messenger between UBL and others in Pakistan. In mid-2003, detainee moved his family to Abbottabad, PK and worked between Abbottabad and Peshawar.

Between August 2003 and February 2004, detainee traveled to Shkai, PK on three occasions. While at Shkai, detainee met with al-Qaida’s Shari’a Council, delivered funds to fighters, met with Hamza Rabia, and visited IZ-10026. In mid 2004, detainee moved his family from Abbottabad to Bajaur, PK. During October 2004, detainee received a letter from UBL asking about the [financial] situations in Pakistan and Waziristan. In addition to the letter, there was a video tape of UBL speeches. In December 2004, detainee met with Shawqi Marzuq Abd al-Alam Dabbas, aka (Khalid Habib), in Bajaur. They discussed possible future operations against US interests in Poland. In mid-March 2005, Abu Ubaydah al-Masri instructed detainee to meet with Abd al-Khaliq Jan in Mardan, PK. The meeting did not take place.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:S3BV3AazO-8J:wikileaks.ch/gitmo/pdf/ly/us9ly-010017dp.pdf+site:wikileaks.ch+abbottabad&hl=en&gl=us

[SplitPlentyWeight]

There's a war coming with this country.... i hope that India do the decent thing and and get rid of them before we have to.

[DammitBoy!]

What? No mention in this thread of the 3 billion per year Obama has been giving them? Where is the outrage that was directed at Bush?

[Bman]

What? No mention in this thread of the 3 billion per year Obama has been giving them? Where is the outrage that was directed at Bush?

see posts 108 and 109

[LANMaster]

This is directed as all of you enemies of the United States that support George Bush


Congratulations! You just spent another $1 BILLION arming the country ranked NUMBER ONE in the world in HATRED for the United States.. the country most closely associated with the Taliban and Al Qaeda....

Keep voting for the incumbents... you get what you deserve.

Its not like we could use that $1 billion in the US for anything... NAAAAAWWWW

Copyright 2005 HT Media Ltd.
Indo-Asian News Service

May 8, 2005 Sunday 7:34 AM EST


Pakistan navy to get Orion aircraft, Harpoon missiles

Indo-Asian News Service

Islamabad


Islamabad, May 8 -- The Pakistan Navy has placed an order worth $1.3 billion with the US for supply of eight P3-C Orion aircraft, six Phalanx close-in weapon systems and at least 60 Harpoon missiles, Xinhua reported.

The Pentagon has notified the sale of the aircraft and equipment to the US Congress, which is expected to approve it within the next 30 days.

According to an official, the eight P3-C aircraft with T-56 engines and associated equipment and services will cost $970 million.

He said the deal would be paid for from the US military assistance to Pakistan.

A media report said the aircraft would help the navy develop a long-needed fleet of maritime and border surveillance aircraft.

It said the command-and-control capabilities of the P3-C aircraft would help improve Pakistan's ability to restrict littoral movement of terrorists along its southern border.

Published by HT Media Ltd. with permission from Indo-Asian News Service.

I will admit my mistake of supporting aid to Pakistan. My support ended about 7 years ago.

So I am right with you on this. We need to cut them off completely, and publicly.

[Bitch]

Did you also read that they just outed a CIA station chief. Their intel agency 'accidentally' leaked the name. Second outing in 6 months.

[LANMaster]

They outed an obsolete name.
You're gonna have to trust me on that. :)

But I believe we can agree to slash the funding immediately.

[Bitch]

Dude why the fuck would I believe you, post a link. Even if they did reveal an incorrect name sounds like intent was there. I'd love to hear their 'reasoning'

Pakistan is not our ally and never has been.

[LANMaster]

I've looked, and can't find one yet. Perhaps tomorrow I will find it/

Though the intent is clear. So I am happy to agree with you on this, as I have for 7 years.

[LANMaster]

Have a pleasant evening. :)

[Bitch]

Cool hope you find one, it would be interesting to read. You do the same Lan.

[LANMaster]

Thanks ... I had to look Here are some links

http://samandimp.wordpress.com/2011/05/09/pakistan-media-outs-cia-station-chief-with-the-wrong-name/

http://www.ndtv.com/article/world/pak-media-outs-cia-official-gets-name-wrong-104572

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/09/pakistan-media-name-cia-chief

http://www.buzzbox.com/news/2011-05-09/cia:name/?clusterId=3962857

I cannot confirm any of those sources. I just googled it to find some corroboration. For all I know the government could be leaking that to protect the man.

Take care. I gotta git to bed, or I won't be worth a crap tomorrow at work. :)

[Bitch]

Cool I'll give a read tomorrow. I hear you... I'm out on the west coast for work this week and I'm clearly getting older since im ready for bed myself, damn jetlag

[LANMaster]

... At least you aren't in Texas. :)

[Cypher]

... At least you aren't in Texas. :)

confirm that, but who am I to quibble about millions?

[DammitBoy!]

see posts 108 and 109

I was referring to the liberal left wing outrage

[Bitch]

... At least you aren't in Texas. :)

Hah I'd be run out of town. ;). Actually one of my best friends lives in Texas and is a proud Texan.... She and I rarely discuss politics or religion!!!

[DammitBoy!]

Hah I'd be run out of town. ;). Actually one of my best friends lives in Texas and is a proud Texan.... She and I rarely discuss politics or religion!!!

Buffy?

[Mars S]

Buffy?

Mitzi

[Bitch]

Lol um no.

[DammitBoy!]

Lol um no.

Come on, you know you love buffy...

[Bitch]

I have no problem with Buffy. haven't chatted with her in ages.

[American_Jihad]

This is not a 'babble' thread...:mad_11:

[LANMaster]

Hah I'd be run out of town. ;). Actually one of my best friends lives in Texas and is a proud Texan.... She and I rarely discuss politics or religion!!!

I am one of those transplanted Southern Californians, who happened to LOVE Northwest Arkansas who HAD TO move here to remain employed in my limited field. Work is great here, but the land stinks. I miss the beauty of NW Arkansas, and I am not looking forward to the hot Summer. I already hate the heat in the Spring.

BTW, if you have the resources, visit 20 MILES NORTH Fort Smith in the Spring or Autumn. Few places are as gorgeous on the planet.

[Bman]

Trust me Bman, I am thinking when I take the word of Time magazine over your amateur political opinions about Pakistan.

http://www.time.com/time/asia/covers/1101020722/story.html

LOL


Fool... funny how Lotimer had it all figured out, but you couldn't

[Bman]

I wonder how many years it'll be until Pakistan stabs us in the back and fights us with weapons we gave them. I give it 15 tops.

Good call

[DammitBoy!]

How much money has Obama given to Pakistan? Shouldn't we be demanding he stop all financial aid to these people?

[Bman]

How much money has Obama given to Pakistan? Shouldn't we be demanding he stop all financial aid to these people?

Of course we should!!!


Write to Congress and tell them to cut off aid to Pakistan

Particularly, House Speaker John Boehner, who is resisting that very call


http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/boehner-us-foreign-aid-pakistan-should-c

[Bman]

Democrats urge Clinton, Gates to review Pak aid

Thursday, May 19, 2011

http://images.thenews.com.pk/19-05-2011/Top-Story/5-19-2011_6097_l_T.jpg




WASHINGTON: US senators have urged Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Defence Secretary Robert Gates to ensure Pakistan was doing its utmost against the extremists before disbursing any more US security aid.

The lawmakers, all Democrats, wrote Clinton and Gates a letter on Tuesday in the wake of the raid in which elite US commandos found and killed al-Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden in a Pakistani military town not far from the country’s capital.

“We recognise the strategic importance of Pakistan,” wrote the group, which includes Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman, Dianne Feinstein, and Senate Finance Committee Chairman, Max Baucus. “However, we cannot overlook the logical conclusion of recent events, which is to question whether or not the Pakistani security establishment is ardently working to prevent terrorist groups from operating on Pakistani soil,” they said.

Senators called for reviewing Pakistan’s efforts to end its support for extremist groups, prevent al-Qaeda, the Taliban and others from operating on Pakistani soil, and bolster its counter-terrorism and anti money-laundering laws. “We believe that conducting this assessment will be crucial for the Congress to determine whether to provide the full range of security assistance,” they said in the letter.

Pakistan received a total of $2.7 billion dollars in aid and reimbursements from Washington in the fiscal year 2010, which ended on October 1, making it the third-largest recipient of US aid after Afghanistan and Israel. Finding bin Laden in a Pakistani military town “indicates, at a minimum, a lack of commitment by the Pakistani military to aggressive cooperation with the United States,” the senators said. “This is particularly concerning as the Congress again considers increasing security assistance to Pakistan,” they said.

Online adds: The Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman, Carl Levin, said the US should curtail economic aid to Pakistan unless the government stopped harbouring insurgent groups that target American troops in neighbouring Afghanistan.

Levin, a Michigan Democrat, said that continued US financial support to Pakistan should hinge on whether the Pakistani military takes action against the Haqqani network, an Afghan Taliban-allied group based in Pakistan’s northwestern border region with Afghanistan. Pakistan should also arrest members of the Quetta Shura, a group of Afghan Taliban leaders, thought to be based in Pakistan, Levin said.

“There is a real problem with continuing financial support for Pakistan when they continue to support the Haqqani network,” Levin told reporters in Washington. “These are people killing us.”

Levin spoke to reporters after Senator John Kerry, the Massachusetts Democrat who leads the Foreign Relations Committee, briefed members of the Senate Democratic Caucus about his weekend trip to Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Levin didn’t elaborate on exactly how much and what he would cut from US economic aid to Pakistan. He said he would allow “certain kinds of military aid” to continue. In particular, he said he supports reimbursing Pakistan for securing the port where US oil is delivered and subsequently the routes leading into Afghanistan where US and Nato troops are fighting the Taliban. Levin said he was also willing to support Pakistani military training along the border regions with Afghanistan.

Levin isn’t alone in questioning the US aid to Pakistan. At a Senate Foreign Relations hearing held by Kerry, several senators, including Republicans Bob Corker of Tennessee, James Risch of Idaho, as well as Democrats Chris Coons of Delaware and Robert Menendez of New Jersey, raised questions about the US aid to Pakistan.

While members from both parties questioned continued US assistance to Pakistan, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and the Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell cautioned against threats to withdraw aid.

Reid, a Democrat of Nevada, said the US should “withhold judgment” and wait for hearings and other fact-finding reports first. “We need a good relationship with Pakistan, and hope we can have such a relationship,” he said. “But this isn’t the time to start flexing our muscles.”


http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=6097&Cat=13&dt=5/19/2011

[Bman]

Obama pulls the plug!

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=8271476


US suspends aid to Pakistan


12:38 AEST Mon Jul 11 2011
[/URL][URL="http://yourbeautyspot.ninemsn.com.au/slideshow_ajax.aspx?sectionid=5339&sectionname=slideshow&subsectionid=178709&subsectionname=shorthairmistakestoavoid"] (http://news.ninemsn.com.au/health/8271344/bodybuilders-using-dog-product-for-muscle-growth)


The United States is withholding some US$800 million ($746 million) in aid to Pakistan, almost a third of the US$2.7 billion (US$2.5 billion) in security assistance it provides each year to Islamabad, President Barack Obama's chief of staff confirmed Sunday.

Relations between the key allies, always tricky, have drastically deteriorated since US commandos shot and killed Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden on May 2 in a Pakistani garrison town, sowing distrust on both sides.

Last month, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Washington would slow down US military aid to Pakistan unless it took unspecified steps to help the United States.

Now, it appears, it has, as William Daley, Obama's chief of staff, confirmed a New York Times report that the administration was suspending and, in certain cases, cancelling some US$800 million of military aid.

"They've taken some steps that have given us reason to pause on some of the aid which we're giving to the military, and we're trying to work through that," Daley told the US ABC network's This Week With Christiane Amanpour program.

"The truth of the matter is, our relationship with Pakistan is very complicated," Daley said.

"Obviously, there's still a lot of pain that the political system in Pakistan is feeling by virtue of the raid that we did to get Osama bin Laden. Something that the president felt strongly about. We have no regrets over.

"The Pakistani relationship is difficult, but it must be made to work over time. But until we get through these difficulties, we'll hold back some of the money that the American taxpayers have committed to give."

The suspended aid includes about US$300 million (US$279 million) to reimburse Pakistan for some of the costs of deploying more than 100,000 soldiers along the Afghan border, according to the New York Times, which broke the story late Saturday.

In addition, said the Times, hundreds of millions of dollars in training assistance and military hardware are also being withheld.

The moves come amid intensifying debate within the Obama administration about how best to change the behaviour of one of the United States’ most important counterterrorism allies.

While Pakistan is a crucial ally in the hunt for Al-Qaeda and a major supply route to provision US troops in Afghanistan, its powerful military intelligence services have long been suspected of ties with radical Muslim groups.

Some US lawmakers remain sceptical of Pakistan's commitment to anti-terrorism efforts and have been pleading Obama to cut off aid.

On June 23, Clinton told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that unless certain unspecified steps were taken by Pakistan, the United States was not "prepared to continue providing (aid) at the pace we were providing it."

"We're trying to... play this orchestra the best we can, where we... look in one direction and say to those who we think are largely responsible for the difficulties we know that exist within Pakistan... you can't continue doing that," she said.
But Clinton reiterated that the United States did not believe top Pakistani officials knew that bin Laden was living in Abbottabad, just north of Islamabad, under the noses of the military.

"In looking at every scrap of information we have, we think that the highest levels of the government were genuinely surprised," she said.

Washington clearly hopes to gain some leverage over Pakistan by withholding military aid but will be fearful of doing further damage to its increasingly fraught ties with the nuclear-armed South Asian power.

Pakistan's military is a revered institution that has long played a key role in the country's politics and is acutely sensitive to charges that it is kowtowing to the United States.
Recently, Pakistan ejected more than 100 US Army special forces trainers.

Equipment used by those trainers, like rifles, body armour, and ammunition and bomb disposal gear is among the military gear now being withheld, according to The New York Times.
Other equipment, like night-vision goggles, radios and helicopter spare parts, is being withheld because Pakistan denied visas to the American trainers needed to operate the equipment, the report said.

Military sales to Pakistan, such as F-16 fighters, and non-military aid, have not been affected, according to officials interviewed by The Times.
Relations were stunted earlier this month as Pakistan warned cooperation in the US-led war on Al-Qaeda was at risk, as it strongly criticized the top US military officer, Admiral Mike Mullen, for suggesting it could have approved a Pakistani journalist's murder, over the reporter's investigation into the country's Inter-Services intelligence (ISI).

[Bman]

that right there, is the CHANGE we voted for

[Leonidas]

"The lawmakers, all Democrats, wrote Clinton and Gates a letter on Tuesday in the wake of the raid in which elite US commandos found and killed al-Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden in a Pakistani military town not far from the country’s capital."

Once again, I find myself siding with the Democrats.

The Republicans are obviously too concerned with the top 1% like the women in Millionaire Housewives of NJ don't lose their Bush Tax Cuts, which didn't do jack shit for this country.

[Bitch]

The lawmakers, all Democrats, wrote Clinton and Gates a letter on Tuesday in the wake of the raid in which elite US commandos found and killed al-Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden in a Pakistani military town not far from the country’s capital.

Just to repeat...

Not surprising. Too bad that the republicans can't actually practice what they preach...bunch of lying scum sucking hypocrites.

[Bman]

"The lawmakers, all Democrats, wrote Clinton and Gates a letter on Tuesday in the wake of the raid in which elite US commandos found and killed al-Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden in a Pakistani military town not far from the country’s capital."

Once again, I find myself siding with the Democrats.

The Republicans are obviously too concerned with the top 1% like the women in Millionaire Housewives of NJ don't lose their Bush Tax Cuts, which didn't do jack shit for this country.



Welcome to the club, leftist

[Mars S]

The lawmakers, all Democrats, wrote Clinton and Gates a letter on Tuesday in the wake of the raid in which elite US commandos found and killed al-Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden in a Pakistani military town not far from the country’s capital.

Just to repeat...

Not surprising. Too bad that the republicans can't actually practice what they preach...bunch of lying scum sucking hypocrites.


This makes no sense at all, it's just another one of your idiotic pointless attacks on republicans.
Get a clue, fatass.

[Mars S]

Curious...you dweebs didn't notice when the US forced Pakistan to arrest AQ Khan. You were complaining endlessly about Musharraf.

[pilobolus]

Curious...you dweebs didn't notice when the US forced Pakistan to arrest AQ Khan. You were complaining endlessly about Musharraf.

Wow. House arrest for giving North Korea and Iran Nukes.

[Bman]

Curious...you dweebs didn't notice when the US forced Pakistan to arrest AQ Khan. You were complaining endlessly about Musharraf.

Dude, Musharraf pardoned AQ Khan and called him his personal "hero"

[Bitch]

Dude, Musharraf pardoned AQ Khan and called him his personal "hero"
*snort* but Musharraf was our friend.....

The Bushtards hate that they were wrong all along on Pakistan and shockingly (much to everyone's surprise) the democrats are right on being tough on Pakistan.

[Mars S]

*snort* but Musharraf was our friend.....

The Bushtards hate that they were wrong all along on Pakistan and shockingly (much to everyone's surprise) the democrats are right on being tough on Pakistan.Why do you talk like an idiot? You're amazingly ignorant for someone who spouts nonsense whenever you post. No one said "Musharraf was our friend", but Musharraf was a vast improvement over his predecessor and especially the late Mrs. Bhutto who made sure Khan was selling tech to everyone interested. How about the people who've followed Musharraf? Are they our friends? The Bush administration made it possible to have drone flights over Pakistan, they made it possible to kill Osama. Musharraf at least recognized that the jihadists aren't Pakistan's friends. That's more than can be said for the current gov't.
All you do is run your mouth like an idiot. You know nothing of Pakistan's history or culture and you never bother to inform yourself before vomiting your nitwitted slurs. Troll.

[Mars S]

Wow. House arrest for giving North Korea and Iran Nukes.selling, bonehead. selling.They have a legal system that tried Khan. At least they did that. What did you expect them to do?

[Mars S]

Dude, Musharraf pardoned AQ Khan and called him his personal "hero"Khan's network was shut down first and you probably should verify before repeating nonsense- "his personal hero"? Sure...but considering previous administrations had endorsed Khan's activities, a pardon doesn't seem unreasonable. Like I said, you dweebs are clueless. Pakistan has it's own national interests which include the strategic threat of India and their retarded neighbor, Afghanistan. They support our interests insofar as they are parallel to theirs. President Obama used Bush's diplomatic accomplishments to "get" Osama, which also wouldn't have been possible without Bush establishing the appropriate agencies.

[DammitBoy!]

*snort* but Musharraf was our friend.....



Who the fuck said Musharraf was our friend? Idiot.

[Bman]

selling, bonehead. selling.They have a legal system that tried Khan. At least they did that. What did you expect them to do?

And what was the verdict of that trial?

[Bman]

Why do you talk like an idiot? You're amazingly ignorant for someone who spouts nonsense whenever you post. No one said "Musharraf was our friend", but Musharraf was a vast improvement over his predecessor and especially the late Mrs. Bhutto who made sure Khan was selling tech to everyone interested. How about the people who've followed Musharraf? Are they our friends? The Bush administration made it possible to have drone flights over Pakistan, they made it possible to kill Osama. Musharraf at least recognized that the jihadists aren't Pakistan's friends. That's more than can be said for the current gov't.
All you do is run your mouth like an idiot. You know nothing of Pakistan's history or culture and you never bother to inform yourself before vomiting your nitwitted slurs. Troll.

you're so full of shit, I can smell you from here.


1. Bush's ass kissing of Musharraff made it POSSIBLE FOR OSAMA TO ELUDE CAPTURE as long as he did. It wasn't until these two dildoes (Musharaff and Bush) were replaced that the pieces fell in to place to kill Osama. Facts are facts.

2. Bush decribed Musharraff as his "good friend".. and Musharraff described Bush as his "very good friend", which is understandable, considering the billions in money that Bush showered on the terrorist nation

[Bman]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/21/world/asia/clinton-issues-blunt-warning-to-pakistan.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss&pagewanted=print


October 20, 2011

Clinton Issues Blunt Warning to PakistanBy STEVEN LEE MYERS (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/steven_lee_myers/index.html?inline=nyt-per)KABUL, Afghanistan — Setting the stage for a high-level diplomatic showdown, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/c/hillary_rodham_clinton/index.html?scp=1-spot&sq=hillary%20rodham%20clinton&st=cse) bluntly warned Pakistan (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/pakistan/index.html?inline=nyt-geo)’s leaders on Thursday that they would face serious consequences if they continued to tolerate safe havens for extremist organizations that have crossed the border to attack Americans and Afghans.
“There’s no place to go any longer,” Mrs. Clinton said, referring to Pakistan’s leadership, in some of the Obama administration’s most pointed language to date. “The terrorists are on both sides” of the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. “They are killing both peoples,” she said.
“No one should be in any way mistaken about allowing this to continue without paying a very big price,” Mrs. Clinton said before leaving for Pakistan for what is certain to be a tense visit by an unusually powerful American delegation sent to demand greater Pakistani cooperation in fighting Al Qaeda and other extremists groups.
Mrs. Clinton will be joined by the new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin E. Dempsey (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/d/martin_e_dempsey/index.html?scp=1-spot&sq=Martin%20E.%20Dempsey&st=cse), and the new director of the Central Intelligence Agency, David H. Petraeus (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/p/david_h_petraeus/index.html?scp=1-spot&sq=David%20H.%20Petraeus&st=cse), who stepped down as the senior military commander in Afghanistan this year.
Senior administration officials have described the delegation as an effort by the administration to display a united front to a Pakistani government that appears increasingly suspicious toward — if not openly hostile to — American policies in Afghanistan and Pakistan. While those officials suggested that they hoped to persuade the Pakistanis to cooperate, Mrs. Clinton’s remarks here in Afghanistan’s capital suggested the delegation would deliver a much sharper warning as well.
Her remarks underscored the fact that the war in Afghanistan — along with the hopes for a smooth American withdrawal by 2014 — has become fully intertwined with Pakistan’s own insurgents, some of whom have the support of the country’s security services.
That has brought the relationship with Pakistan to a new low following a year of tensions — from the arrest of a C.I.A. officer, to the secret raid that killed Osama bin Laden in Pakistan in May, to the attack on the American Embassy here last month, which General Dempsey’s predecessor, Adm. Mike Mullen (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/michael_g_mullen/index.html?scp=1-spot&sq=Mike%20Mullen&st=cse), blamed on elements within Pakistan’s top spy agency, Inter-Services Intelligence.
Mrs. Clinton, appearing with Afghanistan’s president, Hamid Karzai (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/k/hamid_karzai/index.html?scp=1-spot&sq=hamid%20karzai&st=cse), said that Pakistan could “either be helping or hindering” efforts to find both a military and a political resolution to the war here. It is now, she said, “a time for clarity.”
“We will be delivering a very clear message to the government of Pakistan and to the people of Pakistan because they too have suffered,” she said, beneath a canopy of trees at the presidential palace here. “They have suffered at the hand of the same kind of terrorists. So there should be no support and no safe haven anywhere for people who kill innocent men, women and children.”
Mr. Karzai, who has repeatedly accused Pakistan of interference in Afghanistan, echoed her remarks, saying that Pakistan has long harbored enemies of his government, including the Taliban, whose leadership fled there after the American invasion in 2001.
While the Obama administration has pressed Afghanistan to seek reconciliation with some elements of the Taliban, Mr. Karzai said on Thursday that that would not be possible without the positive involvement of Pakistan.
“We believe that the Taliban (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/t/taliban/index.html?scp=1-spot&sq=Taliban&st=cse) to a very, very great extent — to a very, very great extent — are controlled by establishments in Pakistan, stay in Pakistan, have their headquarters in Pakistan, launch attacks from Pakistan,” he said.
Tentative and still-fruitless efforts to lure the Taliban into a peace process were dealt a severe setback when a man purporting to be a peace envoy killed Burhanuddin Rabbani (http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/people/r/burhanuddin_rabbani/index.html?scp=1-spot&sq=Burhanuddin%20Rabbani&st=cse), the leader of Afghanistan’s High Peace Council and a former president, using a bomb hidden in his turban.
The assassination, shortly after a carefully planned attack on the American Embassy last month, raised doubts about how many, if any, members of the Taliban are interested in a peace agreement.
Mrs. Clinton met Mr. Rabbani’s son, Salahuddin, at a meeting with Afghan lawmakers, officials and advocates at the American Embassy here on Thursday morning, expressing her condolences even as she encouraged a continuation of the efforts he began. “He was a brave man, trying to do the right thing,” she told him.
“We will make sure we continue his vision,” Mr. Rabbani replied.

[candypreet]

bump

[pilobolus]

bump

Good Morning (here) Candypreet