You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Get Out of USA's war on(of) Terror before Pakistan becomes a War Zone
ConcernedPakistani
MPA (400+ posts)
Pakistan can generate so much income on its own. wat about the coal project? gold mines? oil fields?
Pakistan can generate so much income on its own. wat about the coal project? gold mines? oil fields?
America wants to weaken Pakistan, conducting terrorist attacks against Pakistan , damaging our image abroad, get hold of its nuclear assets, and move their occupation forces from Afghan wasteland to Pakistan, US is still a lesser enemy than the Zardari and his PPP-PML-N jamhuri dogs continuing their intentional misgovernance and corruption conituning fromwhere they left off [from 1988-99],who apart from knowing where Pakistan's going are still looking for commission, safeguard personal self-destructive interests, encouraging corruption and giving Americans a helping hand in finishing off what's left of Pakistan turning us into another Somalia. Zero on health, zero on education, bringing another generation of jaahils and beggars and making life difficult for those who get educated to run to other nations, leave the country to these satans loot and destroy, making it easy for USA to just shift their forces into a neighbouring country[God forbid].
Last edited:
Dear I have the confirm information about Rekodeq that we can earn about a 3 billion dollars from there every year . . . I ve personally worked on the THAR COAL FIELD and beleive me as it contains an eastimated 175 billion tons of Coal . . . In Nagar Parker we have one of the largest Granite reserves and on the surface to just load them and earn Foreign exchange . . . .
For the sake of a previous agreement with Iran , we are not expolring oil in Baluchistan other wise we have the capablity to become expoters of Oil . . . And so on and on
For the sake of a previous agreement with Iran , we are not expolring oil in Baluchistan other wise we have the capablity to become expoters of Oil . . . And so on and on
Last edited:
Dear I have the confirm information about Rekodeq that we can earn about a 3 billion dollars from there every year . . . I ve personally worked on the THAR COAL FIELD and beleive me as it contains an eastimated 175 billion tons of Coal . . . In Nagar Parker we have one of the largest Granite reserves and on the surface to just load them and earn Foreign exchange . . . .
For the sake of a previous agreement with Iran , we are not expolring oil in Baluchistan other wise we have the capablity to become expoters of Oil . . . And so on and on
When Gen. Zia died, all these reserves discovered during that time and building of new dams like Bhasha, Kalabagh were buried with him. These jamhuri thugs [PPP-PML-n] have wasted these reserves from 1988-99 continuing their tenure now also in order to find a buyer who can reward these har*amzaadas of enuff commission that they demand. Gen. Musharraf decided to start building of some dams like Bhasha and Neelum-Jhelum project[India has been diverting the water that reached the valley where this project thru building huge multi-purpose dams] which have both been stalled, and the thar coal reserves problem is it is in the land of daakus, whether Arbab Rahim or Peoples Party, they're not starting the mining as long as they don't get billions which they're dreaming for since 1990.
ConcernedPakistani
MPA (400+ posts)
America is “moving toward the last chapter” of the war in Afghanistan, Sen. John Kerry said Friday.
Kerry, the chair of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, recently went to Afghanistan and Pakistan, where he met with leaders in both nations and visited U.S. troops. The Massachusetts Democrat spoke Friday at the Taunton Inn, where state Sen. Marc Pacheco’s Business and Economic Advisory Council was meeting.
“The president wants to reduce our footprint in Afghanistan, and I think we should,” he said. “There is no military solution to Afghanistan or Pakistan. Every general will tell you that.”
What, then, is the political solution?
“That’s what’s being worked on now,” he said.
With questions swirling about the U.S.-Pakistani relationship in the aftermath of the raid that killed al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden, Kerry said Pakistan is an important ally. Half of the supplies that go to U.S. troops in Afghanistan travel through Pakistan, and U.S. intelligence officers often depend on cooperation with Pakistani forces on the ground, he explained.
That said, Kerry explained that he would like to see Pakistan play a larger role in countering insurgency near its western border. Across the border, Afghanistan needs to be able to move into a position to effectively defend itself from insurgents as well, he said.
“We’re going to reduce the number of troops in Afghanistan when we can get the Afghans to stand up for themselves,” Kerry explained.
Another argument for reducing U.S. military operations in Afghanistan, Kerry said, is the monetary cost.
“We’re spending $120 billion a year in Afghanistan, and we can’t sustain that,” he said.
Unlike traditional wars, Kerry said, efforts to combat terrorism need to rely on law enforcement, intelligence and special forces instead of sheer military mass.
“As I said — and I was much maligned for saying this in 2004 — is that the war on terror is a different kind of war,” he said. “All I suggested was exactly what happened when we got Osama bin Laden.”
Read more: http://www.tauntongazette.com/archiv...#ixzz1NY4u2IqK
Kerry, the chair of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, recently went to Afghanistan and Pakistan, where he met with leaders in both nations and visited U.S. troops. The Massachusetts Democrat spoke Friday at the Taunton Inn, where state Sen. Marc Pacheco’s Business and Economic Advisory Council was meeting.
“The president wants to reduce our footprint in Afghanistan, and I think we should,” he said. “There is no military solution to Afghanistan or Pakistan. Every general will tell you that.”
What, then, is the political solution?
“That’s what’s being worked on now,” he said.
With questions swirling about the U.S.-Pakistani relationship in the aftermath of the raid that killed al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden, Kerry said Pakistan is an important ally. Half of the supplies that go to U.S. troops in Afghanistan travel through Pakistan, and U.S. intelligence officers often depend on cooperation with Pakistani forces on the ground, he explained.
That said, Kerry explained that he would like to see Pakistan play a larger role in countering insurgency near its western border. Across the border, Afghanistan needs to be able to move into a position to effectively defend itself from insurgents as well, he said.
“We’re going to reduce the number of troops in Afghanistan when we can get the Afghans to stand up for themselves,” Kerry explained.
Another argument for reducing U.S. military operations in Afghanistan, Kerry said, is the monetary cost.
“We’re spending $120 billion a year in Afghanistan, and we can’t sustain that,” he said.
Unlike traditional wars, Kerry said, efforts to combat terrorism need to rely on law enforcement, intelligence and special forces instead of sheer military mass.
“As I said — and I was much maligned for saying this in 2004 — is that the war on terror is a different kind of war,” he said. “All I suggested was exactly what happened when we got Osama bin Laden.”
Read more: http://www.tauntongazette.com/archiv...#ixzz1NY4u2IqK
“There is no military solution to Afghanistan or Pakistan. Every general will tell you that.”
Absolutely right . . . . This was what both Nixon and General Westmoreland reach the conclusion regarding the war in Vietnam in 1968, But still continued it till 1975 eventually loosing the war . . . It was basically the stupid Narrow approach of winning every BATTLE but loosing the WAR
ConcernedPakistani
MPA (400+ posts)
Afghanistan is USA's next Vietnam
ConcernedPakistani
MPA (400+ posts)
Hopefully Pakistan will not become like Combodia. The Army is resisting demands to launch operation in n waziristan. Hopefully USA will get out soon. If Pakistan keeps listening to USA, India and Israel (alongwith dere supporters like Musharraf, MQM, ANP etc. ) then situation will get worse.
ConcernedPakistani
MPA (400+ posts)
just like Iraq we can find our nation in two camps on ethnic/secterian grounds supporting or fighting the americans . . . .
The attack would had two possiblities
1 Americans alone would Attack
2 American Airforce be used with Indian and Afghan Boots
This is a nightmare scenario
Hopefully Pakistan will not become like Combodia. The Army is resisting demands to launch operation in n waziristan. Hopefully USA will get out soon. If Pakistan keeps listening to USA, India and Israel (alongwith dere supporters like Musharraf, MQM, ANP etc. ) then situation will get worse.
However, The Combodian Army and The Govt kept on accepting the demands of the USA . . . . First they Allowed the US the B-52 carpet bombing . . . than Military Incursions . . . That is what we are doing . . .
In combodia the rise of Pol Pot was due to the policies of the Combodian Govt . . . Here in Pakistan same is the case where we have Pol Pot Taliban who are lacking ideology like Afghan Taliban but have raised due to our Atrocities . . . .
This is a nightmare scenario
But this the time to conduct war games on such scenarios . . . And propose strategys . . .
Because in the next year we may be facing a total war
ConcernedPakistani
MPA (400+ posts)
The Irish Times
Talks with Taliban key to ending war, says president
DANIEL DOMBEY in Washington
BARACK OBAMA has emphasised his administration’s efforts to get talks with the Taliban off the ground ahead of a decision to draw down numbers of US troops in Afghanistan.
The US president was unusually explicit about his view that in order for the 10-year war to end, negotiations with the Islamist militants must take place. He also declared his readiness to authorise a strike to kill Mullah Omar, the Taliban leader. “There needs to be a political settlement,” he said. “Ultimately, it means talking to the Taliban.”
The US president has already promised to begin drawing down the 30,000-strong US troop surge in Afghanistan next month – although his administration has yet to agree on the size of the troop reductions and the speed at which they will be carried out.
One senior European diplomat added that more significant troop reductions could take place next year if negotiations with the Taliban leaders made progress. He confirmed that behind-the-scenes contacts – and “talks about talks” – had also intensified recently.
US officials have expressed their hope that Osama bin Laden’s death and fears for their own safety could prompt Taliban leaders to enter talks.
Many Pakistani and US commentators regard the death of bin Laden as opening an opportunity to advance talks with the Afghan Taliban, and to drive forward a three-way negotiation between Kabul, Islamabad and Washington. However, many commentators note the Taliban is not a unified group and the US itself acknowledges the lead in any talks would be taken by the government of Hamid Karzai.
Negotiating with the Taliban is an established objective of the US administration – a goal it describes as “reconciliation”. In his comments Mr Obama outlined the three conditions the US says should apply to the Taliban – that it should break ties with al-Qaeda, renounce violence and abide by the Afghan constitution.
But the US desire for talks appeared to have already outstripped such conditions last year, when Nato flew a supposed Taliban leader to Kabul for negotiations with Mr Karzai – only to discover the man was an imposter.
Some US officials also express a fear that Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence agency, which has historic ties to the Taliban, has sought to obstruct negotiations.
But in comments that will not please Islamabad, Mr Obama said he would be willing to stage another raid in Pakistan such as the mission that killed bin Laden.
Asked whether he would do the same again if the US discovered the whereabouts of Mr Omar or another target, he said: “I’ve always been clear to the Pakistanis . . . We cannot allow someone who is actively planning to kill our people or our allies’ people [to bring their plans to fruition] without us taking some action.”
– (Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2011)
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2011/0523/1224297548355.html
Talks with Taliban key to ending war, says president
DANIEL DOMBEY in Washington
BARACK OBAMA has emphasised his administration’s efforts to get talks with the Taliban off the ground ahead of a decision to draw down numbers of US troops in Afghanistan.
The US president was unusually explicit about his view that in order for the 10-year war to end, negotiations with the Islamist militants must take place. He also declared his readiness to authorise a strike to kill Mullah Omar, the Taliban leader. “There needs to be a political settlement,” he said. “Ultimately, it means talking to the Taliban.”
The US president has already promised to begin drawing down the 30,000-strong US troop surge in Afghanistan next month – although his administration has yet to agree on the size of the troop reductions and the speed at which they will be carried out.
One senior European diplomat added that more significant troop reductions could take place next year if negotiations with the Taliban leaders made progress. He confirmed that behind-the-scenes contacts – and “talks about talks” – had also intensified recently.
US officials have expressed their hope that Osama bin Laden’s death and fears for their own safety could prompt Taliban leaders to enter talks.
Many Pakistani and US commentators regard the death of bin Laden as opening an opportunity to advance talks with the Afghan Taliban, and to drive forward a three-way negotiation between Kabul, Islamabad and Washington. However, many commentators note the Taliban is not a unified group and the US itself acknowledges the lead in any talks would be taken by the government of Hamid Karzai.
Negotiating with the Taliban is an established objective of the US administration – a goal it describes as “reconciliation”. In his comments Mr Obama outlined the three conditions the US says should apply to the Taliban – that it should break ties with al-Qaeda, renounce violence and abide by the Afghan constitution.
But the US desire for talks appeared to have already outstripped such conditions last year, when Nato flew a supposed Taliban leader to Kabul for negotiations with Mr Karzai – only to discover the man was an imposter.
Some US officials also express a fear that Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence agency, which has historic ties to the Taliban, has sought to obstruct negotiations.
But in comments that will not please Islamabad, Mr Obama said he would be willing to stage another raid in Pakistan such as the mission that killed bin Laden.
Asked whether he would do the same again if the US discovered the whereabouts of Mr Omar or another target, he said: “I’ve always been clear to the Pakistanis . . . We cannot allow someone who is actively planning to kill our people or our allies’ people [to bring their plans to fruition] without us taking some action.”
– (Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2011)
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2011/0523/1224297548355.html
Last edited:
Talks with Taliban key to ending war, says president Obama
WOW. This is US President. and look at our arm chair warriors.
© Copyrights 2008 - 2025 Siasat.pk - All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy | Disclaimer|
Official Siasat.pk Social Media Accounts
