What do you ppl think? Will pakistan remain an ally or we can expect a cold shoulder from Democratic president and more inclination towards india.
Historically, the Democrats have always had a favorable policy towards India and not so favorable for Pak. But I believe that Pak will remain a key ally in the region because of "war on terrorism". I dont expect the foreign policy to change that dramatically if Kerry gets elected in November.
^^ But i suspect a major shift in 'war on terrorism' campaign, so wont that will leave Pakistan in no man's land??
Though Democrats have been historically pro-India in the past, I think India is worried about John Kerry. One of the issue Kerry is fighting for outsourcing of while collar jobs outside US and more than 90% of the white collar jobs are going to India, he may take a Anti-India stand.
India is furious with Kerry for taking double standards as far as outsourcing is concerned. America is always preaching the world about "Free Trade and opening the economy for American goods".
Apne Bhi Kerry jis waqt State gee prosecutor thenaaa.
he played a role in investigating BCCI. So is kuch achaa
expect nahee kia jasakta.Yeh khani 1980’s ke hee.
As for India, Bharat koo ashlaa tu mil hee rahaa hee.
every week I see a Bhartii Naaris on Business week(cover).
Apna Bhi Kerry ke webiste per articles parheee.
"holding Oliver North accountable and exposing the fraud and abuse at the heart of the BCCI scandal; "
baahiaa, whether Bushwaaa wins or ya apna Johnny Babooo.Wese Nader Green bhee race mee hee.
Pak se ne tu insee baanaa ker heee rukhneee heee . No choice.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by 5Abi: *
Historically, the Democrats have always had a favorable policy towards India and not so favorable for Pak. But I believe that Pak will remain a key ally in the region because of "war on terrorism". I dont expect the foreign policy to change that dramatically if Kerry gets elected in November.
[/QUOTE]
I fully agree.
Contrary to people who think Pakistan has become a "stooge" of the US, in the last few years Pakistan has actually become a crucial lynchpin to America's entire regional policy i.e. in Central and West Asia. The American's desperately want to exploit the energy resources of Central Asia, to be less dependent on the Middle East and they can only really come through us to achieve that. Without us they cannot achieve any of this, hence even if Kerry becomes President that will not change at all.
I don't think history matters at this point. Whether Bush wins or Kerry wins, I don't think it matters. No American cares what happens to anyother country. All American leaders have had a 'as needed' policy towards all 3rd world countries. Europe is the only continent that Americans really care about - (Australia too but the Aussies are in a different plane). The only reason Bush has lost some popularity recently is because he couldn't bring the Europeans along. Kerry or Bush, will make amends next term.
It is unfortunate but true that Asians don't know how to win until an American comes around to tell you that you can win.
Dhum Maro Dhum, do you have the numbers for the amount of Aid U.S. freely gives to countries each year, post them if you do, thanks.
Doesn’t look good :rolleyes:
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_8-3-2004_pg1_9
Kerry worried about Pakistan’s proliferation conduct
By Khalid Hasan
WASHINGTON: Democratic presidential front-runner Senator John Kerry, if elected, will move decisively on the issue of nuclear proliferation, no less than on the question of terrorism.
Going by what he has said on record on these two subjects so far, there is little reason to assume that he would be “more understanding” of Pakistan’s “compulsions” as some people argue.
**Sen Kerry said during a debate on National Public Radio in January that Pakistan had “misled the United States and the world with respect to its proliferation responsibilities for years” and he was “convinced we can be tougher with Pakistan.”
In the same programme he said when asked about terrorism, “We should have taken the initiative long ago, recognising the Islamic realities in Pakistan to have worked with India :rolleyes: to create a nuclear oversight capacity so that if there were an assassination or there were an overthrow, we know that the nuclear weapons can’t fall in the hands of terrorists.
Sen. Kerry’s belief that in any overview of Pakistan’s proliferation behaviour, India should be co-opted would be totally unacceptable to Pakistan or the people of Pakistan, a point the Senator does not appear to be sensitive to.**
On another occasion during the campaign, Sen Kerry said, “There have been two attempts on the life of President Musharraf.
The spectre of an Islamic radical state with nuclear weapons is unacceptable for the world, and that is what is at risk in Pakistan today.” Pakistan, he repeated, had “frankly, misled the United States and the world” about its proliferation responsibilities for a long time.
He recalled, “I remember meeting in Washington with President Zia and he lied to my face about what they were doing with respect to nuclear weapons. And that’s when we put sanctions in place on Pakistan as a consequence.”
Sen. Kerry believes that Osama bin Laden is somewhere in the border areas between Pakistan and Afghanistan, asserting, “We know he’s up there. We have not pushed hard enough. And I think there are combinations of initiatives we could take with India that would also help us resolve the tensions in that area.”
This guy is a joker! Who’s giving him Foreign Policy advice? And to think that he is a Senator. Only in America can someone like this who cannot tell Karachi from Kathmandu become a leader. :nook:
FYI, Bush did not know the name of Pakistan's leader in 2000.
Dems are generally better in the area of civil liberties compared to Reps. So for those Pakistanis who are in US, Dems are generally considered better.
Having said that, those who think Reps are good for Pakistan, should remember that they have no love lost for Pak either. Its just that Afghanistan/Osama issue has made Pak valuable, for the time being. The day the issue is no longer relevant, Reps will most likely also turn their backs. There are no permanent friendships, just permanent interests.
Dems policies towards outsourcing and global economy are interesting.
^ agreed but republicans have traditionally had better working relationships with Pakistani leaders. Regan, Nixon, Eisenhower..even though Dubya didn't know Musharrafs name in the 2000 elections he praised him! CLinton on the other hand dropped in and lectured the Pakistani people...
Not that I like Dubya and the neo cons, but facts are facts.
Zakk,
Nixon I can understand [Did you get to read the declassified documents? I was surprised at Kissinger's reaction to 71 war] but Eisenhower?
I dont think Kerry's words would metarialize that much regarding pakistan's nuclear issue. Its his General behavior that would count.
Second thing, yes i agree that republicans have been slight inclined towards pakistan, whereas democrats are not that much inclined.
Personally, Bush is irritatingly boring and hearing him is a tough and demanding task.
In my view, and this is just a personal gut feeling, Dems historically were harsher on Pak because they were heavily funded by and are very close to Indian lobbies. This continues to be the case. And this is why I see Dems current stance on outsourcing very interesting. Their priorities certainly lie in their own electorate, and we need to see how the "Keep the Jobs in America" mantra holds true when the campaign contributions start rolling in and back room deals are being stuck.
Though, if Pak and India can some how repair their own relationship, which they are in the process of doing right now, then US attitudes towards Pak will not be so tainted by their friendship with Indian. That will be a huge paradigm shift, and Pak will then be evaluated on her own value (war on terror etc) or missteps (e.g. nuclear proliferation etc). It will be dicey but thats how it should be, in the first place.
Ahmadjee: Yup I do have the book! Great stuff, quite funny in some parts. And yeah Eisenhower, Pakistan's joining SEATO and CENTO happened during his administration. So the initial links between Pakistans Military and the US started during that period, they also started using Peshawar as a base for U2 flights.
Despite the facts I'd still tell Pakistani-Americans to vote against dubya ;)
Guys please excuse my ignorance, but why Bush is called "Dubya". What does it mean?
Isnt John Kerry originally Jewish, from Austria later converted to Roman Catholicism. He is from a very high class family. That’s why he’s called “Boston Brahmin”.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by K-2: *
Guys please excuse my ignorance, but why Bush is called "Dubya". What does it mean?
[/QUOTE]
In Texan drawl ... "W" is pronounced as "dubiya" and since the father is the 'original' George Bush, so the son is known as "W" or "Dubiya" just to distinguish.