Originally Posted by hkbajwa

Dude.. did you read the threadstarter?

Originally Posted by tadpole256

I can certainly understand this point of view. But I do feel as though we have failed to find Justice. I think we need to capture Osama (should only take about a month once his friend is no longer our President) and kill him. After that, we can focus on rebuilding Afghanistan, and helping Pakistan in whatever way they need (nothing by force).

As for Iraq... as shitty as it is that we brought them to this stage, we need to realize it is now beyond our control and that it is no longer about us. We need to come home, and let them have their civil war, then try to open relations with what ever government forms...

Originally Posted by hkbajwa

Aight people, i posted this on another thread but it wasn't relevant so i figure di would put it here.

This is in response to Obama's strong words regarding intervention in Pakistan:

Well seeing i live in the nation you guys are talking about invading i figured i might add my two cents.

I think its a horrific idea.. While it may make great political sense for Obama.. i mean this talk of pakistan allows him to keep pushing for an Iraqi pullout, but it also alows him to come across as "tough on terrorism"... it will have extremely damaging repercussions on the democratization and liberalization process going on in Pakistan at the moment. Allow me to explain:

Pakistan is experiencing the greatest social and economic upheaval since Bhuttos regime in the 70s. Bhutto was the first to give credence to the fundamentalist right, and his pandering to the clerics was continued by Zia, Nawaz and Benazir. The past 3 decades have been spent in solidifying the power of the clerics.

Since Musharraf took power, he has taken one step after another to neuter the religious fundos. His biggest step in this direction has been liberalizing the media. For the first time in Pakistani history, we have a media policy that allows the media outlets to monitor their own content.. the media is now more independent than was even thought possible.

THis has had the result that clerics have steadily been losing support. This is a natural repercussion of having to rationally explain something that is fundamentally irrational and self-contradictory ( the mullahs say "peace" with guns in their hands ).

Apart from this, the independent coverage given to the excesses of the mullahs such as the Red Mosque debacle, has done much to lose them popular support. Even in the bastion of mullah support ( the North West Frontier Province which borders Afghanistan) is set to vote against the clerics in the upcoming election.

The tide against the mullahs has been turning. And it will continue to turn. Already bills have been passed that break with the Hudood Ordnance. Likewise the madrassas are going through another phase of reform to root out those who sow hatred in the hearts of their students.

The common man is finding his voice in the media, which allows him to criticize the fundo clerics as well as those polticians who have treated the pakistani government as their own personal ATM. I cannot tell you how big a change this actually is..

One of the reasons these changes have been coming about, is that the clerics have continuously been trying to garner support around irrelevant and often directly harmful things. First they tried garnering support in opposition to the Women's protection bill. After that they tried to garner support against the Madrassah reform. that was followed by introducing the Hasba Bill ( which would have created a parrallel "religious legislature" with its own policing force.. sort of like the Taliban "ministry for the prevention of vice and promotion of virtue"). This bill was not received favorably, as the local population was more concerned with improving infrastructure than with what people were wearing. Then the mullahs went on to openly support the firebrand clerics of the Red Mosque, when they were burning CDs and closing down shops unde tht hreat of violence.. of course they also abducted both local and foreign citizens and finally they wound up holding thousands of innocent women and children hostage as they proceeded with armed resistance to the government. Even now, the mullahs are supporting those nutjobs.

These are all bad political choices, that are digging them deeper into the ground. The common man is much more interested in feeding himself, about having the opportunity to work, about having the opportunity to educate himself and his sons and daughters, about proper civil infrastructure and about individual rights than he is about the required length of his beard. These are all positive changes in priorities that have come about as a result of the media.

HOWEVER, if the US unilaterally moves into pakistan against the government's wishes, the mullahs are going to be served the country on a platter. Just as in Iraq ( which was the most secular of the ME countries prior to invasion) the mullahs are going to be able to garner unlimited support against the outside invader. I can assure you that even those who completely disagree with the mullahs, may find themselves supporting them simply because they will IMMEDIATELY call to arms against the invader ( nothing gels a population like opposition to a common enemy.. and let there be no mistaking.. should the US invade it will NEVER be viewed as friendly "assistance"). Even the government will not be able to garner support, because they can never call for armed opposition.. IF they do, then you have a full-scale war with a nuclear power which has the patronage of China, the Middle East and Iran.

WHATEVER direction it goes in, the US will be responsible for international chaos, for destroying yet another national infrastructure AND they will be responsible for giving AQ more recruits and plunging the nation into another era of fundo rule. It does not matter if you wipe out OBL & Co a thousand times over. AQ is a social phenomena that does not require OBL to be alive. In fact when you "martyr" him, TENS of THOUSANDS will immediately present themselves to take his place.

What people don't seem to understand is that to people in this corner of the world AQ represents more than just the evil terrorist. It also represents a bastion of opposition to US hegemony. Many will support AQ for no other reason than opposition to the US. Now mind you opposition to the US is NOT equivalent to supporting Taliban style governance ( you really have to get past that black or white mentality )... HOWEVER it may be a sacrifice many are willing to make for the sake of their national sovereignty... I mean you guys are willing to sacrifice your own rights in the Patriot Act for the "security" of your sovereignty. Do not underestimate the number of things people are willing to give up for the sake of their independence.

I have said earlier on this forum that very often US actions PUSH the moderate muslim into AQs corner. That is because unsavory as AQ ideology is, it is still LESS unsavory than sitting back and allowing a foreign power to enter your territory with impunity. US actions like this leave the moderates with only 2 options. Either they swallow all feelings of national pride and independence and allow a foreign power to enter and do as it pleases... OR they can fall in behind the group that opposes such a violation of sovereignty. This is PRECISELY what has happened in Iraq. Now many will say that there is a third option of peaceful opposition to the US without support for AQ. Well that is not an option. If the US is entering the nation armed and ready for conflict, "peaceful opposition" is a just a fart in a hurricane. Completely irrelevant. The US will focus its attention on the violent opposition, and the peaceful dissenters will be relegated to irrelevance..

All changes in the religio-political and socio-political arena will be null-and-void. The detrimental effect on the economy will invalidate the trend of prosperity. It will make people poorer and more angry. It will PROVE THE CLERICS RIGHT.

And i will then be posting on this forum from denmark because i cannot live a country run by religious nutjobs.

As much as i have supported Obama's bid for the presidency, this stance on Pakistan will be a mistake of the same order as Iraq. While it may not mire down the US in as costly a war, it WILL create an enemy with nuclear capability and with a fundamentalist regime and it WILL cause relations with China, the ME and Iran to deteriorate even further.

The concern about AQ sympathisers hiding in Pakistan IS valid, but it is NOT the US's place to enter the sovereign territory of another nation to root them out.

The BEST the US can do , it to go on the offensive on the SOCIAL front. The better the living conditions are for the average citizen, the more education that is available to them, the MORE advantages they see in resisting the mullahs, the better it will be for the US.

Mind you, NOT INVADING PAKISTAN will also not be seen as a "favor", it will not be considered a "benefit", nor will it be given any sort of importance by the local population. That is because they are not US citizens, and their sovereignty as a nation is an inalienable right that not even the US is entitled to question or violate.

DO NOT ENTER PAKISTAN UNILATERALLY. It will be a supremely unwise choice. It will only perpetuate the "Global Bully" image that the US has so dilligently managed to create, It will nullify any steps we have taken towards a more liberal society, and it will reduce your security as more terrorists will INVARIABLY be created.

Originally Posted by winston53660

I doubt inthat scenerio any government that is formed would wnat to have relations with us.

Originally Posted by highway80west

You know, if President Bush felt that Pakistan was not a willing participant in fighting terrorism there, he may have gone into Pakistan. But because Pakistan was (for lack of a better word) willing to help fight terrorism, the president has not gone into Pakistan.

Now since the US invaded Iraq, I feel that they should have concentrated their fight against terrorism in Afhganistan instead, and press on with finding Bin Laden.

I saw that Obama is off his trolley when he is thinking about invading Pakistan. After all, we know Pakistant convicted the terrorist of killing Daniel Pearl.

Originally Posted by tadpole256

Speaking from experience I can tell you that Pakistan is no ally of the U.S., they do more to support terrorism than Iraq ever did, and they are a far greater threat than Iran. Pakistan was directly involved in 9/11 and they provide aid and support to our enemies over there.

Originally Posted by tadpole256

I am not calling for unilateral action... I am saying we should assist Pakistan. If they are our allies, as they claim, they will welcome our assistance restoring control in the Pashtun regions that seem to be beyond Pakistani control.

Originally Posted by tadpole256

I have an unrelated question for you as a Pakistani, is the term 'Paki' considered derogatory?

Originally Posted by hkbajwa

Well that is much easier said than done. The terrorism that you are so afraid of, is a greater threat to MY life. You may have heard of the spate of suicide bombings going on here in Islamabad.

Swooping in and shooting the hell out of a hill in balochistan is likely to set off protests and MORE suicide bombings here. WHy should Pakistan risk the health and wellbeing of its own citizens, why should it risk the lives of its population and why should it risk great internal instability for the US?

The point is that while Pakistan is in ally in the War on Terror, it is not a proxy state. Thus its priorities are NOT the same as the US's. For you the most important thing is to exact revenge on OBL & Co. FOr Pakistan the most important thing is to prevent suicide bombings. Actions such as the ones you propose are going to reduce the security of the Pakistani people.


Well i never was one to take offence at mere words.. But yeah its sort of like the N word. WE can say it but you can't.. Though i think that's just silly.

Originally Posted by highway80west

Do you feel more safer being in Pakistan than you would in Iraq and/or Afghanistan?

Originally Posted by highway80west

Have you asked any of the men radical Muslims why they feel they must carry out suicide missions? What purpose to them does it serve, to lose their life while purposely killing others??

Originally Posted by highway80west

I mean we see Sunnis and Shiites killing each other in Iraq, as if the McCoys and the Hatfields carrying on years and years of feuding.

Originally Posted by highway80west

BTW, nice to chat with you, and welcome, too.

Originally Posted by hkbajwa

The point is that while Pakistan is in ally in the War on Terror, it is not a proxy state. Thus its priorities are NOT the same as the US's. For you the most important thing is to exact revenge on OBL & Co. FOr Pakistan the most important thing is to prevent suicide bombings. Actions such as the ones you propose are going to reduce the security of the Pakistani people.