• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Bush makes Pakistan 'major non-NATO ally'

Drift3r

Guest
Bush makes Pakistan 'major non-NATO ally'

1 hour, 56 minutes ago

MACDILL AIR FORCE BASE, United States - US President George W. Bush rewarded Pakistan with "major non-NATO ally" status, opening the door to closer military ties with India's nuclear rival.

"I hereby designate the Islamic Republic of Pakistan as a major non-NATO ally of the United States for the purposes of the act and the Arms Export Control Act," Bush said in a statement released by the White House.

The decision, announced as the president made a rally-the-troops speech on Iraq here, means Pakistan is joining an exclusive club of countries that enjoy a privileged security relationship with the United States.

The announcement came despite US concerns about nuclear proliferation by the father of Pakistan's atomic program, Abdul Qadeer Khan, and followed a finding by the official probe into the September 11, 2001 attacks that Islamabad had helped Afghanistan's Taliban regime shelter Osama bin Laden.

The decision was also expected to awaken concerns in India, which does not enjoy the special status. Two Bush administration officials said they knew of no plans to similarly reward New Delhi.

Major non-NATO allies, including Argentina, Australia, Bahrain, Egypt, Israel, Japan, Jordan, Kuwait, Morocco, New Zealand, the Philippines, South Korea and Thailand, are granted significant benefits in the area of foreign aid and defense cooperation.

Major non-NATO allies are eligible for priority delivery of defense material and the purchase, for instance, of depleted uranium anti-tank rounds.

They can stockpile US military hardware, participate in defense research and development programs and benefit from a US government loan guarantee program, which backs up loans issued by private banks to finance arms exports.

However, the designation does not afford them the same mutual defense guarantees enjoyed by members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

US Secretary of State Colin Powell had announced plans to give Pakistan the special status during a March visit to Islamabad, drawing protests from India as well as Pakistan's internal Islamist opposition.

The step, an apparent reward for Pakistan's support of the global war on terrorism, came as US special forces are leading the hunt along Pakistan's border with Afghanistan for remnants of al-Qaeda -- possibly including bin Laden -- as well as the Taliban Islamist militia that sheltered him.

And it came as the commission probing the September 11 strikes faulted Pakistan as having "significantly facilitated" the al-Qaeda chief's stay in Afghanistan prior to the attacks.

The commission said Pakistan broke with the Taliban only after September 11, 2001, even though it knew the militia was hiding bin Laden, whom the US already sought for terrorist attacks on embassies in Africa.

"The Taliban's ability to provide bin Laden a haven in the face of international pressure and UN sanctions was significantly facilitated by Pakistani support," said the report.

"Pakistan benefitted from the Taliban-al-Qaeda-relationship, as bin Laden's camps trained and equipped fighters for Pakistan's ongoing struggle with India over Kashmir."

Pakistan has become a key US ally since the war on terrorism was launched in the wake of the September 11 attacks. It dropped its support for the Taliban, allowed US troops to use its air bases and intelligence for the campaign to oust the Taliban and arrested more than 500 al-Qaeda fugitives.

Islamabad was rewarded for its immediate cooperation with the lifting of US sanctions -- which dated back as far as 1990 -- on military cooperation, training and sales.


Since 2001, the US military has resumed bilateral defense talks with Pakistan, as well as some training and limited hardware sales.[/quote]

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20040616/pl_afp/us_pakistan_nato_040616213029
 
Uh oh. Playing with fire. Beware the law of unintended consequences.

I expect this to go as smoothly and have the same wonderful side effects as supporting the mujahdeen against the Soviets and supporting Iraq against Iran did. :roll:
 
In Our Holy War On Terror, some things may not make sense to us lower classes. Hussein had no ties to terrorists but he was toppled; Pakistan is a terrorist hotbed and haven but is a favored ally. Us common folk must simply trust in God and his continued messages to our divinely chosen Ruler.

Zephyr
 
It?s nothing more than a diplomatic ploy;

America is almost as behind India in the Pakistani India conflict as it's behind Israel in the Israeli Palestinian conflict.
 
I don't think it is a diplomatic ploy necessarily. Pakistan has alot of terrorists in it and is actively fighting them and Pakistan's men are dying to do so.
 
Whats wrong with this? The US is only supporting the country that gave birth to the Taliban and Al Qaeda and that is responsible for thousands on thousands of deaths in the Kashmir valley. Kudos to Bush on his great foreign policy! From sanctions two years ago to a non-Nato ally at present.
 
Originally posted by: BugsBunny1078
I don't think it is a diplomatic ploy necessarily. Pakistan has alot of terrorists in it and is actively fighting them and Pakistan's men are dying to do so.

This will be great until we sell nice weapons to Pakistan, or let others (EU) sell nice weapons, and then Musharraf gets defeated by radicals. There's a country in the same area with an exactly the same story.

Zephyr
 
10 years from now next headline will read....
"To remove a "brutal tyrant" who was "worse than Hitler and Saddam" the new leader of Pakistan who took over office after President Gen. Pervez Musharraf was killed by Islamic radicals. 5,000 American troops are killed in the initial invasion operation, which has now sparked a "small-scale" nuclear war. The financial cost to American taxpayers is estimated at $2.5 Trillion dollars, much of it going in no-bid contracts to defense contractors and Halliburton-Becthel, Inc."
 
Unfortunately that scenario isn't too surprising... whether it ends up being Pakistan or some other country.
 
This is the political equivalent of using The Holy Handgranade. Three shall be the count...etc. Count on Bush to count to four 😛
 
Originally posted by: Zephyr106
Originally posted by: BugsBunny1078
I don't think it is a diplomatic ploy necessarily. Pakistan has alot of terrorists in it and is actively fighting them and Pakistan's men are dying to do so.

This will be great until we sell nice weapons to Pakistan, or let others (EU) sell nice weapons, and then Musharraf gets defeated by radicals. There's a country in the same area with an exactly the same story.

Zephyr

Hey, why did you have to bring logic and historical precendence into the discussion. It makes too much sense now. Even the bug might get it.
 
Originally posted by: GrGr
This is the political equivalent of using The Holy Handgranade. Three shall be the count...etc. Count on Bush to count to four 😛

If we broke off ties with Pakistan, people would be calling Bush a cowboy who is ruining relationships with countries from the east. Since he is trying to BUILD a relationship, people accuse him of playing with fire.

So, what is Bush supposed to do that will make the libs happy? He tries to improve relations, he's playing with fire. He cuts off relations, and he is a radical cowboy running on his own (France, Germany, etc..)

So, since everyone here is an expert on what Bush SHOULD NOT do in Pakistan, what SHOULD he do?
 
Originally posted by: Crimson
Originally posted by: GrGr
This is the political equivalent of using The Holy Handgranade. Three shall be the count...etc. Count on Bush to count to four 😛

If we broke off ties with Pakistan, people would be calling Bush a cowboy who is ruining relationships with countries from the east. Since he is trying to BUILD a relationship, people accuse him of playing with fire.

So, what is Bush supposed to do that will make the libs happy? He tries to improve relations, he's playing with fire. He cuts off relations, and he is a radical cowboy running on his own (France, Germany, etc..)

So, since everyone here is an expert on what Bush SHOULD NOT do in Pakistan, what SHOULD he do?

Resign. Resign before he breaks anything else.
 
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: Crimson
Originally posted by: GrGr
This is the political equivalent of using The Holy Handgranade. Three shall be the count...etc. Count on Bush to count to four 😛

If we broke off ties with Pakistan, people would be calling Bush a cowboy who is ruining relationships with countries from the east. Since he is trying to BUILD a relationship, people accuse him of playing with fire.

So, what is Bush supposed to do that will make the libs happy? He tries to improve relations, he's playing with fire. He cuts off relations, and he is a radical cowboy running on his own (France, Germany, etc..)

So, since everyone here is an expert on what Bush SHOULD NOT do in Pakistan, what SHOULD he do?

Resign.

*cookie*😉

CkG
 
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
*cookie*😉

CkG
No thanks. I've been in the Kerry flip-flop thread. I know where your hands have been.

😉

And? The cookie would have to pass .... before it got all the way up in there to your head.😉

*********

Anyway Crimson is right. The left whines no matter what Bush does.

CkG
 
Originally posted by: GoodToGo
Whats wrong with this? The US is only supporting the country that gave birth to the Taliban and Al Qaeda and that is responsible for thousands on thousands of deaths in the Kashmir valley. Kudos to Bush on his great foreign policy! From sanctions two years ago to a non-Nato ally at present.


Musharraf did not give birth to the Taliban or Al Quada (and the Pakistan of 10 years ago is only responsible for the Taliban, not Al Quada anyways), so what does that have to do with anything?

Mushy is a crucial ally, and we need their help to finish off Al Quada and secure the area. Snubbing them gets us nowhere, and has a very real possibility of making the Pakistan-India situation worse. We're being nice to Pakistan, and Pakistan is being as nice as possible back to us. Crapping on them will only empower the fundamentalist elements.
 
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: Crimson
Originally posted by: GrGr
This is the political equivalent of using The Holy Handgranade. Three shall be the count...etc. Count on Bush to count to four 😛

If we broke off ties with Pakistan, people would be calling Bush a cowboy who is ruining relationships with countries from the east. Since he is trying to BUILD a relationship, people accuse him of playing with fire.

So, what is Bush supposed to do that will make the libs happy? He tries to improve relations, he's playing with fire. He cuts off relations, and he is a radical cowboy running on his own (France, Germany, etc..)

So, since everyone here is an expert on what Bush SHOULD NOT do in Pakistan, what SHOULD he do?

Resign. Resign before he breaks anything else.

so you think chaney would be a better presedent... interesting.
 
Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
It?s nothing more than a diplomatic ploy;

America is almost as behind India in the Pakistani India conflict as it's behind Israel in the Israeli Palestinian conflict.

The india-Pakistani conflict is basicly dead now that they both have nukes.
 
Originally posted by: Crimson
Originally posted by: GrGr
This is the political equivalent of using The Holy Handgranade. Three shall be the count...etc. Count on Bush to count to four 😛

If we broke off ties with Pakistan, people would be calling Bush a cowboy who is ruining relationships with countries from the east. Since he is trying to BUILD a relationship, people accuse him of playing with fire.

So, what is Bush supposed to do that will make the libs happy? He tries to improve relations, he's playing with fire. He cuts off relations, and he is a radical cowboy running on his own (France, Germany, etc..)

So, since everyone here is an expert on what Bush SHOULD NOT do in Pakistan, what SHOULD he do?

This isn't about "breaking off ties with Pakistan" this is about giving ally status to a country that could very well turn into the next Iraq (Or Afganistan, depending on which elements gain control). The current relationship with Pakistan was just fine. Giving them ally status is going to far. So this has nothing to do with 'libs' complaining about everything Bush does.
 
Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: Crimson
Originally posted by: GrGr
This is the political equivalent of using The Holy Handgranade. Three shall be the count...etc. Count on Bush to count to four 😛

If we broke off ties with Pakistan, people would be calling Bush a cowboy who is ruining relationships with countries from the east. Since he is trying to BUILD a relationship, people accuse him of playing with fire.

So, what is Bush supposed to do that will make the libs happy? He tries to improve relations, he's playing with fire. He cuts off relations, and he is a radical cowboy running on his own (France, Germany, etc..)

So, since everyone here is an expert on what Bush SHOULD NOT do in Pakistan, what SHOULD he do?

Resign. Resign before he breaks anything else.

so you think chaney would be a better presedent... interesting.

Wouldn't be my first choice, but he doesn't have anywhere near the support Bush has. He'd be an ineffective lame duck, and would disappear after January.
 
Originally posted by: Helenihi
Originally posted by: GoodToGo
Whats wrong with this? The US is only supporting the country that gave birth to the Taliban and Al Qaeda and that is responsible for thousands on thousands of deaths in the Kashmir valley. Kudos to Bush on his great foreign policy! From sanctions two years ago to a non-Nato ally at present.


Musharraf did not give birth to the Taliban or Al Quada (and the Pakistan of 10 years ago is only responsible for the Taliban, not Al Quada anyways), so what does that have to do with anything?

Mushy is a crucial ally, and we need their help to finish off Al Quada and secure the area. Snubbing them gets us nowhere, and has a very real possibility of making the Pakistan-India situation worse. We're being nice to Pakistan, and Pakistan is being as nice as possible back to us. Crapping on them will only empower the fundamentalist elements.

Do any conservatives here agree with the above? I would like to know for future reference.
 
Originally posted by: dirtcheapguy
Ha ha ha good new for china. chinese have more change to study or clone american weaponry

hahah YES!! we love to copy advanced weapons.

And this might scare India enough to form an alliance with China. Then WE"LL RULE THE WORLD! 2 Billion Strong. MUHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAH. After that we'll stab India in the back and gut them like a pig..err I mean cow MUHAHHAHAHAHAHHA

Fear Commie Central!!!
 
Originally posted by: Drift3r
10 years from now next headline will read....
"To remove a "brutal tyrant" who was "worse than Hitler and Saddam" the new leader of Pakistan who took over office after President Gen. Pervez Musharraf was killed by Islamic radicals. 5,000 American troops are killed in the initial invasion operation, which has now sparked a "small-scale" nuclear war. The financial cost to American taxpayers is estimated at $2.5 Trillion dollars, much of it going in no-bid contracts to defense contractors and Halliburton-Becthel, Inc."

History repeating itself?

Naaah...surely God told Bush to do this.
 
Back
Top