What do you think about Pakistan Govt and Pakistan Nations`s Stand on Iraq Issue
is there a conflict between both of them
or they are thinking the same way
Pakistan will ultimately do whatever US asks her to do. Mushy may even send his soldiers. All he has to do is address nation and blame India for evil designs and drop some words like 'Kashmir' and 'Gujarat'.
While very unlikely organizations like Christian right in USA, VHP in India are supporting Iraq I do not see any major protests in Pakistan. Because Pakis know that whatever they think or feel Mushy is going to do whatever is ordered by USA.
Re: Pakistan`s Stand On Iraq Issue
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Nadeem Aalam: *
**What do you think about Pakistan Govt and Pakistan Nations`s Stand on Iraq Issue*
[/quote]
As a non-permanent member of UNSC, here's what we gotta do:
[list=1]
[li]Support formula of France-German of more inspection time.
[/li]
[li]Support formula of more survellience flyin' over Iraq.
[/li]
[li]Support formula of more inspectors in Iraq.
[/li]
[li]No matter how long this crsis goes on, Pakistan must keep in contact with rest of the permanent/non-permanent of the UNSC. Our vote counts, remember that!
[/li]
[/list=1]
RIFAK, you're argument is absurd. We don't have to blame India. It was India, who pointed out at Pakistan for Gujarat Genocide. How pissed Indians are, we can see that by comments from Advani, Fernades blah blah.
PT,
When Pakistanis were protesting on streets burning US flags against any action in Afghanistan, this is what Mushy told in his TV speach. The resoning starts with INDIA. Read the full speach. First reason he gives is LOOK AT OUR NEIGHBORS. THEY ARE TRYING TO HARM US.
Same thing will happean with Iraq. As usual Pakis protest. Then Bush calls Mush and says either you are with us or against us. So Mush finally agrees but not before giving a TV speach accusing India.
http://www.dawn.com/events/speech/20010919/
We in Pakistan are facing a very critical situation. Perhaps as critical as the events in 1971. If we make the wrong decisions our vital interests will be harmed.
I have discussed all this with my corps commanders, politicians and prominent Pakistanis. Tomorrow I am meeting the tribal chiefs. I have to say that opinions are divided, but the vast majority supports us. I would say that about 15% are tending towards emotional reactions.
**Lets look at our neighbors. They have promised US all cooperation. They want to isolate us, get us declared a terrorist state.
They have met in Dushanbe with some other countries and plan to try and install anti Pakistani government in Afghanistan. So our neighbor is busy trying to harm us. If you see their television they are busy with propaganda against us.
I want to tell them to ‘lay off’. Our forces are on full alert and ready for a do or die mission.
In this situation if we make the wrong decisions it can be very bad for us. Our critical concerns are our sovereignty, second our economy, third our strategic assets (nuclear and missiles), and forth our Kashmir cause. All four will be harmed if we make the wrong decision. When we make these decisions they must be according to Islam. **
Its not a question of bravery or cowardice. But bravery without thinking is stupidity. Allah has said that he who has ‘hikmat’ has a huge blessing. ** We have to save our interests. Pakistan comes first, everything else is secondary. **
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by RIFAK: *
PT,
When Pakistanis were protesting on streets burning US flags against any action in Afghanistan, this is what Mushy told in his TV speach.
[/quote]
WRONG. There were no major protests against America before Musharraf's speech.
[quote]
The resoning starts with INDIA. Read the full speach. First reason he gives is LOOK AT OUR NEIGHBORS. THEY ARE TRYING TO HARM US.
[/quote]
Of course. Musharraf was right on the spot. What chances India haven't used to harm neighbors? Be it Pakistan, China, Bangladesh or Nepal, Indian attitude always have a problem.
India has been supportive of Northern Allaince. And because of Pakistan, ethinic Govt. formed in Afghanistan after Talibans i.e Man incharge of Afghanistan, friendly towards Pakistan. Stablity in the region is required and necessary to capture figutives.
[quote]
Same thing will happean with Iraq. As usual Pakis protest. Then Bush calls Mush and says either you are with us or against us. So Mush finally agrees but not before giving a TV speach accusing India.
[/quote]
Look man, it wasn't Uncle Sam to Pakistan, either you are with us or against us. 9-11 was a freak thing for Pakistan. America's interest was/is capturin' figutives, which can't be happen without Pakistan's effort. On the other hand, Pakistan wanted/still does Economic relief, sanctions uplifted, trade etc. Based on that, both are in a good shape.
In case of Iraq, Pakistan is playing a neutral role. :)
No games. Just sports.
Pakistan should oppose any military action.....they should do it in the Security council....
Mr. Jamali is a bit dumb when he says that Saddam never helped us....its not Saddam whos gonna die if theres a war....it'll be the Iraqi people!
The war is inevitible now....there were protests in 600 cities of the world....million of people protested....but the muslim world seems to be dead!!!
We have to save our interests. Pakistan comes first, everything else is secondary.
In "secondary" interests, do you also include your Muslim brothers and sisters?
Morals, what is right and honor are never secondary. They are the goals we have to reach. This is no honor or positive morality in attacking a people that have done nothing wrong.
The CE will decide. We can only assume it will be best for our future and that of Iraqs.
It's certain, war is gonna happen. Congress have authorized Bush to impose war on Iraq any time he feels necessary; and I guess Mid-March is the final stage. In this case, UNSC doesn't give a jack. It's just a paper work, which Uncle Sam and Poodler loves to do it. Whether Pakistan, and other members(permanent/non-permanent) of UNSC says Yes or No, ain't gonna effect. War is gonna happen. Iraq neighbors will support it i.e UAE, Bahrain, Kuwait, Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia.
I feel Pakistan should say NO; and this is what we have been saying--> Things should work out what UN resolutions suggests. What United States could do to us. Nevertheless, impose sanctions on us if we won't support them. We have been through that stage from the 60s upto now; and I feel we would survive as our budget have been lowered on defence. By supporting war on Iraq could create more Law and Order trouble in Pakistan as it hasn't been satisfactory, which in my opinion M-J team should take that scenerio into deep consideration.
>>I feel Pakistan should say NO; and this is what we have been saying--> Things should work out what UN resolutions suggests.<<
Pakistani Tiger, what if the second UNSC Resolution goes through with a majority of the SCouncil voting for the Resolution? And one of the factors in this second Resolution 'authorizes' the US-led aggression against Iraq? In your opinion, should Pakistan support it in that scenario?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by CM: *
The CE will decide. We can only assume it will be best for our future and that of Iraqs.
[/QUOTE]
CM, what is your personal stance vis-a-vis what Pakistan's position should be regarding a US-led aggression against Iraq? In other words, place yourself in the position of the CE for a hypothetical moment - in such a position, what would be your stance?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Nadia_H: *
Pakistani Tiger, what if the second UNSC Resolution goes through with a majority of the SCouncil voting for the Resolution? And one of the factors in this second Resolution 'authorizes' the US-led aggression against Iraq? In your opinion, should Pakistan support it in that scenario?
[/quote]
Nadia,
In my opinion, Pakistan should stay out of this mess. Bush Administration will go for war despite of UN Resolution against War, despite if France veto any UN Resolution against War. Arm forces build up in the Gulf region is a clue.
Therefore, I feel Pakistan should worry about her own backyard rather than taking other's mess into her lap.
And yes, I feel Pakistan should say NO to the resolution you talked about in the first place. :)
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Nadia_H: *
**We have to save our interests. Pakistan comes first, everything else is secondary.*
In "secondary" interests, do you also include your Muslim brothers and sisters?
[/QUOTE]
Nadia, why do us Pakistanis have to be the chamchas all the time? I mean do you have any idea who the people of Iraq (and their lovely dictator) support when it comes to Kashmir? ITS INDIA...
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by CM: *
The CE will decide. We can only assume it will be best for our future and that of Iraqs.
[/QUOTE]
You mean the President...
Originally posted by CM:
The CE will decide. We can only assume it will be best for our future and that of Iraqs.
assume :D. Dang, you hit the nail.
And here are the chances : Book MG Binguo EV in Pakistan for just Rs1.2 million [Price, Installment Update] - Pakistan Observer
Sources in the government claim that there are 40% chances that Pakistan will abstain and 60% chances are that Pakistan will vote in favour of the resolution.
y is pakisatna supporting war on Iraq?
why is pakistan suppoting the war on Iraq?? instead of trying to get the issue solved diplomatically???
Deep Divisions Remain on Iraq as Blix Reports to Security Council
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 10:55 a.m. ET
UNITED NATIONS (AP) – Russia warned on Friday that it might veto a U.S. war resolution before the sharply divided U.N. Security Council. But Pakistan – a Muslim nation that could be a key swing vote – signaled growing support for Washington.
France, which along with Russia has led opposition to a war, said Iraq’s decision to comply with a U.N. order to destroy missiles proves that inspections are working.
Advertisement
Deep divisions in the Security Council showed no signs of closing Friday after Iraqi sources said the destruction of the Al Samoud 2 missiles would begin on Saturday, despite grumbling by Baghdad that the missiles do not violate U.N.-imposed range limits.
The United States, Britain and Spain are pushing a resolution that would open the door for war, while Russia, China and France are calling for continued weapons inspections and a diplomatic end to the crisis.
Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov said Russia could use its veto power to block military action.
``Russia has the right to a veto in the U.N. Security Council and will use it if it is necessary in the interests of international stability,‘’ Ivanov said at a news conference in Beijing.
In Paris, French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin said Iraq’s consent on the missile order was an important step'' and confirms that inspectors are getting results.‘’ He would not say whether France would use its veto against the U.S-backed resolution.
At the White House, press secretary Ari Fleischer dismissed the idea that the Iraqi decision reflected progress toward disarmament. ``This is the deception the president predicted. We do expect that they will destroy at least some of their missiles,‘’ he said.
But President Bush won’t settle for anything less than full disarmament, Fleischer said. ``The Iraqi regime is a deception wrapped in a lie.‘’
Chief weapons inspector Hans Blix said Baghdad’s disarmament efforts had been ``very limited so far,‘’ fueling U.S. and British arguments that Iraq is failing to comply with its obligations.
Diplomats privately described the atmosphere in the council as bitter and demoralizing, but many held out hope that a compromise could be reached among the council’s five major powers.
**In Islamabad, a senior government source, speaking on condition of anonymity, told The Associated Press that Pakistan will likely vote with the United States at the council.
Pakistan is a key U.S. ally in the war on terror, but its powerful religious leaders oppose war with Iraq. Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf met separately Friday with envoys from both the United States and Iraq, each seeking to sway Islamabad.
Musharraf ``underlined Iraq’s responsibility for complete and immediate verifiable disarmament,‘’ said a government statement.
Pakistani officials say voting against the United States is not an option, though they say it could abstain.**
But despite signs of new support, Washington is still shy of the nine votes it needs to get the resolution adopted. Some council members said they could support the U.S. plan if it was open to negotiation. A senior U.S. diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity, hinted there may be some wiggle room but not on substance.
The leaders of the United States’ strongest backers, Britain and Spain, dismissed Baghdad’s decision to comply with the missile order.
Saddam Hussein ``never makes any concessions at all other than with the threat of force hanging over him,‘’ British Prime Minister Tony Blair said Friday after talks with his Spanish counterpart, Jose Maria Aznar.
Aznar said he was confident the resolution would win approval.
We want to the find the biggest and the widest agreement within the Security Council,'' he said. We hope that increasing pressure on the Iraqi regime will be the best way to serve the wishes of peace of so many millions of people and countries around the world.‘’
In a letter to Blix on Thursday, Iraq agreed ``in principle’’ to destroy the Al Samoud 2 missiles, which were found to have a range exceeding the 93-mile limit set by the Security Council at the end of the 1991 Persian Gulf War. Sources in Baghdad on Friday confirmed the destruction would begin Saturday, the deadline set by Blix.
Iraq maintains some of the missiles overshot the limit because they were tested without warheads or guidance systems, making them lighter. In the letter, Iraq said it believes the decision to destroy the missiles was ``unjust,‘’ and politically motivated.
Blix will appear before the council next week to discuss the findings in his 17-page report which details the work of his staff in Iraq over the past three months.
In a key section of the report, a draft copy of which was obtained by The Associated Press, Blix says Saddam could have made greater efforts ``to find remaining proscribed items or credible evidence showing the absence of such items.‘’
While Blix noted some recent Iraqi cooperation, he said: ``It is hard to understand why a number of the measures which are now being taken could not have been initiated earlier.‘’
Nonetheless, he noted in a recent interview that inspections resumed only in November after a four-year break and asked: ``Is it the right time to close the door?‘’
Did you folks watch what Munir Akram said to CNN correspondent? This is what he said or something close to what I remember:
*When permanent members of UNSC are divided, how come we non-permanent members do or say anything about the crisis? *
Man, that was 'Right on the Money' replied.
High five for Munir Akram. :)
In Islamabad, a senior government source, speaking on condition of anonymity, told The Associated Press that Pakistan will likely vote with the United States at the council.
i am not in favour of their decision to do so. If i try to see it from the ‘other’ point of view - from the Pakistani govt’s. opinion, economic consequences are probably paramount in their decision to vote with the US. They will have to take into account additional money needed for domestic security, though, if they do vote with the US - places like the American consulate in Karachi will probably be high up on the list for possible repeat attacks.
Just incase anyone wants to read, or participate in, the discussion going on in the Pak Forum, this is the thread.
A lil info.
Pakistan says undecided on Iraq war resolution
ISLAMABAD (Reuters) - Pakistan, an Islamic nation that supports the U.S. war on terror, says that it has not decided which way
to vote on the Iraq resolution in the U.N. Security Council and that all options for peace should be explored.
Envoys from both the United States and Iraq separately called on President General Pervez Musharraf on Friday to explain their
stances and seek Pakistan’s support.
“We are looking at the situation and we have not taken any decision,” a spokesman for Islamabad’s foreign ministry, Tariq
Usman Haider, told an earlier news briefing on the Security Council resolution, which could pave the way to war.
Pakistan is one of 10 non-permanent members of the 15-member Security Council, which held its first meeting on Thursday on
the resolution brought by the United States, Britain and Spain saying that Saddam Hussein had failed to disarm.
Adoption of a Security Council resolution needs a minimum of nine votes in favour and no veto from any of its five permanent
members, the United States, Britain, Russia, France and China. No vote is expected for about two weeks.
Haider said visiting U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Christina Rocca had sought Pakistan’s support.
“Of course she asked for our support. Naturally America would like to have as many votes as they can have for a consensus.” :
Haider said Pakistan had a choice of voting for or against the resolution, or abstaining. “But a decision will only come before the vote.”
- MEETINGS WITH MUSHARRAF
Rocca and Iraqi Information Minister Mohamed Said al-Sahaf met separately with Musharraf on Friday.
The Pakistani Foreign Ministry said Musharraf had told both that Islamabad wanted a peaceful resolution of the crisis.
In the meeting with al-Sahaf, he urged the Iraqi leadership to take all steps necessary to avoid a conflict by cooperating completely with U.N. weapons inspectors, the ministry said in a statement.
To Rocca he said **“peace ought to be given the best chance through a diplomatic solution,” ** the ministry said.
Pakistan has been a key ally in the U.S. led war against terror, but fears any attack on Iraq will stir unrest among its mainly Muslim population. Right-wing religious parties, which made big gains in October elections, have warned Musharraf against backing a U.N. resolution that would allow war on Iraq.
Haider said it was a moral question.
“We want to exhaust all possibilities for peace,” :k: he said. “It is a very moral question whether (war) is just or unjust and the Security Council has to decide that and not one particular country.”
Asked whether Rocca had offered anything to Pakistan in return for its support, he said: “No… The government of Pakistan
thinks it will be totally wrong to link our position to the question of what we will get in return.”
Thursday’s U.N. Security Council meeting erupted into chaos, with smaller nations, such as Chile and Mexico, demanding the
badly divided big powers reach a common position.
At the Non-Aligned Movement summit in Kuala Lumpur earlier in the week, Musharraf sounded sombre about the possibility of
war.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Nadia_H: *
CM, what is your personal stance vis-a-vis what Pakistan's position should be regarding a US-led aggression against Iraq? In other words, place yourself in the position of the CE for a hypothetical moment - in such a position, what would be your stance?
[/QUOTE]
My stance? I am for getting rid of Saddam Hussien. He needs to go. He deserves an eternity of torture. What will i think Pakistan will do? We will vote yes. We wont abstain. We wont vote no. We will vote yes. That is my opinion.
What would i do in the CE's place? I would try to do my best to put the interest of my country first with crossing the moral thresold that could justify a war.
CM, I know that Pakistan will vote 'yes' to dis-arm Iraq from its Wepaons of mass destruction. Have you given it a thought that even Pakistan, has weapons of mass destruction, which the world is watching with horror, as they believe that those weapons might fall into the hands of fundametalists, therefore for them Pakistan poses more threat as compared to Iraq. Pakistan, has on numerous ocassions threatened to use those weapons against India.
I personally believe that its Pakistan's turn after Iraq. Things will become really interesting once Iraq war is over. US would want Pakistan to disarm as well, because for them its nuclear arsenal is a threat to world peace.
When they do ask us to disarm, how do you think Pakistan would justify in keeping their weapons when they themselves supported disarming of Iraq? Secondly, during the first Iraq war, Pakistan's economy got some leverage due to free oil from Saudia, which I feel we will lose after our support to the American action against Iraq.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by CM: *
My stance? I am for getting rid of Saddam Hussien. He needs to go. He deserves an eternity of torture. What will i think Pakistan will do? We will vote yes. We wont abstain. We wont vote no. We will vote yes. That is my opinion.
What would i do in the CE's place? I would try to do my best to put the interest of my country first with crossing the moral thresold that could justify a war.
[/QUOTE]