US boosts Pakistan military ties

AcrobatMan · 03-20-2004, 08:34 AM

From BBC

"""The US Secretary of State Colin Powell says Washington will elevate its military ties with Pakistan, making it a major ally outside of Nato.

In effect, Pakistan now joins a club of 10 or so militarily most-favoured nations that include Israel, Egypt and Jordan among them. It may make it easier for Islamabad to acquire the arms.. """

These weapons would come back to America and then America would say who gave Weapons to terrorists !!!

Great ! Isnt it ?

Rono · 03-21-2004, 06:24 PM

Well, it is a nice reward for spreading around nuclear knowledge,

AcrobatMan · 03-22-2004, 05:17 AM

also ..

"""The United States government is reportedly paying Pakistan 100 million dollars a month for logistics support in the global war against terrorism. """

so that they can buy those weapons & these weapons can be used against america or resold to those who can

DrTeeth · 03-22-2004, 05:32 AM

Heh, Pakistan is probably the most dangerous 'rogue state' around at the moment. Interesting choice.

STING2 · 03-22-2004, 12:42 PM

No other country on the planet outside of the United States, has done more to catch members of Al Quada than Pakistan. Sending money to fund their operations against Al Quada is vital to saving lives around the world from terrorism. Pakistan is more heavily involved in fighting Al Quada than any single European country.

The 100 million dollars is for logistic support, not weapons. If you know of any new weapons the USA is going to sell Pakistan, please name them.

Rono · 03-22-2004, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by STING2
No other country on the planet outside of the United States, has done more to catch members of Al Quada than Pakistan. Sending money to fund their operations against Al Quada is vital to saving lives around the world from terrorism. Pakistan is more heavily involved in fighting Al Quada than any single European country.

The 100 million dollars is for logistic support, not weapons. If you know of any new weapons the USA is going to sell Pakistan, please name them.

Yep, and Pakistan is also a very democratic country,...

STING2 · 03-22-2004, 01:04 PM

More so than our Ally the Soviet Union in World War II.

Rono · 03-22-2004, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by STING2
More so than our Ally the Soviet Union in World War II.

verte76 · 03-22-2004, 01:14 PM

Pakistan scares the

out of me. They've tried to assassinate Musharraf (OK, I murdered the spelling of his name) several times and came dangerously close once. The killers would just have to be a little luckier, or the dictator a little less lucky. The place has a terrible poverty problem, which is partially the reason so many kids are in anti-American Wahhabist madrassas (schools). They are better off at these schools than they are at home in slums, etc, etc. Some of Al Qaeda's people are graduates of these schools. Before 9/11 Pakistan was one of only three countries in the world to recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan, along with Saudi Arabia. I admit I can't remember the third-was it the United Arab Emirates or Yemen? There are many Taliban supporters in Pakistan. It's dangerous to be giving this much support to a country as unstable as Pakistan. They could shoot the dictator and put in the Anti-American Wahhabist Government From Hell. It's my worst political nightmare.

STING2 · 03-22-2004, 02:41 PM

Rono,

My point was that the USA has in the past supported governments that were not democratic entirely because there was a legitamite national security reason to do so. Perhaps the biggest case was the USA's support for the Soviet Union in World War II. To this day that was the greatest supply effort in the history of the world in terms of material and money sent to another country by one of other country. Stalin's Soviet Union was just as brutal as Hitler's in many ways, but Hitler at the time was the greater threat to global security and aiding the Soviet Union was key in winning World War II.

Today, despite the many fundamental problems that Pakistan has, it is key in winning the war against Al Quada. Pakistan has detained thousands of Al Quada supporters and sent them to the USA.

Sending 100 million dollars in logistical supplies is rather small. Again, it is logistical supplies and not weapons. If you know of new USA weapons being sent to Pakistan, please list them.

deep · 03-22-2004, 06:24 PM

Today, despite the many fundamental problems that Muhajeen /Bin Laden has, they are key in winning the war against USSR.

Today, despite the many fundamental problems that Saddam Hussein has, he is key in winning the war against Ayatollah/Iranian Revolution.

STING2 · 03-22-2004, 07:41 PM

deep,

Most of the Northern Alliance who are former Muhajeen would not take kindly to you lumping them in with Bin Ladin. Its like saying that because Timothy McVay was in the US Army, the US Army are a bunch of terrorist. Thats simply rubbish.

The USA offered 1/3 of the supplies for the Muhajeen during the Soviets occupation of Afghanistan. That was indeed the right choice at the time. The Mujahadeen essentially disolved in the early 1990s after the war was over. The Northern Alliance was formed around Moosod who was the biggest leader of the Mujahdeen. Bin Ladin had Moosod murdered by suicide bombers on 9/10/2001.

The Taliban and Arabs forming the core of Al Quada did not start to enter into Afghanistan until after 1996. The Soviets left Afghanistan in 1989 and the war against the Communist Government ended in 1991. US support dried up in 1991, and most of the Mujahadeen continued with Moosod as their leader in the Northern Alliance.

As far as the USA's response to Saddam and the war with Iran, the USA was not the big backer of Saddam, the SOVIET UNION was. I can produce the weapons charts that show this if you disagree.

The USA did not send any weapon systems to Saddam's Iraq. It did send Tow Missiles to Iran though, during the war, in the arms for hostages deal.

A case can certainly be made for strong US support of Iraq during the war, but the USA did not have to as Saddam was already being flooded with Weapons from the Soviet Union as well as over 1,000 Soviet troops to help in the training of the Iraqi Military in the latest Soviet tactics.

Iranian victory in the Iran/Iraq war was not in the interest of any country.

verte76 · 03-22-2004, 09:32 PM

Sting, bin Laden moved to Pakistan in 1982. He settled in Peshawar, a fundamentalist stronghold, along with engineers and heavy equipment to build roads for the majahedeen in Afghanistan. They started work on the Khost tunnel complex in Afghanistan, deep in the mountains around the Pakistani border. The Pakistani president at the time was Zia ul Haq. He had grabbed power in 1977 and imposed both martial law and a strict interpretation of Islamic law, or Sharia, on Pakistan. Not quite as repressive as the Taliban later was, but worse, in my view, than even the Wahhabists of Saudi Arabia. He wanted a strict Islamicist state in Afghanistan to counter the influence of India on his eastern border. Thus he supported the fundamentalists in Afghanistan. One of the warlords Pakistan supported was a notorious

named Gulbaddin Jekkmatyar, the head of a faction called Hezb-e-Islami. He had been involved in heavy duty harrassment of political activists at the University of Kabul; this included the murder of a young poet. Later on these people were involved in the murder of Meena, the founder of RAWA, Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan, a feminist group. I don't like the idea of my tax dollars going to support

's like this. As evil as the Soviet Union was, we should not have supported the majahedeen. They were like a proto-Taliban, complete with a bin Laden connection dating to 1982.

STING2 · 03-22-2004, 09:37 PM

verte76,

I know Bin Ladin was there and involved in the 1980s, but anyone in the Northern Alliance well tell you Bin Ladin never represented them when they were apart of the Mujahadeen. I don't like how one persons involvement in a cause to remove Soviets from Afghanistan gets extrapolated into Bin Ladin was in charge of all Mujahadeen forces and the #1 leader of the Mujahadeen. Bin Ladin was an Arab, an outsider who tried to help push the Soviets out.

verte76 · 03-22-2004, 09:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by STING2
verte76,

I know Bin Ladin was there and involved in the 1980s, but anyone in the Northern Alliance well tell you Bin Ladin never represented them when they were apart of the Mujahadeen. I don't like how one persons involvement in a cause to remove Soviets from Afghanistan gets extrapolated into Bin Ladin was in charge of all Mujahadeen forces and the #1 leader of the Mujahadeen. Bin Ladin was an Arab, an outsider who tried to help push the Soviets out.

OK. I'm sorry, got a bit confused there. You're right, he was an outsider who came in with a bit of help. But generally the mujahadeen are not the kind of people I start fan clubs for.

STING2 · 03-22-2004, 09:50 PM

"As evil as the Soviet Union was, we should not have supported the majahedeen. They were like a proto-Taliban, complete with a bin Laden connection dating to 1982."

That is simply false and insult to everyone who served in the Northern Alliance. Majahedeen were a collection of various groups in Afghanistan that had the goal of pushing the Soviets out. Most of them were citizens of Afghanistan and not Arab's like Bin Ladin. The Northern Alliance is the chief remanent of the Majahadeen.

If your going to lump them in with Bin Ladin because he was there, you might as well lump in the Bosnian Muslims defending Sarajevo in the early 1990s with terrorist elements from the middle east that got in there and were helping the Bosnian Muslims.

STING2 · 03-22-2004, 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by verte76

OK. I'm sorry, got a bit confused there. You're right, he was an outsider who came in with a bit of help. But generally the mujahadeen are not the kind of people I start fan clubs for.

I agree I probably wouldn't start a fan club for them, but they were the only form of resistence available to the Afghan people.

anitram · 03-22-2004, 11:51 PM

Pakistan:India = PLO:Israel.

It's no different. Pakistan is a dangerous state.

STING2 · 03-23-2004, 12:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by anitram
Pakistan:India = PLO:Israel.

It's no different. Pakistan is a dangerous state.

Pakistan indeed has a lot of problems but it is not Palestine at all.

Pakistan has captured more Al Qauda terrorist than any other single country around the world except the USA. In capturing these terrorist, Pakistan has saved and uncountable number of lives from terrorism.

AcrobatMan · 03-23-2004, 03:56 AM

1) USA's best ally is not a democracy. Ironically its present President staged a COUP to come to power.

2) USA's best ally was the brain behind the creation of Taliban. Infact Taliban was created by them. Also parts of Pakistan has Taliban-like law today.

3) USA's best ally harbours terrorists. There are atleast 20 terrorists known to live FREELY that are involved in various bomb blasts/shooting killing innocent civilians . Just because they didnt kill Americans, its probably ok. Isnt it ?

4) Pakistan admitted to have leaked nuke technology to God-only-knows which-all countries.

Its ironic that most of the real culprits of 9/11 were from another staunch American Ally - Saudi Arabia - no prizes for guessing it is not a democracy too !!

03-21-2004, 06:24 PM	#2
Rono Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: the Netherlands Posts: 6,163 Local Time: 06:06 PM	Well, it is a nice reward for spreading around nuclear knowledge, __________________

03-23-2004, 03:56 AM	#20
AcrobatMan Rock n' Roll Doggie Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Song of the week "sentimental" by Porcupine Tree Posts: 3,854 Local Time: 05:06 PM	1) USA's best ally is not a democracy. Ironically its present President staged a COUP to come to power. 2) USA's best ally was the brain behind the creation of Taliban. Infact Taliban was created by them. Also parts of Pakistan has Taliban-like law today. 3) USA's best ally harbours terrorists. There are atleast 20 terrorists known to live FREELY that are involved in various bomb blasts/shooting killing innocent civilians . Just because they didnt kill Americans, its probably ok. Isnt it ? 4) Pakistan admitted to have leaked nuke technology to God-only-knows which-all countries. Its ironic that most of the real culprits of 9/11 were from another staunch American Ally - Saudi Arabia - no prizes for guessing it is not a democracy too !! __________________

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

03-20-2004, 08:34 AM	#1
AcrobatMan Rock n' Roll Doggie Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Song of the week "sentimental" by Porcupine Tree Posts: 3,854 Local Time: 05:06 PM	US boosts Pakistan military ties From BBC """The US Secretary of State Colin Powell says Washington will elevate its military ties with Pakistan, making it a major ally outside of Nato. In effect, Pakistan now joins a club of 10 or so militarily most-favoured nations that include Israel, Egypt and Jordan among them. It may make it easier for Islamabad to acquire the arms.. """ These weapons would come back to America and then America would say who gave Weapons to terrorists !!! Great ! Isnt it ? __________________

03-22-2004, 05:17 AM	#3
AcrobatMan Rock n' Roll Doggie Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Song of the week "sentimental" by Porcupine Tree Posts: 3,854 Local Time: 05:06 PM	also .. """The United States government is reportedly paying Pakistan 100 million dollars a month for logistics support in the global war against terrorism. """ so that they can buy those weapons & these weapons can be used against america or resold to those who can

03-22-2004, 05:32 AM	#4
DrTeeth Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: The Q continuum Posts: 4,770 Local Time: 06:06 PM	Heh, Pakistan is probably the most dangerous 'rogue state' around at the moment. Interesting choice.

03-22-2004, 12:42 PM	#5
STING2 Rock n' Roll Doggie FOB Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 8,876 Local Time: 05:06 PM	No other country on the planet outside of the United States, has done more to catch members of Al Quada than Pakistan. Sending money to fund their operations against Al Quada is vital to saving lives around the world from terrorism. Pakistan is more heavily involved in fighting Al Quada than any single European country. The 100 million dollars is for logistic support, not weapons. If you know of any new weapons the USA is going to sell Pakistan, please name them.

03-22-2004, 01:04 PM	#7
STING2 Rock n' Roll Doggie FOB Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 8,876 Local Time: 05:06 PM	More so than our Ally the Soviet Union in World War II.

03-22-2004, 01:14 PM	#9
verte76 Blue Crack Addict Join Date: May 2002 Location: hoping for changes Posts: 23,331 Local Time: 05:06 PM	Pakistan scares the out of me. They've tried to assassinate Musharraf (OK, I murdered the spelling of his name) several times and came dangerously close once. The killers would just have to be a little luckier, or the dictator a little less lucky. The place has a terrible poverty problem, which is partially the reason so many kids are in anti-American Wahhabist madrassas (schools). They are better off at these schools than they are at home in slums, etc, etc. Some of Al Qaeda's people are graduates of these schools. Before 9/11 Pakistan was one of only three countries in the world to recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan, along with Saudi Arabia. I admit I can't remember the third-was it the United Arab Emirates or Yemen? There are many Taliban supporters in Pakistan. It's dangerous to be giving this much support to a country as unstable as Pakistan. They could shoot the dictator and put in the Anti-American Wahhabist Government From Hell. It's my worst political nightmare.

03-22-2004, 02:41 PM	#10
STING2 Rock n' Roll Doggie FOB Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 8,876 Local Time: 05:06 PM	Rono, My point was that the USA has in the past supported governments that were not democratic entirely because there was a legitamite national security reason to do so. Perhaps the biggest case was the USA's support for the Soviet Union in World War II. To this day that was the greatest supply effort in the history of the world in terms of material and money sent to another country by one of other country. Stalin's Soviet Union was just as brutal as Hitler's in many ways, but Hitler at the time was the greater threat to global security and aiding the Soviet Union was key in winning World War II. Today, despite the many fundamental problems that Pakistan has, it is key in winning the war against Al Quada. Pakistan has detained thousands of Al Quada supporters and sent them to the USA. Sending 100 million dollars in logistical supplies is rather small. Again, it is logistical supplies and not weapons. If you know of new USA weapons being sent to Pakistan, please list them.

03-22-2004, 06:24 PM	#11
deep Blue Crack Addict Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: A far distance down. Posts: 28,600 Local Time: 09:06 AM	Today, despite the many fundamental problems that Muhajeen /Bin Laden has, they are key in winning the war against USSR. Today, despite the many fundamental problems that Saddam Hussein has, he is key in winning the war against Ayatollah/Iranian Revolution.

03-22-2004, 07:41 PM	#12
STING2 Rock n' Roll Doggie FOB Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 8,876 Local Time: 05:06 PM	deep, Most of the Northern Alliance who are former Muhajeen would not take kindly to you lumping them in with Bin Ladin. Its like saying that because Timothy McVay was in the US Army, the US Army are a bunch of terrorist. Thats simply rubbish. The USA offered 1/3 of the supplies for the Muhajeen during the Soviets occupation of Afghanistan. That was indeed the right choice at the time. The Mujahadeen essentially disolved in the early 1990s after the war was over. The Northern Alliance was formed around Moosod who was the biggest leader of the Mujahdeen. Bin Ladin had Moosod murdered by suicide bombers on 9/10/2001. The Taliban and Arabs forming the core of Al Quada did not start to enter into Afghanistan until after 1996. The Soviets left Afghanistan in 1989 and the war against the Communist Government ended in 1991. US support dried up in 1991, and most of the Mujahadeen continued with Moosod as their leader in the Northern Alliance. As far as the USA's response to Saddam and the war with Iran, the USA was not the big backer of Saddam, the SOVIET UNION was. I can produce the weapons charts that show this if you disagree. The USA did not send any weapon systems to Saddam's Iraq. It did send Tow Missiles to Iran though, during the war, in the arms for hostages deal. A case can certainly be made for strong US support of Iraq during the war, but the USA did not have to as Saddam was already being flooded with Weapons from the Soviet Union as well as over 1,000 Soviet troops to help in the training of the Iraqi Military in the latest Soviet tactics. Iranian victory in the Iran/Iraq war was not in the interest of any country.

03-22-2004, 09:32 PM	#13
verte76 Blue Crack Addict Join Date: May 2002 Location: hoping for changes Posts: 23,331 Local Time: 05:06 PM	Sting, bin Laden moved to Pakistan in 1982. He settled in Peshawar, a fundamentalist stronghold, along with engineers and heavy equipment to build roads for the majahedeen in Afghanistan. They started work on the Khost tunnel complex in Afghanistan, deep in the mountains around the Pakistani border. The Pakistani president at the time was Zia ul Haq. He had grabbed power in 1977 and imposed both martial law and a strict interpretation of Islamic law, or Sharia, on Pakistan. Not quite as repressive as the Taliban later was, but worse, in my view, than even the Wahhabists of Saudi Arabia. He wanted a strict Islamicist state in Afghanistan to counter the influence of India on his eastern border. Thus he supported the fundamentalists in Afghanistan. One of the warlords Pakistan supported was a notorious named Gulbaddin Jekkmatyar, the head of a faction called Hezb-e-Islami. He had been involved in heavy duty harrassment of political activists at the University of Kabul; this included the murder of a young poet. Later on these people were involved in the murder of Meena, the founder of RAWA, Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan, a feminist group. I don't like the idea of my tax dollars going to support 's like this. As evil as the Soviet Union was, we should not have supported the majahedeen. They were like a proto-Taliban, complete with a bin Laden connection dating to 1982.

03-22-2004, 09:37 PM	#14
STING2 Rock n' Roll Doggie FOB Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 8,876 Local Time: 05:06 PM	verte76, I know Bin Ladin was there and involved in the 1980s, but anyone in the Northern Alliance well tell you Bin Ladin never represented them when they were apart of the Mujahadeen. I don't like how one persons involvement in a cause to remove Soviets from Afghanistan gets extrapolated into Bin Ladin was in charge of all Mujahadeen forces and the #1 leader of the Mujahadeen. Bin Ladin was an Arab, an outsider who tried to help push the Soviets out.

03-22-2004, 09:50 PM	#16
STING2 Rock n' Roll Doggie FOB Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 8,876 Local Time: 05:06 PM	"As evil as the Soviet Union was, we should not have supported the majahedeen. They were like a proto-Taliban, complete with a bin Laden connection dating to 1982." That is simply false and insult to everyone who served in the Northern Alliance. Majahedeen were a collection of various groups in Afghanistan that had the goal of pushing the Soviets out. Most of them were citizens of Afghanistan and not Arab's like Bin Ladin. The Northern Alliance is the chief remanent of the Majahadeen. If your going to lump them in with Bin Ladin because he was there, you might as well lump in the Bosnian Muslims defending Sarajevo in the early 1990s with terrorist elements from the middle east that got in there and were helping the Bosnian Muslims.

03-22-2004, 11:51 PM	#18
anitram Blue Crack Addict Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: NY Posts: 18,790 Local Time: 12:06 PM	Pakistan:India = PLO:Israel. It's no different. Pakistan is a dangerous state.