what will happen to USA-Pakistan Relationship if Kerry Wins the Election

Society Pakistan & World Affairs
21

You guys make things way too easy. Let’s pop your little conspiratorial bubble right now.

How about a ** MAY 3, 2001 ** release titled ** U.S. Begins Closing Summary in Embassy Bombing Trial **

Read it and weep skhan.

** New York, May 3, 2001 **-- After more than two and a half years of investigations and preparation for trial, U.S. government prosecutors May 1 began their closing argument in the case against four men accused of conspiring to kill Americans and of bombing two U.S. embassies in East Africa almost simultaneously.

In a summary statement that is expected to take more than two days, assistant U.S. prosecutor Kenneth Karas started carefully threading together into a chronological history some of the thousands of pieces evidence that have been presented to the jury since the trial began on February 5. He decoded the letters and taped conversations of the defendants that reveal secret plans, orders for fake passports, and instructions for mayhem.

Walking back and forth in front of the jury box ** showing photographs of various al Qaeda members mentioned during the trial **, Karas demonstrated how the same story emerged in the testimony and evidence from different sources, “closing the circle,” he said, on the four defendants.

http://usembassy.state.gov/islamabad/wwwh01050302.html

I suppose you’ll now ask for just TWO references to Al Qaeda before September 11. 2001. :slight_smile:

22

The word Al Qaeda has been around since 1998. Keep living in a dream world.

23

“there is no such thing as an elite terrorist organization Al Qaeda.”

:rolleyes:

There is no Santa Clause, Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, but Al Qaeda is far too real. “Show me the Proof” went out of fashion some time ago, try to keep up.

24

OG,

It's all a Jewish/Bania conspiracy and the Yanks are in it too.

9/11 was done by Jews to frame innocent arab terr. oops mujahideen.

It's all a frikkin conspiracy, I tell ya :)

25

Thanks for all the comments and i agree with most of them. i have been watching Kerry throughout his election campaign and he is definitely a president material with more depth as well good understanding of foreign policy... Kerry’s speech in-front of the members of foreign policy institute was thoughtful and it indicted to me that he definitely possesses the ability to be philosophical and realistic at the same time when it comes to foreign policy issues. Whereas Bush is pretty one dimensional…GO GET THEM AND SMOKE THEM…..So if I exclude USA-Pakistan relationship card, then I will definitely go for Kerry but being a Pakistani I cannot over look that particular aspect. In addition, all of us seem to agree that Kerry could be dodgy for Pakistan.

So here is dilemma for Pakistanis in particular…who should we support…I really dislike Bush but I have a very strong feeling that his time period would bring an easy ride to Pakistan though rest of the Muslim world ( Syria, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya) would be in trouble. As a matter of fact, if u let me say that, the more trouble these countries would face by USA, the more beneficial would it be for Pakistan because USA would need Pakistan more and more given Pakistan’s strategic location, nuclear status, very well-trained army, being one of the largest Muslim country and our total support of war on terror …………Am I selfish….may be I am and I really feel bad for saying what I just said above but for me Pakistan becomes first than anything else……but that is how I think…..may be I am terribly wrong….But seriously it is a interesting foreign policy dilemma for Pakistan….

Some of you have raised the issue of American hypocrisy. I think all of us should understand and realize that America is a super power and arguably, one of the strongest super power human kind has ever seen. And I do not recall one single super power (Muslim Empire, Ottomans, Roman, Persians, Greeks) that used to make decision purely based on moral grounds. So I think we should stop blaming USA for being selfish, stupid and hypocrite. Super powers makes their decisions based on their strategic benefits and not based on moral grounds and they have enough power to implement their agenda. If USA think-tank thinks that supporting Israel is in its long-term benefit, then USA will support Israel no matter what. IF USA thought that abandoning afghan mujahadeen after Russian war was the best decision at that time, then USA would simply go for it. USA will not wait for any one’s dictation. All I am saying that large rivers always flow by their own defined flow path and smaller streams simply merge into them. This is nature’s rule and there is no exception to it. If we want things by our own way, then we better be as strong as UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Then Americans will listen to us automatically and we don t have to beg for it.

26

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Kaleem: *
Semi, who gave him the right to dictate to pakistan what is wrong and what is right? Did Pakistan ask for his opinion? Spade a spade, you say where is his rebuke about India. You have to understand, if India has a nuclear weapon, Pakistan has to have it. No questions asked. That is how it is. Is US candidates really going to teach the world how to speak the truth? sounds pretty holow if you ask me....and pelase do not insult your own intelligence by asking me the reasons.

[/QUOTE]
You are comparing the rights and responsibilities of a 3rd world country with an unstable dictator ruling over a people with a large number of religous extremists to the preeminent superpower of the past century and the most stable and enduring democratic government in the world. Pakistan was a twinkle in Jinnah's eye by the time the US had already fought and won 2 world wars to protect the world from facism and tyranny. Along with being the most powerful nation in the history of the world comes rights and responsibilities such as keeping an eye on less stable governments with mass destruction capabilities. There is no doubt that supplying nuclear technology to terrorist states is wrong. Harboring terrorists is wrong. Playing a macho game of one-upmanship with a nuclear powered neighbor is wrong. No opinions by Kerry are necessary to know these things are wrong. His rebuke to India is missing because 1)They are a democracy with a more stable government and not likely to be taken over by extremists, 2)They aren't harboring al-Qaeda, and 3)They haven't provided nuclear technology to terrorist states.

27

Seminole, that may be your best post ever! :D

Talwar, somehow I beleive I have heard that stuff before.... Yawn....

28

[QUOTE]
1)They are a democracy with a more stable government and not likely to be taken over by extremists, 2)They aren't harboring al-Qaeda, and 3)They haven't provided nuclear technology to terrorist states.
[/QUOTE]

Democratic stable governemnt and not likely tobe taken over by extremists...huh? have you forgotten about Gujrat already? How many Muslims were burnt alive ....do we need to revisit that?
Is Al-Qaeda only terrorist organization known in the world. What about IRA?
Of course they have not, neither did Pakistan. Now that you brought it up, why have we not destroyed little kim yet? Why is that? Is he not a threat anymore? H eadmits that he has nuclear weapons you know, just thought I will remind you.
Your definition of the strongest nation in the history of the world is debatable, I think Romans were pretty powerful in their time. Lets not waste our time arguing who should have nuclear weapons and who should not. I look at it this way, if US has it, any other country that has the capability should have it as well. There is no need for US to play older brother or "responsible" as you put, we muslims are getting a bit tired and leary of this old brother watching over us. It only brings death and destruction to our lands, children and infrastructure.

29

What happened at Gurat, while a tragedy, does not change the fact that India has a stable, democratic government that is unlikely to be taken over by extremists. No need to revisit that or bring it up as it is irrevelant.

IRA is not threatening peace and stability around the world. The terrorists hiding in Pakistan are.

There would be no need to destroy lil' Kim if Pakistan had not provided the technology.

Just as their are laws regulating gun permits, they are just as many valid reasons to prevent certain countries from having nukes. Sorry, not all countrires are equal here. This isn't some utopian socailst world we live in.

If you are tired of big brother watching over you, grow up and you wouldn't need the supervision.

30

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Kaleem: *

I look at it this way, if US has it, any other country that has the capability should have it as well. There is no need for US to play older brother or "responsible" as you put, we muslims are getting a bit tired and leary of this old brother watching over us. It only brings death and destruction to our lands, children and infrastructure.
[/QUOTE]

and how u gonna stop big brother from "taking care of you".....u see that is exactly I am trying to point out..........if USA got the nuclear weapons that does not mean it will allow every one to have it.....it is not about morals...it is not about logic....it is not about character....it is all about power....or in an american way, it is all about WHO IS THE DADDY......when mulsims were strong, they never needed anyone's prmission to go inavade more areas to spread islam......they simply used to send their army...all i am trying to say that power does not listen to logic and we should not be upset with USA for being reckless.....we should foucs on our own economic, soail, educational and institutional development.....and the way al qaida is protesting USA supermacy is also not the right way....it is a short term solution to a long term problem.......

31

[QUOTE]
go inavade more areas to spread islam......they simply used to send their army...
[/QUOTE]

I dont know which history books you have been reading up , but I am not sure that is how Islam was spread...that is a topic for another thread. Lets get back to the topic, Semi, how do you define extremists? Gujrat govt not taking action aginst the responsible parties for frying those mulsim soul is pretty extremist to me. It might not look the same to you becasue no american blodd was spilled. I undertsand, that is the only way you measure wins and losses.
How do you know that terrorists are hiding in pakistan? Are you asking me to trust the news coming out of bush administration? Do you expect that they have any credibility left after disaster with Iraq?Even if the terrorists are hiding in Pakistan, that does not mean that they can take over nuclear program any time. Do not underestiamte Pakistan's army, they know how to defend their homeland and infrastructure.

[QUOTE]
There would be no need to destroy lil' Kim if Pakistan had not provided the technology.
[/QUOTE]

Again, who says that Pakistan provided the technology....

I agree with you it is not utopian world that is why every nation has the right to pursue what they fit. If US thought that it was such a big problem, they should have done something about it, better yet leash their poodle called Israel....BTW it is alraedy in the hands of extremists(Sharon..famous for architecting killing of hundreds of Palestanina civilians) ...go ahead deny it.

32

“Again, who says that Pakistan provided the technology…”

Man, you need to stop while you are ahead… Pakistan says it provided it. Your military runs the nuclear program right? Or did Khan shoplift the stuff? Would Kerry have looked the other way at this whole mess?

"The assessment is based in part on Pakistan’s accounts of its interrogations of Abdul Qadeer Khan, the man credited with developing Pakistan’s nuclear bomb, who was pardoned by President Pervez Musharraf in January.

The report concluded that North Korea probably received a package very similar to the kind the Khan network sold to Libya for more than 60 million dollars, including nuclear fuel, centrifuges and one or more warhead designs, The Times reported.

A senior American official described it as “the complete package,” from raw uranium hexafluoride to the centrifuges to enrich it into nuclear fuel, all of which could be more easily hidden from weapons inspectors than were North Korea’s older facilities that were designed to produce plutonium bombs, the paper pointed out.

In the report, Khan’s transactions with North Korea are traced to the early 1990’s, when Benazir Bhutto was the Pakistani prime minister, and the clandestine relationship between the two countries is portrayed as rapidly accelerating between 1998 and 2002, The Times said.

At the time, North Korea was desperate to come up with an alternative way to build a nuclear bomb because its main plutonium facilities were “frozen” under an agreement struck with the Clinton administration in 1994. "

33

Q: Who says that Pakistan provided the technology? – Kaleem

A: Uh…well…Pakistan says so. --Ohioguy

:smack: :rotfl"

Another Kaleemism debunked.

34

^^ I forgot ohio guy and spacewar.com are the supreme authority on this. I had forgotten all about it.

Another voice silenced.:2guns: :nono3:

35

No OG, khan came to Ohio to pick it up. Man you tell me ...when you guys dont have answers regarding legit questions you come up with lame excuses. I dont blame you that is what you are taught, diversion, smoke and mirror...that is all you do. You can never come up with solid answers regarding anything.....for example, why is israel still allowed to break international law and not attacked by US?

36

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Kaleem: *

Democratic stable governemnt and not likely tobe taken over by extremists...huh? have you forgotten about Gujrat already? How many Muslims were burnt alive ....do we need to revisit that?
[/quote]

So? Your army killed a million in East Pakistan. Don't bring irrelevant arguments.

Nations don't give a $hit about what happens inside other nations. Pakistani jihadi groups proudly advertise the fact that they help Al Qaida and do jihad in Bosnia, Chechnya, Xinjiang, Indonesia, Phillippines etc.

Heck your former ISI chief Javed Nasir publicly admitted that he trained jihadis from Bosnia and Chechnya.

[quote]
Is Al-Qaeda only terrorist organization known in the world. What about IRA?
[/quote]

IRA fights in Ireland. They don't go to Turkey and Kenya to kill Kafirs ;)

Face it, Pakistani jihadi groups are a threat to the whole world. They themselves admit that they will go anywhere to kill Kafirs. So don't cry foul when other nations defend themselves.

Pakistan has said that its army has tight control over nukes. Then it says, oops control was not tight and AQKhan put bums in his plastic bag and sold to Ummah.

Bush is believing it because he messed up Iraq and wants Osama. How long is that going to last?

37

^^as longa s it puts micrhi up your arse. :D

38

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Kaleem: *
No OG, khan came to Ohio to pick it up. Man you tell me ...when you guys dont have answers regarding legit questions you come up with lame excuses. I dont blame you that is what you are taught, diversion, smoke and mirror...that is all you do. You can never come up with solid answers regarding anything.....for example, why is israel still allowed to break international law and not attacked by US?
[/QUOTE]
Now this is rich. If OG was taught to divert with smoke and mirrors, you were the professor. In this thread alone you are diverting with posts about NK, India and Israel. Open a thread regarding these topics if you please. This thread is about Kerry and his policies-to-be regarding US relationship with Pakistan.

39

:hehe: nice one lads yay amreekis!

40

[QUOTE]
So? Your army killed a million in East Pakistan. Don't bring irrelevant arguments.
[/QUOTE]

Really, they did. Just because you do not have answer for burning the muslims do not bring your lame excuses here.

[QUOTE]
Nations don't give a $hit about what happens inside other nations.
[/QUOTE]

Really, is that what india believs about Sindh?

[QUOTE]
Pakistani jihadi groups proudly advertise the fact that they help Al Qaida and do jihad in Bosnia, Chechnya, Xinjiang, Indonesia, Phillippines etc.
[/QUOTE]

They did. I must have missed that.

[QUOTE]
Heck your former ISI chief Javed Nasir publicly admitted that he trained jihadis from Bosnia and Chechnya.
[/QUOTE]

Ok, so what is your point. If it is ok for US to train and provide weapons to Osama and make him what he is now, why cannot other nations follow suit. Dont act so innocent, your intelligence agency is no angel either

[QUOTE]
IRA fights in Ireland. They don't go to Turkey and Kenya to kill Kafirs
[/QUOTE]

Check again. They have killed plenty of people in England. Take that talwar out of your hole, because its cutting all the way up to your brain.

[QUOTE]
Face it, Pakistani jihadi groups are a threat to the whole world. They themselves admit that they will go anywhere to kill Kafirs. So don't cry foul when other nations defend themselves.
[/QUOTE]

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

[QUOTE]
Pakistan has said that its army has tight control over nukes. Then it says, oops control was not tight and AQKhan put bums in his plastic bag and sold to Ummah.
[/QUOTE]

I am not sure what "bums" are?

[QUOTE]
Bush is believing it because he messed up Iraq and wants Osama. How long is that going to last?
[/QUOTE]

This I already replied to.