[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ums: *
so there should be a war and millions of the iraqi people should die because their government has been voting against pakistan?
boy would you make a cracker of a president.
[/QUOTE]
Please read my comments about the "people" in the earlier part of the thread. If I am a cracker of a President then I'd be preaching to the village idiot who doesnt read :D
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by outlaw: *
How Iraq is exactly messing with us? Actually, Iraq happens to be one of the chief importer of Pakistani grain and other products, and had supplied oil to us on very cheap rates in the past. Facts are one thing and basing point of view on mere conjecture is another.
[/QUOTE]
Outlaw, read up on Iraq's stance on Kashmir, the Arms Scandal related to Baluchistan, and closer relations to India. If Iraq is the "chief importer" of Pakistani grain it is due to necessity not some Islamic love for us. In economic terms Iraq has been trading with Iran (it's arch enemy) in the black for years. Pakistan has traded with India. The economic sphere does not change the political. We are voting for the political aspect in the next resolution, and not some economic factors like sanctions etc.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by outlaw: *
I dare Musharraf to do the same and yes without hijacking and harrassing the parliamentarians. Let's do it the democratic way; but who am I kidding, we are talking about Pakistan
[/QUOTE]
Lets not talk about democracy and the majority. If you'd like to make Mush & Pakistan a punching bag, may I ask what you feel about Blair or Britain, Aznar of Spain, and Burlesconi of Italy, where the vast majorities are opposed to the war yet the leaders are still supporting it. We Pakistanis, are poor third world inhabitants with long traditions of dictatorial rule, however these "enlightened" western democracies are supposed to know better...What about them?
**
How mundane it's to blame Iraq for our own failed policy in Kahsmir. Where's the US has refused- the country we'll back in this conflict - to enforce India into accepting the UN resolutions in Kashmir. Despite all the support in Afghanistan, Pakistan falied to gain crucial support on global arena in Kashmir.
**
US has been an ally (for better for worse) atleast in terms of lip service. There is no blame on Iraq for our policies in Kashmir, rather a realization that Iraq does not match up with our national interests. before you question me on whether US matches on national interest? the simple answer is yes.
In geopolitics we deal with allies and enemies, Iraq has historically been an enemy. Too bad most Pakistani people (in their good nature and Islamiyat) still believe that Iraq is somehow a "brother" nation when the facts are opposite. Lets have the historical realities guide our choices in terms of Iraq.
Where are their "blood" brothers-- the Arabs when Iraq is facing war? Cowering behind the US. Atleast we have a reason for voting against Iraq.
What kind of lip service are you talking about RP- that Pakistan should clamp down on extremism and stop sending terrorists into Kashmir. Yeah, it's all hunky dory for couple of weeks, but when the reality strikes, US is the first country often to snub Pakistan on the Kashmir issue - as recently as few weeks ago.
We should say NO because we understand the grave consequence of this war and it's future negative ramifications for the entire region. So, your argument that "it's a pay-back time" does not hold any value to begin with, since we should not do this out of any love for the Iraqi regime, who you are referring as an enemy, but to stop the mayhem of war. It’s rather shallow, absurd and shortsighted to think like that, in my opinion. We may not succeed, but at least we should let our stance known.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by RajputFury: *
Outlaw, read up on Iraq's stance on Kashmir, the Arms Scandal related to Baluchistan, and closer relations to India. If Iraq is the "chief importer" of Pakistani grain it is due to necessity not some Islamic love for us. In economic terms Iraq has been trading with Iran (it's arch enemy) in the black for years. Pakistan has traded with India. The economic sphere does not change the political. We are voting for the political aspect in the next resolution, and not some economic factors like sanctions etc.
[/QUOTE]
iraqs stance on kashmir?!?!
Saddam decides wht iraq does....n its his stance
do you think france n germany are opposing war coz they like saddam?
its coz they dont want the Iraqi people to die.....its not about saddam...its about the innocent civilians who will die.....the sanctions have reduced iraqs population by 5%....millions have died....including kids.....but Saddam is still iving in comfort!
We should oppose war not because we are supportive of Saddam but because we do not want the killing of innocent civilians!
Rajput Fury, I am against Pakistan’s support to the US in the war against Iraq, not that I am a Saddam supporter, but since its a matter of principle. What I feel is that by asking Pakistani support against Iraq, US is pushing Pakistan into the corner. They want to obtain their objectives in Iraq related to OIL. As far as weapons of mass destruction are concerned, Pakistan has even more dangerous weapons, and the western world sees Pakistan with more suspicion as compared to Iraq. After Iraq, its certain that US will turn towards Iran or Pakistan. Pakistan’s support to the US in the war against Iraq, will isolate us from Saudi Arabia, and other arab countries. By supporting a war against Iraq, morally we will have to comply when the US tells us that they fear Pakistan’s nukes, and they need to be destroyed.
Considering your logic, do you think that Afghanistan with the help of India or US should pay back Pakistan once it stabilizes, since we have meddled in their matters for the past 20 years or so?
As far as the support to the Kashmir issue is concerned, when has USA supported Pakistan’s stance, although Pakistan has always remained its ally. And forget it that US will ever support us even in the future.
As far as resolution of Kashmir issue is concerned, looks like there is even a big roll back there due to American pressure. There was Sheikh Rasheed’s interviews in all major Pakistani newspapers yesterday, that the Kashmiri dispute would be solved in the next 3 years, and its result might not satisfy Pakistan and India. And here’s a link from an Indian newspaper.
**Pak says Kashmir solution likely in three years
**
www.expressindia.com/full...wsid=19580
Press Trust of India
Islamabad, March 4: In a significant observation, Pakistan Information Minister Sheikh Rashid has said India and Pakistan could resolve the Kashmir issue in the next three years but the final solution might not be the one expected by the two countries.
**
“The problem could be solved between the two countries in the next three years but not in a way Pakistan and India wanted it to be,” **he told reporters in Lahore on Monday, while firmly defending the aggressive policy being pursued by President Pervez Musharraf on Kashmir **
“We should mentally be prepared for this,” **Rashid said, without elaborating what could be the basis for the solution.
To a question on US Secretary of State Collin Powell’s recent statement that Washington would remain engaged with India and Pakistan to resolve the Kashmir issue, he said, “Doors of negotiations should always be kept open.”
He said when it came to the Kashmir policy, Musharraf played on “the front foot” to keep it in the focus of the international community.
**
Rashid said many people in Pakistan wanted to “get rid of the dispute and did not consider it as jihad.” But after the September 11 attacks in the US, Washington turned against Pakistan’s policies, he added.
Rashid’s comments were seen by the diplomatic circles here as a follow-up to statements made by chairman of Pakistan’s Kashmir Committee, Sardar Qayyum Khan, a few months ago that Islamabad should seriously consider accepting the Line of Control (LoC) as a solution.
**
Qayyum’s comments, however, drew angry reactions from the hardline militant groups but evoked feeble protests from Pakistan’s hardline religious parties.
Replying to questions about Islamabad’s stand on Iraq, Rashid said Pakistan, which currently held a non-permanent member seat in UN Security Council, was against war on Baghdad, but it had to keep its interests supreme.
“We will follow the UN Security Council’s decision on Iraq, but so far as the issue of our vote on US second resolution is concerned we will adopt the wait and see policy and take a right decision at the right time,” he said.
Rashid said unlike the international consensus on attacking Afghanistan after September 11, the world stood divided over the Iraq issue. Countries like Russia and France had taken different stand, but Pakistan had to see whether they would stick to it or no, he said.
“We will have to handle the issue sagaciously and not emotionally,” he said, adding his government would take people and Opposition into confidence before taking a decision.
Rashid said the entire Islamic world was feeling the impact of the situation in Iraq, but the position of Pakistan and Syria was the most critical. No Islamic country had taken any stand on the issue and “I have written a letter to the OIC to convene information ministers meet to discuss it,” he said.
“The government has its own limitations and wants to adopt the wait and see policy. And we will safeguard the interests of the country even if we will have to sacrifice our politics for it,” he said.
Asked why US Assistant Secretary of State for South Asia Christina Rocca, who visited Islamabad few days ago, met only Musharraf and not Prime Minister Mir Zafarullah Khan Jamali, he said both the premier and the President had good working relations.
all the policies of pakistan will be based on how much it can gain against india.
though it isnt related much with the thread underdiscussion, still another sign of friendship between Pakistan and the US.
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_5-3-2003_pg1_6
**
Bush assures India of pressure on Pakistan**
NEW DELHI: US President George W Bush assured India on Tuesday that Washington continued to press Pakistan to halt infiltration into Kashmir, a government source said. “President Bush assured him that the US continues to pressure Pakistan on infiltration,” the source said. —AFP
How many times Bush has assured India?
PT, lets rephrase it this way, how many times has the US assured Pakistan, that it would be solved according to our wishes?
Secondly, now even our ministers have started to slowly and steadily started paving the way for another retreat after 1971, by accepting the LOC as the international border. If this was what we wanted, what was the use of three wars, and losing half of our country for that dispute?
Zaavia,
No need to rephrase your words. LoC = IB---> impossible because by resolving the Kashmir issue, would hurt Arm Sales Market of Uncle Sam.
Would Americans like that scenerio to happen? I don't think so.
Oh btw, Kashmir shouldn't resolve according to what Pakistan and India wants. Future of Kashmir should be decided by the Kashmiris themselves, which UN agreed on it half century ago.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Pakistani Tiger: *
Zaavia,
No need to rephrase your words. LoC = IB---> impossible because by resolving the Kashmir issue, would hurt Arm Sales Market of Uncle Sam.
Would Americans like that scenerio to happen? I don't think so.
Oh btw, Kashmir shouldn't resolve according to what Pakistan and India wants. Future of Kashmir should be decided by the Kashmiris themselves, which UN agreed on it half century ago.
[/QUOTE]
pakistan will come around and accept loc it will take some time.
it is about water . you are laready getting the water at the expense of indian kashmir.
Outlaw, Pakistan needs to have all of its ducks in order before it can stand up and defy US. Even Turkey, which is alot different in stature than Pakistan, is reconsidering its decision. So much for gung-ho turks!Pakistan probably can produce enough grains and electricity but it can't live in seclusion. Not in this day and age. If it plans on doing so, it better have a very very good army and an endless supply of energy to sustain it self. All that topped with an economy which can sustain itself internally. In this global market, its highly unlikely. In addition, it also must have some powerful friends, a la China, who will shelter it during the time of crises. Otherwise India, US and Israel will devour Pakistan and dakaar bhi nahee lain gay. Hence the lack of options.
So my friend, all this talk of squaring off against US and will to survive are nice lip service but when those Daisy Cutters are falling, and satelite guided bombs are running towards their targets over the Pakistani Sky, it won't be long before Pakistan is whacked like Iraq was in '91. And it was supposed to be the "mother of all battles." Thats where the concept of "ummah" comes in but it was officially decimated in WWI.
Ghalib: one thing, do you really think that the US will dare attack Pakistan, knowing it has multiple nuclear warheads and delivery systems. What' good is that might really, if we cannot even say NO in the UN. Then, why are we spending billions on defence budget? Our arsenal does not even worth its weight, if we feel so vulnerable and weak.
I don't think Pakistan will be secluded in any way. You cannot impose sanctions on the nuclear power, since it breeds far greater risk of nuclear proliferation. Think about it, before you create an imaginary armageddon scenario.
Agreed with you Outlaw, if spending such a large amount of our budget still results in our bending over, by the slightest of Indian and American threats, then there is no use of keeping such a large army armed with sophisticated weapons. Billions of dollars that we are spending on our army can be utilized in a better way to help our economy, which will directly benefit our people.
**
What kind of lip service are you talking about RP- that Pakistan should clamp down on extremism and stop sending terrorists into Kashmir. Yeah, it's all hunky dory for couple of weeks, but when the reality strikes, US is the first country often to snub Pakistan on the Kashmir issue - as recently as few weeks ago.
**
I am referring to the lip in terms of the US's "official" stance, that Kashmir is a disputed area, for which bilateral negotiations are required to resolve the dispute.
**
We should say NO because we understand the grave consequence of this war and it's future negative ramifications for the entire region. So, your argument that "it's a pay-back time" does not hold any value to begin with, since we should not do this out of any love for the Iraqi regime, who you are referring as an enemy, but to stop the mayhem of war. **
Hey, I am not here forwarding some pro-US stance or advocating Pakistan be someones patsy. This is a Pakistan-Iraq isssue, atleast in terms of our UNSC vote. We should not let any slimy Iraqis or the war crazy Americans dictate what we should do. Rather it should be in terms of how our NATIONAL interest dictates. Popular opinion does not dictate national interest, as peoples affections are as fickle as the next fad. Our position must be grounded in reality-- in terms of history, geopolitics, and what is best for Pakistan.
**
It’s rather shallow, absurd and shortsighted to think like that, in my opinion. We may not succeed, but at least we should let our stance known. **
Mighty big words for someone who hasn't interacted with Iraqis or has faced the brunt of the Hussein regime. If we cry for the "Muslims of Iraq" (not withstanding their treatment towards us), who are we talking about? Certainly we're not talking about the Kurds massacred by the Regime nor are we referring to the Shiites of the South, that are persecuted, or do they not deserve our sympathies? Are they not Muslim? Our the Kuwaitis that were attacked or the Iranians that fought a decade old war with them? So WHO are your symapthies with?
Outlaw, realize that regardless of what Pakistan does/does not do, will NOT change anything in the realm of International politics. Our stance should be to support allies and punish adversaries.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Bilal_Tarar: *
iraqs stance on kashmir?!?!
Saddam decides wht iraq does....n its his stance
do you think france n germany are opposing war coz they like saddam?
its coz they dont want the Iraqi people to die.....its not about saddam...its about the innocent civilians who will die.....the sanctions have reduced iraqs population by 5%....millions have died....including kids.....but Saddam is still iving in comfort!
We should oppose war not because we are supportive of Saddam but because we do not want the killing of innocent civilians!
[/QUOTE]
Iraqi PEOPLE could care less for Pakistan & the Kashmiri people. I am repeating the same thing over and over here, but NOT once has there been a pro-Kashmiri word of support from the Iraqis boith within the country and amongst the expats. If you talk about the civilian death, what about the Kurds, Shiites, Iranians, etc that died DUE to Saddam?? Do they not deserve life?
The trouble with Pakistani people is that most are kind hearted but wayy too emotional.
**
Rajput Fury, I am against Pakistan's support to the US in the war against Iraq, not that I am a Saddam supporter, but since its a matter of principle. What I feel is that by asking Pakistani support against Iraq, US is pushing Pakistan into the corner.
**
I aqm not in support of war either. The war and the UN are becoming two VERY VERY different arenas. The US will begin a war with or without UNSC's approval, so your point about Pakistan being "pushed" into anything is moot.
**
They want to obtain their objectives in Iraq related to OIL. As far as weapons of mass destruction are concerned, Pakistan has even more dangerous weapons, and the western world sees Pakistan with more suspicion as compared to Iraq. After Iraq, its certain that US will turn towards Iran or Pakistan. **
US WILL NOT turn towards Pakistan. That is mere heresay, suspicions, unsubstantiated opinions. I have yet to come across a legitimate piece of literature projecting such claims, if I am wrong, please do enlighten me.
**
Pakistan's support to the US in the war against Iraq, will isolate us from Saudi Arabia, and other arab countries.
**
Oh please! KSA and the rest of the Arab world crumbles like a cookie in front of the US. If they even pretended to project a notion of having a spine, I would be willing to throw our lot with them in the spirit of Muslim unity. Their sad performance shows everyone is for themselves and saving their aristocratic behind.
**
By supporting a war against Iraq, morally we will have to comply when the US tells us that they fear Pakistan's nukes, and they need to be destroyed.
Considering your logic, do you think that Afghanistan with the help of India or US should pay back Pakistan once it stabilizes, since we have meddled in their matters for the past 20 years or so?
**
We have not used our Nukes nor have we been irresponsible with them. Bringing up Afghanistan is a non-sequiter as our involvement has been to preserve a friendly regime towards us, and unlike Iraq's anti-Pakistan stance (done to only please the Indians), we have DONE a lot more to help the Afghanis in terms of refugees, assistance etc. Mistakes were made in Afghanistan but in no way did we step in with a plan to harm the Afghani people nor was it done at the behest of pleasing some other country like Iraq.
**
As far as the support to the Kashmir issue is concerned, when has USA supported Pakistan's stance, although Pakistan has always remained its ally. And forget it that US will ever support us even in the future.
As far as resolution of Kashmir issue is concerned, looks like there is even a big roll back there due to American pressure. There was Sheikh Rasheed's interviews in all major Pakistani newspapers yesterday, that the Kashmiri dispute would be solved in the next 3 years, and its result might not satisfy Pakistan and India. And here's a link from an Indian newspaper.
**
I have answered the US stance point in an earlier thread. We are going in circles here. A "yes" vote by Pakistan does not mean we are attempting to please the US (although most will interpreted as such), instead a yes vote should mean that we abhor S. Huseein's regime and it has abhorred us through history. Pakistan comes first screw Iraq or the US, we decide who our friends and enemies are!
Brother PT, well stated :k: