Obama Makes Another Threat

[Lemon law]

To The Green Bean,

As a US citizen, I can understand Pakistani frustration, despair, and pessimism. It may seem like just when things can't get worse for Pakistan , it gets worse, and it will keep getting worse. But I hope to point out these desperate times do not mandate desperate measures for Pakistan.

The United States, the larger World, and Pakistan all have a common enemy, a small powerful, totally inept, and frustrated cabal of totally insane and morally bankrupt people better called GWB&co.

And as the sand of their hourglasses tick away without hope of renewal, they desperately try to go for broke. Now may be the time to stall rather than confront, still more than 100 days and counting down left to go, but on 1/20/2009 the scrap bin of history will take them away.

In such a time, the wise play for time and hope for better days ahead.

 

[SolMiester]

I reckon we should nook the whole damn middle east and be done with it, nothing but a bunch of fanatics there, who cant even get a stable government....

 

[The Green Bean]

NEW DELHI: India has deployed its top fighter jets in occupied Kashmir bordering Pakistan, officials and a report said Wednesday.

At least six Soviet-built Sukhoi-30MKI jets, capable of carrying nuclear weapons, have been deployed at Avantipura air force base near Kashmir's largest city Srinagar. The base is equipped with crash-prone MiG-21 jets, which India first imported from the Soviet Union in the 1960s.

?The Sukhois had been held deep down our strategic corridor in (the western Indian city of) Pune, and their deployment in Kashmir will address any perceived threat,? an air force official said on condition he was not named. ?But this is a defensive stance,? the officer said. Air Marshal P.K. Barbora, commander of India's Western Air Command, was quoted by the Hindustan Times newspaper as saying the deployment was ?temporary.?

India acquired 60 Sukhoi-30s in 2001. The twin-seater frontline jets can carry eight tonnes of armaments including nuclear bombs and cruise at a speed of 3,200 kilometres an hour. The air force official said the Sukhois would patrol Indian borders extending up to China and fly across Kashmir's rugged Kargil peaks.

The Indian Air Force, the world's fourth largest, is also planning to deploy up to 40 Sukhoi jets in the northeast close to the border with China, the official added.

The Kashmir deployment comes amid strains in the India-Pakistan peace process and ceasefire violations along the Line of Control dividing Kashmir. ?AFP

WTF? Tough times for us. War looks imminent now.

 

[Whitecloak]

why? didnt you claim that pakistan would crush india?

 

[The Green Bean]

Originally posted by: Whitecloak
why? didnt you claim that pakistan would crush india?

A combined force of USA, India and Israel? I don't think so. We still have a nuclear deterrent ready to launch at New Delhi and Tel Aviv and we might be testing an ICBM soon but I don't think nuclear weapons are anything more than a deterrent. I highly doubt they would EVER be used by ANY country no matter what - not as a first strike anyway; unless someone hates humanity.

 

[The Green Bean]

PESHAWAR: A suspected US missile attack by drone aircraft on Wednesday hit a village in the Pakistani tribal region of South Waziristan where a militant camp was located, Pakistani intelligence officials said.

The missiles targeted Baghar, a village in the mountains 55km west of Wana, the main town in the region, they said.

Baghar is close to Angor Adda, the border village that was raided by US commandos on Sept. 3, and where another helicopter-borne raid was aborted on Monday after Pakistani troops and villagers opened fire.

A Pakistani military spokesman said there had been explosions in the area, but could not confirm the cause.

A journalists visiting Wazrisitan claimed on a News Channel than Waziristan was no longer a part of Pakistan and there was no government writ there. He said Waziristan was now controlled by the taliban and they were imposing their rule freely. The 100,000 men of the army deployed in the region are either stationed at heavily fortified bases or are attacking villages and are too scared to face the taliban. He also claimed that this AND the American raids were just causing the population to support the taliban. Sad as it seems; it's a fog of war and we'll never really know the truth for sometime. I just worry that this might just be the fall of Pakistan into chaos. One one side there is the taliban, on one side there are the USAF raids, then there is India deploying its airforce in Kashmir. The economy is close to collapse; food shortages; inflation.

 

[The Green Bean]

Another interesting read

Asif is batting on two strikes. Another swing and a miss, and he?s going home. The first strike was the bizarre, abortive handover of the ISI to Rehman Malik.

The second was Kayani?s rebuke the day after Asif was sworn in as president. Ostensibly Kayani?s condemnation was of the Americans, but between the lines was the real target: Asif. Get your act together, the army chief was telling his supreme commander.

Asif has stumbled badly on Afghanistan. The macho men who wanted to defy the American juggernaut on the warpath the day after 9/11 are still amongst us, still advising defiance. The day after 9/11 this was sheer foolishness. But it is no longer the day after 9/11. Seven years of the Americans in Afghanistan and reality has changed. Pick up any report on the West?s adventure in Afghanistan and you will find two things: one, US policy in Afghanistan has been a failure; two, US policy in Afghanistan will not succeed without Pakistan being on board.

In the world of realpolitik, this is known as an opportunity. So why must Asif so cravenly accept the Americans letting loose their Special Ops troops and raining down missiles in Waziristan when he can happily unleash? He had every chance at his debut press conference; instead, he bizarrely chose to speak alongside Karzai. The Afghan president is about as popular in the Pakistani Army as George W. Bush in an Al Qaeda training camp.

What is the problem in Afghanistan? In a word: Karzai. Don?t take my word for it, here?s what The New York Times had to say in an Aug 20 editorial: 'Afghanistan?s president, Hamid Karzai, must rein in his government?s rampant corruption that has all but driven his people into the hands of the Taliban and criminal warlords.' What then was Asif doing at the side of a man not only discredited in the West but hated by the Pakistan Army?

Another thing: the western ? read American ? strategy in Afghanistan has failed. Again, don?t take my word for it. Francesc Vendrell, the EU envoy in Kabul for six years, had this to say over the weekend: 'We are not destined to fail, but we are far from succeeding.' Earlier, Vendrell told Stephen Sackur of BBC?s ?HARDtalk?: 'I do leave with a sense of regret that we?ve made so many mistakes. ... we?ve got to do a hell of a lot to make things right.' In the euphemistic world of diplomacy, this is the equivalent of saying 'we?re a disaster.'

Given this record of western failure why does Asif have to be so apologetic for Pakistan?s failure to help out the Americans in Afghanistan? There are 26 Nato and 14 non-Nato countries contributing troops to Isaf. Each country?s rules of engagement are so complex and dense that were the Taliban to walk right up to some Isaf troops and dance a little jig, certain countries would still not allow their soldiers to shoot. Why then must Pakistan always ?do more??

Perhaps if Pakistan wasn?t actually doing something about its Taliban problem ? somewhere, anywhere ? the supine cravenness of Asif before the Americans would be understandable. Except that we are. Bajaur and Swat are being pounded mercilessly, militants are being flushed out, leaders are being knocked off. But the Americans aren?t satisfied because Bajaur is at the northern tip of the tribal belt while they are more concerned with the southern bit. Waziristan, north and south, and the Haqqani, Hekmatyar and Nazir networks exercise the Americans. Meanwhile, 300,000 Bajauris flee the bombing and Ambassador Patterson, de facto American leader in Pakistan, announces that $50,000 has been set aside for ?gas stoves, pots, utensils and plastic sheeting?. Well, fantastic. That?s less than the cost of a Hellfire missile fired from a predator. So for Asif to denounce the American forays into Pakistan wouldn?t be jingoistic nationalism ? it?s common sense. For one, Asif need only imagine how much less common sense than nationalism there is in the army. For another, he has an unbelievable luxury ? he can. Everyone knows the Americans can?t really afford to be on the wrong side of Pakistan. Jack Straw and the French have already distanced themselves from the strikes inside Pakistan. Here?s more from that NYT editorial, with the alarmist headline ?Afghanistan on Fire?: 'Sending American troops or warplanes into Pakistani territory will only feed anti-American furies. That should be the job of Pakistan?s army, with intelligence help and carefully monitored financial support from the United States.' If all these important ? western ? folk think American Special Ops running around Pakistan and blowing up the place is such a bad idea, why must Asif be so tepid in his criticism?

There?s another reason for Asif to unleash against the Americans. The same NYT story on Bush?s secret authorisation of strikes inside Pakistan, also had a staggering allegation against Kayani: that he knew of the plot to bomb the Indian embassy in Kabul. In living memory, a Pakistan army chief has not been directly implicated by the Americans in a criminal plot.

This then is the scenario that Asif is confronted with: angry Americans who can only rattle the Pakistani cage so much; an army chief who is under American fire; and a failed American policy in Afghanistan. Why can?t Asif connect the dots? Figure out who?s your enemy, who?s your friend and when to take a hit for the team, friendly or otherwise. Asif should make the Americans squirm a little. The next time Patterson, Boucher, Negroponte ? or even Bush ? is on the phone, ask your secretary to tell them you?re on the phone with your daughter at college.

And get a better team. We were made to believe that Chaudhry Mukhtar was passed over for prime minister because he was too much of his own man. None of that is on display as defence minister. Mukhtar must still be sulking over being passed over because every time he opens his mouth someone somewhere in a uniform gets angry. Then there?s the oily Husain Haqqani. Listen to the man long enough and you?ll be confused: is he the Pakistani ambassador to the US or the US ambassador to Pakistan? So incompetent is Asif?s defence team that the intellectual nobody with the connections to die for, Rehman Malik, has come out the brightest of the lot. At least you have to hand it to the indefatigable Malik: he does try, even if he?s out of his depth.

The survival lesson for Asif is clear: push back against the Americans, or else be pushed out by the army.

 

[Lemon law]

From my perspective, much of this is GWB&co, trying to lock in place a policy they cannot supervise, because their term in office will be over very soon and must sunset.

Sadly its just a scorched earth policy somewhere else.

But its going to leave the next President of the United States and the entire rest of the world a hell of a mess, made far more difficult to fix, because of the recent actions of GWB. If we the American people do not rein in GWB, we will bear the blame.

Right now, even if GWB was allowed to run again, he could not win any elections. Why are we allowing him to wreck everything and lock us into future total messes?

 

[palehorse]

PESHAWAR: A suspected US missile attack by drone aircraft on Wednesday hit a village in the Pakistani tribal region of South Waziristan where a militant camp was located, Pakistani intelligence officials said.

The missiles targeted Baghar, a village in the mountains 55km west of Wana, the main town in the region, they said.

got some more. :thumbsup:

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: palehorse

PESHAWAR: A suspected US missile attack by drone aircraft on Wednesday hit a village in the Pakistani tribal region of South Waziristan where a militant camp was located, Pakistani intelligence officials said.

The missiles targeted Baghar, a village in the mountains 55km west of Wana, the main town in the region, they said.

got some more. :thumbsup:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I can well believe you have more. But its still a question of will it make things better or much worse?

Having the power to do something does not make it into anything but an action.

Wisdom is in telling which actions are long term productive and which are short term attractive but long term dumb dumb dumb.

And you palehorse, are not the one who will do the future judging.

 

[yllus]

Given this record of western failure why does Asif have to be so apologetic for Pakistan?s failure to help out the Americans in Afghanistan? There are 26 Nato and 14 non-Nato countries contributing troops to Isaf. Each country?s rules of engagement are so complex and dense that were the Taliban to walk right up to some Isaf troops and dance a little jig, certain countries would still not allow their soldiers to shoot. Why then must Pakistan always ?do more??

Pakistan isn't being asked to help out in Afghanistan, exactly. It's being asked to assert control over its own land, which it's failed to do in spectacular fashion.

Why should Pakistan do more? For starters, one would think it'd be in Pakistan's own self-interest. Would you perhaps like Waziristan to rejoin the nation someday, or are you considering it forever ceded to the Taliban? Might one not venture a guess at why the economy is so unstable? Trade never flourishes when security is in doubt. Inflation? Maybe if a certain insurgency problem was dealt with and cuts to the military budget could then be made...

But hey, I'm sure you're happy with your current lot. Dial down your effort to those of prosperous nations thousands of kilometres away. Intelligent decision made there.

Perhaps if Pakistan wasn?t actually doing something about its Taliban problem ? somewhere, anywhere ? the supine cravenness of Asif before the Americans would be understandable. Except that we are. Bajaur and Swat are being pounded mercilessly, militants are being flushed out, leaders are being knocked off. But the Americans aren?t satisfied because Bajaur is at the northern tip of the tribal belt while they are more concerned with the southern bit. Waziristan, north and south, and the Haqqani, Hekmatyar and Nazir networks exercise the Americans.

The editorial writer concedes that only the tip of the problem area is being addressed and then poses the question, "Why aren't the Americans satisfied?" Question asked, question answered.

For another, he has an unbelievable luxury ? he can. Everyone knows the Americans can?t really afford to be on the wrong side of Pakistan.

That's actually genuinely laughable. I sure hope that bravado alone is enough to feed hungry mouths and hold together a broken nation.

 

[palehorse]

TGB...
1) What is Pakistan currently doing to stop the export of Pakistan-based terror into Afghanistan and elsewhere?

2) What is Pakistan planning to do to stop the export of Pakistan-based terror into Afghanistan and elsewhere?

3) Do you honestly believe that Pakistan is already doing enough to stem the flow of Pakistan-based terror into neighboring countries?

4) Do you take responsibility for the terrorism your country exports? Does your government?

 

[jonks]

Tell you what, pakistan gives back the $5 billion in military aid we've given them, we'll leave. Yeah, didn't think that'd work.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Lemon law

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Lemon lawI may be a legend in my own mind on P&N, a nearly lone voice crying out bullshit from the wilderness

I cannot disagree with that.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As JOS once again has a snappy comeback, that addresses about 5% of the overall question, while being 95% FOS.

Do you realise how ironic this is? I have asked you in a SHITLOAD of posts not to pull single sentences but quote like a normal poster, now when i do the same to you you are annoyed?

But please riddle me two things Captain JOS, where the hell do you get off thinking you set Nato policy with your minuscule military rank, and what is the undisclosed military rank of palehorse?

[/quote]

Strawman arguments are all you got, i have never said anything about NATO policy and since we're not even part of ISAF forces it's completely irrelevant, what i have said is that i don't respect Petraeus and i don't, give me someone like Wesley Clark who is a general on his OWN merits and we can discuss respect.

palehorses rank isn't any of your business, if he wants you to know he'll tell you himself.

You do know how to quote, please do that in the future or i'll just go back to doing what you've been doing, pick words or sentences out of your posts and respond to them.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: jonks
Tell you what, pakistan gives back the $5 billion in military aid we've given them, we'll leave. Yeah, didn't think that'd work.

There is too much invested in this to leave even if they gave you 1 trillion.

It's not about money or about the US, you're not alone in the area and while i can't really say what other nation is involved i've revealed enough information for a clever man to understand it in this thread.

On the whole, the entire western world (including the former eastern block as well as some non-western countries) has soldiers in some functions involved in this battle.

It's supported by well over 100 nations.

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Lemon law

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Lemon lawI may be a legend in my own mind on P&N, a nearly lone voice crying out bullshit from the wilderness

I cannot disagree with that.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As JOS once again has a snappy comeback, that addresses about 5% of the overall question, while being 95% FOS.

Do you realise how ironic this is? I have asked you in a SHITLOAD of posts not to pull single sentences but quote like a normal poster, now when i do the same to you you are annoyed?

But please riddle me two things Captain JOS, where the hell do you get off thinking you set Nato policy with your minuscule military rank, and what is the undisclosed military rank of palehorse?

Strawman arguments are all you got, i have never said anything about NATO policy and since we're not even part of ISAF forces it's completely irrelevant, what i have said is that i don't respect Petraeus and i don't, give me someone like Wesley Clark who is a general on his OWN merits and we can discuss respect.

palehorses rank isn't any of your business, if he wants you to know he'll tell you himself.

You do know how to quote, please do that in the future or i'll just go back to doing what you've been doing, pick words or sentences out of your posts and respond to them.[/quote]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lets see JOS, you complain about my quoting you and in the same post you make the complaint about, contains quite a few quotes of mine you take totally out of context. At least I quote your entire sentences WITHOUT TAKING IT OUT OF TOTAL CONTEXT.

Then you accuse me of making strawman arguments when I have made very long and well reasoned arguments on what historical forces you are bucking, and about why this is a only partly a military problem, and what Nato should be doing different,
which you have always dismissed out of hand without citing a single reason I was wrong.

Then you, without citing a single reason, make the flat statement that you do not
respect Petraeus and do respect Wesley Clark. Maybe a matter of opinion, but if you are serving in Nato, even though you are a Brit, there is zero chance Wesley Clark will ever be in overall command in the Nato sector of Afghanistan, and a very large chance that Petraeus soon will. As for your other strawman argument, being a Brit, our General Eisenhower was in overall command of all British, American, and allied armies in the European sector during WW2, and now is no different.
And right now the policy of going into the tribal areas on Pakistan is being driven by the biggest strategic idiot in recent planet history, namely GWB.

Quite frankly JOS, the subject of this and other similar Afghan threads involve a single root question. And that question is, should Nato widen its mission in Afghanistan to include the tribal areas of Pakistan against Pakistani permission?

And you seem to advocate going into the tribal areas of Pakistan where you will kill all Taliban and Al-Quida. And then shortly thereafter, return home mission accomplished. bSix months is whatbyou promised as I recall.

And I quite frankly believe that if Nato widens this war into the tribal areas of Pakistan, it will only result in a huge intractable mess and the situation will get far far worse.

And now JOS, like it or not, your overall Nato commander is GWB. And GWB is on your side of the argument for the few remaining months he lasts. After all, this blunder could finally get him the impeachment he has long deserved.

 

[OCGuy]

Lemon you are delusional. Obama wont stop the attacks.

If you havent noticed, Afghanistan is something that most Americans agree on. Iraq is a different story.

The world and the American people were fully behind the Afghanistan invasion. Its Iraq that has brought us ill-will and internal scorn.

Obama has already said, we are in a state of war with radical Islamists. Many countries are (Russia, China, Saudis...shit, almost everyone). Our embassy was attacked in Yemen today. They arent going away. We arent going away.

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Lemon you are delusional. Obama wont stop the attacks.

If you havent noticed, Afghanistan is something that most Americans agree on. Iraq is a different story.

The world and the American people were fully behind the Afghanistan invasion. Its Iraq that has brought us ill-will and internal scorn.

Obama has already said, we are in a state of war with radical Islamists. Many countries are (Russia, China, Saudis...shit, almost everyone). Our embassy was attacked in Yemen today. They arent going away. We arent going away.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I will admit your argument, ocguy31, is somewhat valid.

But there is a somewhat important Obama distinction to be made, Obama said he would strike at Al-Quida inside of the Pakistani tribal areas if Pakistan would not.
What Obama is silent about is his position on the Taliban. And McCain, as far as I can see, is just I am the undefined strong and silent type. Maybe as the election progresses and the stirring up hornet nests continue in the Tribal areas, both Obama and McCain will get more definitive, but we in the US are not there yet.

Right now, GWB is driving this totally new new take the gloves off policy as a total lame duck President, and as a partisan shot, in MHO, GWB is an idiot with a reverse Midas touch, because everything he touches turns to shit.

But at just this take the gloves off moment, General Petraeus is now promoted to overall command of all sectors of our current two quagmires, and as Petraeus leaves Iraq in charge of his subordinate, he will presumably turn his attention to the Afghan theater of operation.

And Petraeus has already made some very strong statements about Afghan operations that seem almost 100% opposed to the new policy GWB seems to be driving. As Petraeus clearly states this is a "entrenched insurgency that we cannot kill our way out of." And those Petraeus positions can be found quite a few pages back in this thread in a link I posted, but Petraeus advocates a far lesser military role, much more economic development, and more importantly an open ended political dialog with everything on the table.

And now in this battle, there will be GWB position, the Petraeus position, and the court of actual results as we advance toward an election coming on 11/4/08.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Lets see JOS, you complain about my quoting you and in the same post you make the complaint about, contains quite a few quotes of mine you take totally out of context. At least I quote your entire sentences WITHOUT TAKING IT OUT OF TOTAL CONTEXT.

Then you accuse me of making strawman arguments when I have made very long and well reasoned arguments on what historical forces you are bucking, and about why this is a only partly a military problem, and what Nato should be doing different,
which you have always dismissed out of hand without citing a single reason I was wrong.

Then you, without citing a single reason, make the flat statement that you do not
respect Petraeus and do respect Wesley Clark. Maybe a matter of opinion, but if you are serving in Nato, even though you are a Brit, there is zero chance Wesley Clark will ever be in overall command in the Nato sector of Afghanistan, and a very large chance that Petraeus soon will. As for your other strawman argument, being a Brit, our General Eisenhower was in overall command of all British, American, and allied armies in the European sector during WW2, and now is no different.
And right now the policy of going into the tribal areas on Pakistan is being driven by the biggest strategic idiot in recent planet history, namely GWB.

Quite frankly JOS, the subject of this and other similar Afghan threads involve a single root question. And that question is, should Nato widen its mission in Afghanistan to include the tribal areas of Pakistan against Pakistani permission?

And you seem to advocate going into the tribal areas of Pakistan where you will kill all Taliban and Al-Quida. And then shortly thereafter, return home mission accomplished. bSix months is whatbyou promised as I recall.

And I quite frankly believe that if Nato widens this war into the tribal areas of Pakistan, it will only result in a huge intractable mess and the situation will get far far worse.

And now JOS, like it or not, your overall Nato commander is GWB. And GWB is on your side of the argument for the few remaining months he lasts. After all, this blunder could finally get him the impeachment he has long deserved.

You quoted my first post in this thread out of context, the explanation was left out by your quoteation of only part of my sentence.

Again, i am not part of ISAF, why don't you get that, are you some kind of special kind of stupid that don't get things that are repeated more than 30 times?

So go fuck yourself you dishonest piece of shit.

You don't know ANYTHING about anything what so ever, you disregard information that you don't like and cheer information that goes against the western troops, i'd say that makes you a fucking TRAITOR by definition.

This is the last post you'll ever see in response, i'd ask you to refrain from responding to me in the future but knowing your dishonest traitor arse i am sure you'll pick a sentence here and there to misrepresent me in the future as you have ALWAYS done in the past.

You fucking disgust me you stupid little piece of shit.

[edit] he really doesn't know how to quote, i took some time to fix it but he fucked it up beyond belief [/edit]

 

[Lemon law]

As I oppose you on policy, the best JOS can come up with is---------"You fucking disgust me you stupid little piece of shit."

While I do not hate all the people who serve in militaries around the world, you do impress me as incredibly closed minded and unable to discuss ideas. And sorry, your gun is not a currency to be used to shout down those opposed to you, it flat out never works in the end.

And just like Iraq, there are no do overs in military actions, even though almost 90% of the people now admit, it was a bone headed play to try to occupy Iraq with so few troops and based on nothing but lies.

And in MHO, the military occupation of Afghanistan was initially justified, but now its the political ineptness of Nato and your type stinking thinking that has totally lost the hearts and minds of those you try to occupy.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: palehorse
TGB...
1) What is Pakistan currently doing to stop the export of Pakistan-based terror into Afghanistan and elsewhere?

2) What is Pakistan planning to do to stop the export of Pakistan-based terror into Afghanistan and elsewhere?

3) Do you honestly believe that Pakistan is already doing enough to stem the flow of Pakistan-based terror into neighboring countries?

4) Do you take responsibility for the terrorism your country exports? Does your government?

Still waiting for The Green Bean to answer these questions...

 

[The Green Bean]

1) What is Pakistan currently doing to stop the export of Pakistan-based terror into Afghanistan and elsewhere?

They're waging war against those responsible. I'm more worried about what America is doing to stop terror based on its territory and elsewhere. In reality more deaths have come from American bombs that terrorism. Whether it is intentional or not doesn't matter. All these deaths are needless and do NO good!

2) What is Pakistan planning to do to stop the export of Pakistan-based terror into Afghanistan and elsewhere?

Stop the massacre of innocent civilians by the Americans and win the hearts and minds of the people in those areas. Then we can make a pact with them to expel all foreign fighters. That will take time and American co-operation.

3) Do you honestly believe that Pakistan is already doing enough to stem the flow of Pakistan-based terror into neighboring countries?

They are doing more than ANY other country. We've killed about 1000 militants over the past month alone. That's way more than your forces combined.

4) Do you take responsibility for the terrorism your country exports? Does your government?

Do you take responsibility for the innocent civilians killed by actions that were authorized by the government you voted for? If you don't why should I take responsibility for actions committed by a few "criminals?"

I don't answer the questions not because I don't see them; it's because I find your follow up and feedback to be that of a 13 year old. So don't be surprised if you get no further response from me to your blabbering.

Peace
TGB

 

[The Green Bean]

If the USA wants to get on the good side of the common Pakistani it should help bring an end to the daily misery faced by one. It can easily be done. 4000MW is a huge power shortage. If you help us cut down on power cuts; maybe we will finally see you as someone that really means good; instead of just promoting its interested by whatever means possible even if that means murder and genocide. If you can help India; you can certainly help us. I don't even know what difference it would make to stop giving us civilian nuclear help. We are already nuclear armed and producing plenty of warheads every year. We will also have an ICBM shortly it seems.

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan is considering purchasing nuclear power plants to meet its growing energy shortages, the government said on Friday.

The country is suffering from acute power shortages, and officials say there is a power deficit of up to 4,000 megawatt.

In recent months state-run utilities have switched off power for several hours a day across the country, though the situation improved towards the end of summer, as air conditioners are in less use.

Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani on Friday held a meeting with senior officials to discuss the possibility of buying nuclear plants.

Gilani set up a committee of senior officials ?to work out the modalities and financial arrangements before a formal decision is made on the purchase of nuclear energy plants,? his office said in a statement without giving further details.

Pakistan has two nuclear power plants.

Its first nuclear power plant was set up with Canadian help in 1972 and has a capacity of 137 megawatts.

The second nuclear power plant was built with the help of its long-time ally, China, in 1999 in Chashma, a town in the central Punjab province. It has a generation capacity of 325 megawatts. China is helping Pakistan build a third plant near Chashma.

Pakistan has previously asked the United States for a deal along the lines of one struck between the United States and rival India, that gives access to US know-how and technology to develop civil nuclear energy capacity.

The United States refused because of a scandal involving Pakistan's top nuclear scientist. Abdul Qadeer Khan was put under house arrest in 2004 after admitting he had run a smuggling ring to supply nuclear parts to countries including Libya, Iran and North Korea.

Pakistan and India became nuclear-armed states in 1988.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: TechAZ

We get it. You like your women to be slaves and support 3rd world Somalian-esque thugs. I don't care how many Pakistani's get killed, hell....they can line themselves up as human body shields and I would sleep just fine at night.

Is that because Americans are somehow superior to mere Pakistanis? Are their lives more precious?

Yes.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: TechAZ
It's the intent that matters. Probably hate that damn WWII as well, or don't you believe in the Holocaust?

So now you are comparing muslims to the Nazis :s

Americans can keep saying that their intent is not killing civilians. That won't get them anywhere. And your government is doing it on YOUR behalf. The ones that carried out 9/11 were a bunch of muslims and in no way represent muslims.

same ol' spin we hear about any muslim attack. get a new schtick.