CIA and US Troops in Pakistan - X

PKPolitics Discuss » Current Issues

CIA and US Troops in Pakistan - X

(19 posts)

irfanx
Member

I remember arguing that Scotland Yard in Pakistan is not a good idea and we have been discussing that in this forum.

Then Zardari started insisting UN probe.

The message we give to the international community is very clear we are not even able to investigate our matters and Musharraf is constantly giving the message that we are not able to run a country.

Now US wants ti enter Pakistan and Pakistan government says people of Pakistan will not allow that. I would argue people dont decide anything in Pakistan. The government is saying Al Qaida is a problem and real threat then i wonder why dont they want US to help us out . Isnt it the same as Scotland investigating Bhutto`s case. Instead government wants to take "AID" and do the dirty work to wash out extremist themselves even it means to destabilize Pakistan.

http://nz.news.yahoo.com/071102/9/29pv.html

Posted 4 years ago on 08 Jan 2008 6:47 #
karachimurgichoor
Member

everybody is welcome to pakistan
at least they are all smarter than we are we have proved how stupid we are already.

Posted 4 years ago on 08 Jan 2008 9:19 #
Insider
Member

if it wasnt for Musharraf, pakistan would be the same as afghanistan right now.

Musharraf guarded the sovereignty of Pakistan by not allowing them to setup camp in the country.

Posted 4 years ago on 08 Jan 2008 15:07 #
irfanx
Member

Why not let US troops die why kill you own soldiers in fight with those terrorist. Instead Musharraf wants money so cant let US come in and fight their own war of terror.I remember a lot of you guys were in favor Scotland Yard coming in Pakistan why not US troops. At least we will hear 30 US soldier died instead of 30 Pakistani soldiers.

Posted 4 years ago on 08 Jan 2008 16:56 #
Insider
Member

irfan,

my heart is more with the civilians. for every 30 soldiers that die, 300 civilians are killed in "collateral damage".

there have been over a million iraqi civilian deaths so far. i would hate to see something like that happen to pakistan.

Posted 4 years ago on 08 Jan 2008 17:05 #
aishasana
Member

"Pakistan's position in the war on terror has been very clear - that any action on Pakistani soil will be taken only by Pakistani forces and Pakistani security agencies," Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Sadiq said.

joke of the century .

Posted 4 years ago on 08 Jan 2008 20:44 #
Insider
Member

yes america has breeched the trust of musharrafs administration by going into pakistani soil at times.

however, it could have been a lot worse.

Posted 4 years ago on 08 Jan 2008 22:19 #
secular_pakistan
Blocked

Dont you think that featured article "musharraf gives US forces permission to operate freely" should be removed?

Pkpolitics gets more biased everyday.

Posted 4 years ago on 08 Jan 2008 23:13 #
Anonymous

@ secular_pakistan
What a brilliant idea.
By removing the thread at the Pkpolitics, do you think American Forces will leave Pakistan?

Posted 4 years ago on 08 Jan 2008 23:24 #
secular_pakistan
Blocked

i was talking about the article with the above title, that is,
"musharraf gives US forces permission to operate freely inside pakistan" posted by admn in the featured articles section. kinda biased dont you think specially considering its not even true?

im sorry maybe im just being an idiot again

Posted 4 years ago on 08 Jan 2008 23:35 #
aishasana
Member

whats not true ?

u expect us to believe that "mush" dares to defy the orders of bush " ,if he couldnt after 9/11 how could he now ?
whats changed now ?
u gave them your hand they took your whole arm .

Posted 4 years ago on 09 Jan 2008 5:40 #
andarkabandar
Members

who dares to defy the usa??????
noone so stfu

Posted 4 years ago on 09 Jan 2008 5:48 #
aishasana
Member

WOWW USA BREECHED MUSH TRUST

what could be more hilarious than this statement .
dont we know that we gave them permission to launch airstrikes in afghanistan after 9/11 ,they used mush just like they used zia .
In the 1980s, the US supported a military government in Pakistan in the fight against the Soviet Army in Afghanistan and when their goal was reached they abondoned pakistan and zia was killed in crash .same is the senerio now USA supported mush dictator coz of their own vested interests and when their interests will be over they will again stop giving us aids and ditch us .

only one thing now that boggles my mind is "what is exactly their interest " ?

Posted 4 years ago on 09 Jan 2008 5:53 #
Insider
Member

lol shikra,

do you think that by electing another government all of a sudden they will deny the US?

if anything, MORE us troops will be visible in pakistan.

Posted 4 years ago on 10 Jan 2008 15:53 #
irfanx
Member

@insider

First thing there is no harm in having US troops in Pakistan. The only looser in this position would be establishment who gets millions of dollars in AID, they would stop getting this AID. For people of Pakistan they do not get any share from this AID. It has always been a deal between Army generals and US not between Pakistan and US.

Second if their is an elected government it will not change anything but it will have a democratic excuse. I will explain that with this US troops example. Lets suppose their is an X prime minister elected by people and has a popular support. Now US wants to enter Pakistan the Prime minister X will go to the parliment and ask them. The parliament will say OK US can come in Pakistan but on these specific terms and we will take this much million dollars for their involvement. The terms can include that they come in for 1 month or only in the border area etc. The AID will strengthen the political and civil institute not army. The US cannot refuse to is like it could not to Turkey invasion of Iraq because it was a democratic government with the excuse they are democratic and cant go against their own people.

I hope the above explanation helps let me know if you have any questions.

Posted 4 years ago on 10 Jan 2008 16:52 #
Insider
Member

i see what you are saying.

instead of the army getting the money, the money would go to civil institutions.

but what if you get a corrupt politician who puts the money in his own pocket and not that of the country?

do you really think mush is putting the money in his own pocket?

Posted 4 years ago on 10 Jan 2008 17:05 #
irfanx
Member

Mush is not putting money in his own pocket even if he is not all of it. Its going to the top ranks of Army who are investing it in Different businesses run by army. This helps the establishment keep a dictator in power. I know he has done quite a few good thing in Pakistan but because we have a dictator the international companies and businesses do not invest in Pakistan. Their reason is Pakistan does not have a strong political institutions like India. So they all invest in India. I have been an IT student because all the investment was done in India now IT is the 2nd largest industry in India after bollywood. And in Pakistan the government opened IT parks and gave all kind of facilities to Pakistan IT industry but no western power invested in Pakistan because they fear the government in Pakistan might change and they will loose their business. Those It park closed very soon and their were no jobs in IT in Pakistan that paid good.

Posted 4 years ago on 10 Jan 2008 17:36 #
secular_pakistan
Blocked

The above argument is factually incorrect.

Pakistan gets much more foreign investment per capita than India, also much more when compared with the size of the economy.

You can look up the exact figures for yourself, but, it is roughly that India gets only twice as much foreign investment while they have an economy and a population size 6 or 7 times as big, meaning, we are doing better in terms of investment for the size of the country.

Also, you are just giving the example of one industry in India which has really picked up and is one of their biggest now, IT. This is not a good comparison. I'll give you an example, India probably gets more in IT than China, now that does that mean India is more advanced or developing faster? Not at all. You have to look at investment in all fields.

Secondly, the argument that investment is related to political instituitions or democracy is also invalid, as many dictatorships receive extremely high levels of investment. Eg China receives foreign investment many times that of India. UAE is a collection of 7 kingdom, it has a very high level of foreign investment.

Also, could you please provide some evidence to support youre claim of where the military aid is going? The aid is scrutinised and used by the US Congress. The only report that said it was diverted said it was diverted to beefing up defence against India.

Posted 4 years ago on 10 Jan 2008 17:49 #
irfanx
Member

And you seriously believe we need defense against India then we need and not political stability in Pakistan.

Now lets examine the investment in Pakistan. You have mixed up AID and investment together. If it is unfair to examine one sector like IT in India it is unfair to examine the investment and AID coming to Pakistan as per capita because its not divided between sectors like education, industry and all other institutions. If we take out the investment received by Army and compare all other institutes with India i am sure your statistics will give another story. Do not confuse numbers with the over all development of Pakistani institutions and the share they receive as individually.

China and UAE cannot be compared with Pakistan and India. We surely dont want our country to be a kingdom or a socialist state. India is our best example i hate to admit it too but the facts and the results are in front of us.

Posted 4 years ago on 10 Jan 2008 18:04 #