The Official Pakistan Politics thread

[G.I.Joe]

As for GI Joe, this was never Pakistan's war. The US is using our bases, they have caused billions in damage to our roads for the transportation of their supply's using heavy trucks. And we allow them to supply their soldiers in Afghanistan. The compensation that they are giving us whilst meagre, is paying for all these things. So why should they expect us to do more, if they don't want to pay for it. Their war has also caused a negative effect to our economy and Pakistan has lost thousands of civilian and military lives.

Staying in Afghanistan is also an ideal solution for the US. They can keep an eye on Russia, China, India and Pak.

I thought you guys believed in fighting terror? Nice to see you've suddenly developed a 'conscience' now that the 'compensation' is starting to dry up. Very convenient. And please spare everyone the claptrap about the Taliban fighting for their country. They're fighting for control of a people, which is an entirely different and sinister concept.

 

[Fusion]

Why do you care about the future of Pakistan anyway?

Really? So if I don't support Saint Imran, I don't really care about the future of Pakistan? I'm disappointed Agent, I expect better from you.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

I thought you guys believed in fighting terror? Nice to see you've suddenly developed a 'conscience' now that the 'compensation' is starting to dry up. Very convenient. And please spare everyone the claptrap about the Taliban fighting for their country. They're fighting for control of a people, which is an entirely different and sinister concept.

What utter rubbish.

I have always had a conscience. My concern has always been for the safety and well being of Pak. I have always been against aid because it makes us subservient to the US and it never goes to the people. However business is business and nothing is free, so if the US wants to use our roads and bases then they should pay up. And we do believe in fighting terror. I have always believed in fighting TTP, which should be eradicated but Afghan Taliban aren't a concern to us or any other country. They only a concern to the US military and that isn't Pakistan nor anyone else's problem.

Afghan Talibs are fighting fir their land and so would anyone else if a foreigner invaded. By the way the US fully supported them before 9/11

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Sorry to have disappointed you Fusion but my question was in no way in relation to Imran, nor was it meant to cause offence. I was just curious to know of your intentions regarding Pak. You want Pak to move away from terrorists and so do I, but you also want it to be dependent on the US which by the way won't last as a super power for a very long time. So why don't you want Pak to work towards being self dependent which means to me that you aren't overly concerned.

 

[G.I.Joe]

What utter rubbish.

I have always had a conscience. My concern has always been for the safety and well being of Pak. I have always been against aid because it makes us subservient to the US and it never goes to the people. However business is business and nothing is free, so if the US wants to use our roads and bases then they should pay up. And we do believe in fighting terror. I have always believed in fighting TTP, which should be eradicated but Afghan Taliban aren't a concern to us or any other country. They only a concern to the US military and that isn't Pakistan nor anyone else's problem.

Afghan Talibs are fighting fir their land and so would anyone else if a foreigner invaded. By the way the US fully supported them before 9/11

I meant the conscience of the country. Thought it was perfectly clear.

The Taliban is everybody's concern. They are everybody's problem. The fact that there were only three countries on the entire planet that recognised their regime should have been an immediate clue. They're fighting for control so they can once again subjugate an entire people as they attempted earlier.

 

[Cevno]

I am not sure how the Taliban is fighting for their land so to speak. It was never their land and they occupied the whole country not through the will of the people but forceful means and their intention has been clear from the start as to what their long term objective in terms of the World is.

 

[smalishah84]

They're fighting for control of a people, which is an entirely different and sinister concept.

Interesting. That's exactly what the US is doing in Iraq and Afghanistan. That's what India is doing in Kashmir. What is it that the Taliban are doing different?

 

[Fusion]

Sorry to have disappointed you Fusion but my question was in no way in relation to Imran, nor was it meant to cause offence. I was just curious to know of your intentions regarding Pak. You want Pak to move away from terrorists and so do I, but you also want it to be dependent on the US which by the way won't last as a super power for a very long time. So why don't you want Pak to work towards being self dependent which means to me that you aren't overly concerned.

We obviously have different ideas about Pak’s future. Its rather dismissive to state that I think Pakistan should be “dependent” on the US, and hence I’m not concerned about its future. I have never stated that Pakistan should be dependent on the US. In fact, US/Pakistan relationship is not even the primary issue facing Pakistan atm. It’s the threat of extremism and that threat is an existential one. Pakistan shouldn’t need the US, or anyone else, to tell her that. It’s very apparent! I want to forcefully deal with the terrorists – whether those terrorists are Afghans/Pashtuns/Mohajirs/Punjabis or what have you. They need to be eradicated. I believe that having “peace deals” with them and trying to appease them is not going to work. They are not interested in peace, they are interested in imposing their will and twisted ideology on the whole of Pakistan and Afghanistan.

As far as Pakistan becoming independent – that’s a great goal to have. Who would be against that? But just saying that is not going to make it so. Talking about “vast resources” in Pakistan is not going to magically improve the country’s GDP. I would love for Pakistan to not rely on foreign aid. The painful reality is, however, that Pakistan’s poor are dependent on it. Already, the decision of Punjab’s government to reject foreign aid is hurting the poor. It’s easy for rich politicians to play to the gallery and talk about rejecting foreign aid while living comfortably in their villas. It’s another matter for the poor that rely on that aid to survive. Anyway, this is just one example where I believe Imran is being naïve.

 

[smalishah84]

We obviously have different ideas about Pak’s future. .

Indeed.

Rather than once again having a lengthy page after page debate with you without being able to convince you I think the above statement suffices.

It is obvious we view the world very differently

 

[Cevno]

Interesting. That's exactly what the US is doing in Iraq and Afghanistan. That's what India is doing in Kashmir. What is it that the Taliban are doing different?

Don't know how any of that is equitable tbh.

There is a difference between democratic state actors and non state actors to start with. Secondly there is a difference between those affecting global peace and those not.

Now coming to specifics Kashmir is a lot more complex issue which would probably require it's own thread and though i am no fan of much of both India and Pakistan's actions in there in the past, that is a completely different issue. As for Iraq and Afghanistan again, especially with respect to Iraq, i am no fan of US action which has been ridiculous on many levels but again they are not looking to stay there for ever and is not really equitable.

And even if say in a hypothetical world it was equitable somehow, don't see how it still justifies what they have been upto for the past many many years in context to their country and the consequences on the whole world. The Haqqani network pretty much still have a similar agenda.

 

[smalishah84]

The Taliban view aside even if I were to side with you on the Taliban issue there is this small matter of the current politicians which are destroying the country completely. It might be that Imran might do more damage than these guys but he will have to try really hard.

Here is official cables from wikileaks

"But what about a prime minister who tells the American ambassador he will go through the motions of protesting in parliament about American drone attacks on his country, and then promptly ignore the matter? What about a military head in a democracy who tells the ambassador he is weighing the pros and cons of replacing the elected president except for the fact that he dislikes the leader of the opposition, who would probably win another election, even more than he dislikes the president?

What about a president who finds it necessary to show documentary evidence to the American ambassador that his assassinated wife had designated him as her successor and now plans for the country to be handed over to his sister in the event of his own assassination? Was his party even aware of this? Silly question! What about an American ambassador who has the temerity to insist the illegally removed chief justice of the Supreme Court will not be restored, to accuse the Lahore High Court of being anti-American, to recommend that the human rights violations of the Pakistan army be hushed up and to extract a commitment from the incoming president to grant immunity to the outgoing dictator who tore up the constitution and was suspected of being directly or indirectly responsible for the assassination of the president’s wife?"

Wikileaks and Imran Khan - Ashraf Jehangir Qazi

 

[smalishah84]

Don't know how any of that is equitable tbh.

There is a difference between democratic state actors and non state actors to start with. Secondly there is a difference between those affecting global peace and those not.

Now coming to specifics Kashmir is a lot more complex issue which would probably require it's own thread and though i am no fan of much of both India and Pakistan's actions in there in the past, that is a completely different issue. As for Iraq and Afghanistan again, especially with respect to Iraq, i am no fan of US action which has been ridiculous on many levels but again they are not looking to stay there for ever and is not really equitable.

And even if say in a hypothetical world it was equitable somehow, don't see how it still justifies what they have been upto for the past many many years in context to their country and the consequences on the whole world. The Haqqani network pretty much still have a similar agenda.

Not looking to stay in Iraq forever? I mean establishing a puppet govt that caters to every will of the US is the same thing. Where is the sovereignty?

After the withdrawal of the Soviet Union the US walked away from the region. The world let Afghanistan bleed. Of course there was complete political chaos. The vast majority of the population was pashtun and so were Taliban. Under the given circumstances how was anyone supposed to come to power?

 

[Cevno]

Not looking to stay in Iraq forever? I mean establishing a puppet govt that caters to every will of the US is the same thing. Where is the sovereignty?

It is a elected government nevertheless.
You could say the elections were held in turmoil, but as long as democracy is there it will benefit Iraq in the long run when it gets strengthened and remains free and fair. USA would leave after a while.

The same allegations were levelled wrt to the Arab Spring and the western support towards to it. But look at Egypt. Mubarak was a dictator who the west had invested a lot in and was seen to be pro west, but when the public turned on him, it was replaced with a Anti - west regime and after elections now probably the same will be the case.
The West though realised this and then fell in line to support the demand for democracy, rather than support the region/tribe etc.. Mubarak represented and claim he was fighting for his land etc...

In short term it may cause more harm than benefit, but need to take a long term view on this and work on what will benefit the region on the long term, rather than lose this opportunity with bickering.

After the withdrawal of the Soviet Union the US walked away from the region. The world let Afghanistan bleed. Of course there was complete political chaos. The vast majority of the population was pashtun and so were Taliban. Under the given circumstances how was anyone supposed to come to power?

I agree with this, but the whole of Pashtun's don't support the Taliban necessarily, just because they are Pashtuns.

Also the USA's dealing with Taliban and even the Al - Qaeda in the past has been what has come back to bite them now, but don't know what that has to do with a position being correct or not right now being taken by a different adminstration.
Both Pakistan and USA to a large extent have suffered due to consequences of what it has done in the past, but rather than blaming each other for that it is better to look forward and not let the same happen again.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Interesting. That's exactly what the US is doing in Iraq and Afghanistan. That's what India is doing in Kashmir.

Nice try. Won't bite. Let us know the next time you guys hold a UN observed election in Occupied Kashmir.

What is it that the Taliban are doing different?

Lets see, subjugate the female population into staying at home. Prevent girls from being schooled. Ban all conventional forms of entertainment and the arts. Hold absolutely no elections. Appoint only Pashtuns at governance levels in non-Pashtun areas, so that they were resented as an occupying force.

But nah, they're great blokes. They're misunderstood so much that there were only three wise nations on the face of the planet that deigned to recognize their authority to govern the land they occupied.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Afghanistan was no ones business other than the Afghanis. it's the US that made it their business which is the problem. The Taliban as the government offered Bin Ladin to the US. You have to understand Pushtoons to understand the Taliban. They are a hard people and have hard customs. The way they live is alien to us because it is backwards and difficult to imagine for us, however that is how they are and how they have lived. But they aren't a threat to anyone outside their own country and have no global agenda to take over the world or reign destruction. If you believe that then you are mistaking the Taliban with Muslim extremists like Al Qaida. After the soviets left and up to 9/11 then Taliban have not been involved outside their own country. So how are they a threat to everyone all of a sudden.

Fusion I agree with you that the main problem Pakistan is facing is in terms of terrorism. However that is in the form of internal terrorism by TTP and other Pakistani created groups like Lashkar. I as a Pakistani don't want Pakistan to get involved in Afghanistan and its problems because the actors involved there are not a threat to Pak and so why should we get involved in the US's war.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Nice try. Won't bite. Let us know the next time you guys hold a UN observed election in Occupied Kashmir.



Lets see, subjugate the female population into staying at home. Prevent girls from being schooled. Ban all conventional forms of entertainment and the arts. Hold absolutely no elections. Appoint only Pashtuns at governance levels in non-Pashtun areas, so that they were resented as an occupying force.

But nah, they're great blokes. They're misunderstood so much that there were only three wise nations on the face of the planet that deigned to recognize their authority to govern the land they occupied.

Those are issues relating to Afghanistan, why should Pakistan or anyone else get involved for that. If you care so much then what about Saudi or Syria or North Korea.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Both Pakistan and USA to a large extent have suffered due to consequences of what it has done in the past, but rather than blaming each other for that it is better to look forward and not let the same happen again.

It is a common tactic to start pointing fingers at another party when one cannot make a valid defence of one's actions. Rather than own up to their own mistakes and obligations and seek to make restitution, they'd rather point fingers at the other and wash their hands off the situation. The US has done far better in that they've atleast made effort to repair the damage they've done in Afghanistan by propping up the warlords. Pakistan would rather act hurt, disown all responsibility, and submit a bill for cleaning up a mess they've had a hand in creating. That's the difference.

 

[smalishah84]

It is a elected government nevertheless.
You could say the elections were held in turmoil, but as long as democracy is there it will benefit Iraq in the long run when it gets strengthened and remains free and fair. USA would leave after a while.

Elected govt when anybody not liked by the imperial forces is not allowed to compete. The whole point is that the USA will leave when it knows that its the Quislings are in place. Why invest so much to keep military presence there when the oil can be had cheaply.

I agree with this, but the whole of Pashtun's don't support the Taliban necessarily, just because they are Pashtuns.

Also the USA's dealing with Taliban and even the Al - Qaeda in the past has been what has come back to bite them now, but don't know what that has to do with a position being correct or not right now being taken by a different adminstration.
Both Pakistan and USA to a large extent have suffered due to consequences of what it has done in the past, but rather than blaming each other for that it is better to look forward and not let the same happen again.

Of course, if you ask me if ALL of the Pashtuns support the Taliban, then I would say no. Knowing a lot of Pashtuns I would venture out to say that most would. Ethnic loyalties over ride a lot of other considerations in that part of the world. That is why the Hazaras stick with Hazaras, the Tajiks with Tajiks, the Uzbeks with Uzbeks and the Pashtuns with the Pashtuns.

Cevno, the whole point is? Why can't peace be given a chance? As you say about the Quislings then cant we say the same If the Taliban come to power and they are as brutal as it is claimed then wont the population rise against them as well? In all probability the Taliban would like to follow the Saudi model (since so much funding came from there) where there would be no freedom of thought, expression, or anything but the govt would try to run the country smoothly i.e. try to curtail crime etc. IMO that would be better than trying to turn them into beacons of modern civilizations overnight

 

[G.I.Joe]

Those are issues relating to Afghanistan, why should Pakistan or anyone else get involved for that. If you care so much then what about Saudi or Syria or North Korea.

Yeah, right. Your escapist argument for why there shouldn't be one mop-up is that the other spots aren't also being mopped up. That's a fine principle to live by.

 

[smalishah84]

Nice try. Won't bite. Let us know the next time you guys hold a UN observed election in Occupied Kashmir.

.

Nice try but when did I say that Pakistan was not doing that?

Lets see, subjugate the female population into staying at home. Prevent girls from being schooled. Ban all conventional forms of entertainment and the arts. Hold absolutely no elections. Appoint only Pashtuns at governance levels in non-Pashtun areas, so that they were resented as an occupying force.

But nah, they're great blokes. They're misunderstood so much that there were only three wise nations on the face of the planet that deigned to recognize their authority to govern the land they occupied.

Mmm, interesting that those same things apply to one of the world's major oil suppliers but surely that is not reason enough to kick them out of power is it? Better to have the warlords commit genocide than to have an authoritarian regime