India-US Relations : News and Discussion- II

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 13 Feb 2016 19:01

NRao wrote:Has this been done before?

India Summons U.S. Ambassador Over Fighter Sale To Pakistan

AFAIK only once in the last decade (Devyani Khobragade case). I'll bet this time round, it would have come as something of a shock to the US govt. Doubt they'd bother to green-light anything else in the future, not really worth the hassle.

On the upside, it suggests India's stature and bilateral relations with the US, have improved to a point where the presumption of denial (to an Indian adversary) is high enough that even a piddling sale like this one (which would been a mere footnote a decade ago) can result in a high-level diplomatic issue. On the downside, it suggests the India's foreign policy is still Pak-centric (though has done a more than decent job of isolating Pakistan internationally).

member_29325 · Post by **member_29325** » 13 Feb 2016 19:04

So the US hands over X million $, which becomes "pakistan's money" and then announces a couple of days later that Pakistan can buy planes from US with "pakistan's money". If this is not an underhanded way to hand over military hardware to Pakis....paki army decides the budget, so money given to paki govt. is fungible as far as the paki mil is concerned.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 13 Feb 2016 19:27

ThiruV wrote:So the US hands over X million $, which becomes "pakistan's money" and then announces a couple of days later that Pakistan can buy planes from US with "pakistan's money". If this is not an underhanded way to hand over military hardware to Pakis....paki army decides the budget, so money given to paki govt. is fungible as far as the paki mil is concerned.

The US military aid to Pakistan hasn't changed. Stands at about $300 mil for the current year (subject to approval by the Republican-controlled Congress) down from $3 bn in 2010. Its simply the cost of renting the country. That amount can be spent on fighter jets or COIN ops, but in either case, it'll remain a static sum.

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 13 Feb 2016 19:30

Amber G. wrote:
CRamS wrote:Guys, question on the latest scientific buzz on the detection of gravitational waves as predicted by Einstien. Several DDM outlets are ballistic about some Indian guys connection to this discovery. Even PM ModiJi aparently lauded Indians' role. But I have not seen a single US-based report, starting with NYT mention any Indian connection and I could find any name in the reports I read that have any Indian name resemblance (this is not surprising because even if there was some Indian connection, NYT and US media could omit it). Forget useless DDM, but what is the Indian connection that ModiJi lauded?
Even MUCH MUCH worse is this pathetic (but too often in brf) whining and blaming NYT, US, and DDM for one's own ignorance and ad absurdum complaining..

Don't blame others, if YOU do not even know that Indlgo (LIGO-India) is a collaborative project between a consortium of Indian research institutions and the LIGO Laboratory in USA, (along with its international partners). Three lead institutions in the IndIGO consortium: IPR (Institute of Plasma Research) Gandhinagar, IUCAA (Inter University Centre for Astronomy and Astrophysics) Pune, and RRCAT (Raja Ramanna Centre for Advanced Technology) Indore. (LIGO lab provides design and all the key detector components)

For havens sake, the big announcement also came simultaneously from Pune. (I guess too busy complaining about NYT than to listen and understand even the most basic physics about it -- if nothing else you could have skimmed the brf's physics dhaga ).

AmbeJi, thx for all the information, and I appreciate it. But why would you consider it pathetic if DDM was making such a big deal about Indian involvement, PM ModiJi lauded the Indian role, and yet I couldn't find a single news report in US that corroborated that and hence I just asked. Note, it doesn't matter whether NYT or whoever else in the west does not cover India's role, their prejudice and contempt for Hindu civilization is well known, and thats why I asked the forum for corroboration. (Likewise, DDM is known for its exaggeration and hyping up any western recognition of Indian success as this fits their agenda of downplaying any indigenous success based on Hindus' self pride). You posted valuable information for my edification, and thats that. Why would consider my inquiry as "pathetic". Isn't that how forums like this are supposed to work? Exchange of information to mutual benefit?

Anyway back to topic of this thread, especially the disgusting US decision to gift F-16 to TSP. Makes me puke.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 13 Feb 2016 19:49

UBji et-al I am going to answer/comment on gravity waves related stuff in Physics dhaga.

saip · Post by **saip** » 13 Feb 2016 20:24

Viv S wrote:
Philip wrote:So no matter what Pak does to India terror wise,it can always rely upon Uncle Sam and "Uncle Tom" O'Bomber to come good with malware. More F-16s for Pak as a reward for Pathankot. If this govt. is reallys erious about defeating Pak,then it should punish the sponsors of the nation of terror,Uncle Sam being ancient provider and fornicator,and cancel Indo-US military deals in protest.
Ease up on the wailing and chest beating and read the Reuters article, posted twice on the last page.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker notified the Obama administration that he would not approve using U.S. funds to pay for the planes through the foreign military financing (FMF) program. That means Pakistan must fund the purchase itself, instead of relying on U.S. funds to cover about 46 percent of the cost.

Given the funds it has available, Pakistan may be able to buy only four of the F-16 Block 52 models, and the associated radar and electronic warfare equipment, said one U.S. source familiar with the situation.

But US has also asked for $860 million aid for Pakistan. That means it is giving away these F16sfor free and then some $160 million in change to Pakistan.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 13 Feb 2016 20:33

CRS why would US press laud an Indian contribution to LIGO? World over it would be in the country that helped realize the achievement.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 13 Feb 2016 20:35

US has to be made to choose.
Can't be sending covert agents to terror groups and come and sympathize with India.
And F-16s are nuke delivery vehicles to threaten India.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 13 Feb 2016 20:38

ramana wrote:CRS why would US press laud an Indian contribution to LIGO? World over it would be in the country that helped realize the achievement.

Posted this earlier, but got lost. They actually had heads from the UK, Germany and Australia, there at the presser and were recognized - as in made to stand up to be recognized.

India? Or even Italy, who has done a lot?

So forget the press , who acts as though they understand what a gravitational waves is.

svenkat · Post by **svenkat** » 13 Feb 2016 20:43

CRamS wrote: AmbeJi, thx for all the information, and I appreciate it......Why would consider my inquiry as "pathetic".

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 13 Feb 2016 20:50

saip wrote:But US has also asked for $860 million aid for Pakistan. That means it is giving away these F16sfor free and then some $160 million in change to Pakistan.

Yes and no. $300 mil is Foreign Military Funding (subject to Congressional approval). The other $560 mil is to be spent by USAID within Pakistan.

Suresh S · Post by **Suresh S** » 13 Feb 2016 21:06

Ease up on the wailing and chest beating and read the Reuters article,

It is U that has to ease up. Reuters and Associated press (AP) are the propaganda arms of the western governments. What they say is worh cowdung. Sorry I take that back. Cowdung is actually useful.

member_29325 · Post by **member_29325** » 13 Feb 2016 22:30

Viv S wrote: The US military aid to Pakistan hasn't changed. Stands at about $300 mil for the current year (subject to approval by the Republican-controlled Congress) down from $3 bn in 2010. Its simply the cost of renting the country.

If we assume that the above is correct. What is pakistan being rented for?

Surely these F-16s are not for use against the Afghan Taliban, and Pakistan is doing anything but stabilize afghanisthan. So if the above is true, then the US is renting pakistan to provide it nuke delivery platforms against India and to destabilize afghanisthan. That conclusion is a sound one.

India and Indians have to recognize that USA is pakistan's ally when it comes to paki nuke weapons threats against India and in screwing up India's investment in Afghanisthan's future.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 13 Feb 2016 22:42

ThiruV wrote:If we assume that the above is correct. What is pakistan being rented for?

Should be quite obvious. As long as US troops are still deployed in Afghanistan, Pakistan cannot be jettisoned. Period. Their food, water and clothing still comes via Karachi.

A quicker US withdrawal from Afghanistan would quicken the aid rollback. Yet that strategy is opposed by many, including India. (Afghan pullout by US must be measured: Modi)

Surely these F-16s are not for use against the Afghan Taliban, and Pakistan is doing anything but stabilize afghanisthan. So if the above is true, then the US is renting pakistan to provide it nuke delivery platforms against India and to destabilize afghanisthan. That conclusion is a sound one.

The PAF already fields some 75 F-16s and 65 JF-17s. Another 4-8 F-16s aren't going to significantly change its nuclear capability (which at this point is vested primarily in its ballistic missile systems).

India and Indians have to recognize that USA is pakistan's ally when it comes to paki nuke weapons threats against India and in screwing up India's investment in Afghanisthan's future.

^This is ideological talk. Before 2001, Afghanistan's future was decided by the Taliban in Kabul and the PAF was still capable of nuclear strike.

krishna_krishna · Post by **krishna_krishna** » 13 Feb 2016 23:06

ramana wrote:US has to be made to choose.
Can't be sending covert agents to terror groups and come and sympathize with India.
And F-16s are nuke delivery vehicles to threaten India.

Ramana : It has chosen sides already (since the inception of pakis) they are part of 3.5 why would they abandon their protégé. GOI did good by summons what I want to see is that the day this deal is cleared, India signs S-400 trimuf deal with Russia with production made in India.

Message would be you can throw whatever bones to your dog, as long as we have big stick the show will go on like it has since 71 till the dog dies of Rabies

Suresh S · Post by **Suresh S** » 13 Feb 2016 23:18

krishna_krishna wrote:
ramana wrote:US has to be made to choose.
Can't be sending covert agents to terror groups and come and sympathize with India.
And F-16s are nuke delivery vehicles to threaten India.
Ramana : It has chosen sides already (since the inception of pakis) they are part of 3.5 why would they abandon their protégé. GOI did good by summons what I want to see is that the day this deal is cleared, India signs S-400 trimuf deal with Russia with production made in India.

Message would be you can throw whatever bones to your dog, as long as we have big stick the show will go on like it has since 71 till the dog dies of Rabies

Now I like this thinking

member_29325 · Post by **member_29325** » 14 Feb 2016 00:15

Viv S wrote: Should be quite obvious. As long as US troops are still deployed in Afghanistan, Pakistan cannot be jettisoned. Period. Their food, water and clothing still comes via Karachi.

So what exactly is the US's interest in deploying troops in ~~pakistan~~ afghanisthan, eh? Let's not pretend it is about stabilizing afghanisthan, since Pakistan is roped into the group on deciding Afghanisthan's future by the US. A leader like Karzai who was genuinely stabilizing afghanisthan was forced out by the US to put a pro-paki Ghani in place -- every afghan leader who is against pakistan is forced out by the US. What is the US's excuse for this behavior? saving afghanisthan by funding pakistan so that US can run its supply chain through pakistan for the US army? No, nothing circular in that reasoning at all...that's just an illusion.

A quicker US withdrawal from Afghanistan would quicken the aid rollback. Yet that strategy is opposed by many, including India

And since when is the US doing favors for other countries? What is in it for the US to keep troops stationed in Afghanisthan, especially when they work hard to keep pro-pakistani leadership in charge of Afghanisthan?
So let's not pretend this is about doing favors for India.

The PAF already fields some 75 F-16s and 65 JF-17s. Another 4-8 F-16s aren't going to significantly change its nuclear capability (which at this point is vested primarily in its ballistic missile systems).

So who exactly is going to affected by such free war weapons from the USA to Pakistan, if not India?

^This is ideological talk. Before 2001, Afghanistan's future was decided by the Taliban in Kabul and the PAF was still capable of nuclear strike.

"ideological talk" it seems. look in the freaking mirror. You are free to insist that the US is not doing all that much harm by continously arming pakistan and keeping pakistan in control of afghanisthan, and then keep troops permanently stationed under the fig leaf of "stabilizing afghanistan" -- doesn't mean you have provided any evidence that the US is interested in the stability of Afghanisthan when their actions of propping up pakistan's presence in afghanisthan speaks otherwise.

As a long-time practitioner of realpolitik in foreign policy, US won't be risking its troops because the Indian PM or someone else wanted them to stay, so if we ignore that rhetorical line...what else remains as far as motivation to be permanently stationed in Afghanisthan, and enabling and funding Pakistan's interference in afghanisthan for close to 4 decades now?

Anyway, I am done with this conversation -- best thing to do when continuing this conversation is just a waste of time for all sides. Have a nice day.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 14 Feb 2016 00:40

ThiruV wrote:So what exactly is the US's interest in deploying troops in pakistan, eh? Let's not pretend it is about stabilizing afghanisthan, since Pakistan is roped into the group on deciding Afghanisthan's future by the US.

US has no significant troop presence in Pakistan.

And since when is the US doing favors for other countries? What is in it for the US to keep troops stationed in Afghanisthan, especially when they work hard to keep pro-pakistani leadership in charge of Afghanisthan?
So let's not pretend this is about doing favors for India.

It has nothing to with India.

So who exactly is going to affected by such war weapons to the USA, if not India?

It does not have a significant impact on Pakistani nuclear capability, which is what your original post alluded to.

"ideological talk" it seems. look in the freaking mirror. You are free to insist that the US is not doing all that much harm by continously arming pakistan and keeping pakistan in control of afghanisthan, and then keep troops permanently stationed under the fig leaf of "stabilizing afghanistan" -- doesn't mean you have provided any evidence that the US is interested in the stability of Afghanisthan when their actions of propping up pakistan's presence in afghanisthan speaks otherwise.

US is looking out for its own interests. Its not going to go out of its way to protect India's interests. But its equally, if not more absurd to suggest that its actions are designed to hurt Indian interests.

As far as Afghanistan is concerned, it wants as clean and painless a withdrawal from Afghanistan as possible. The only way to achieve that, they believe, is through an accord with the Taliban, which in turn requires them to approach Pakistan to act as a middleman. Once the US withdrawal from the Af-Pak region concludes, so will the substantial aid to Pakistan.

As a realpolitik state, US won't be risking its troops because the Indian PM or someone else wanted them to stay, so if we ignore that rhetorical line...what else remains as far as motivation to be permanently stationed in Afghanisthan, and enabling and funding Pakistan's interference in afghanisthan for close to 4 decades now?

Except that there was no significant funding for Pakistan from 1989, when the Soviets left, upto 2001 when the new war began.

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 14 Feb 2016 00:58

ramana wrote:CRS why would US press laud an Indian contribution to LIGO? World over it would be in the country that helped realize the achievement.

No saar, I was not looking for anybody in US to laud India. What I was lamenting is that US media is loath to make any mention of Indian contribution, while Indian media is prone to exaggeration and hyperbole. Hence I was looking to find the facts which I got, thanks to AmberJi & Co.

TSJones · Post by **TSJones** » 14 Feb 2016 01:18

So what exactly is the US's interest in deploying troops in pakistan, eh?

only on the planet Mysterion which exists in your mind........

TSJones · Post by **TSJones** » 14 Feb 2016 01:20

geez, I don't see why the US makes such a big deal about it, we only dropped $650 million on the experiment and it took years to do........I mean why be proud?

member_29325 · Post by **member_29325** » 14 Feb 2016 02:41

Viv S wrote: US has no significant troop presence in Pakistan.

But there is a troop presence, yes? For what reason?

It has nothing to with India.

Right, so why stick around. To crush terrorism into pulp?

It does not have a significant impact on Pakistani nuclear capability, which is what your original post alluded to.

Already accepted the point that paki nuclear capability is not relevant, and the next question is, what is the purpose of these weapons to Pakistan? And you say because US troops needs supply via Pakistan, so this rent money to pakistan. So, for the second time, who is pakistan going to use these weapons against?

US is looking out for its own interests. Its not going to go out of its way to protect India's interests. But its equally, if not more absurd to suggest that its actions are designed to hurt Indian interests.

So the US is keeping troops in pakistan at the behest of other countries to stabilize afghanisthan, and then giving weapons to the pakis and cash as rent money, which the pakis can then use to destabilize afghanisthan and use US weapons from rent money target India. Makes total sense.

As far as Afghanistan is concerned, it wants as clean and painless a withdrawal from Afghanistan as possible. The only way to achieve that, they believe, is through an accord with the Taliban, which in turn requires them to approach Pakistan to act as a middleman. Once the US withdrawal from the Af-Pak region concludes, so will the substantial aid to Pakistan.

So, the pakistani "good" taliban that destabilizes Afghanisthan is central to stabilizing Afghanisthan, and pakistan needs to middleman here so that it can stabilize afghanisthan by getting the destabilizing pakistani taliban in control of afghanisthan, after which the US will will withdraw from pakistan. Sheer genius oozing from the people running the US, if this is their story for sticking around in Afghanisthan. It is all so obvious once this is stated in this manner.

Except that there was no significant funding for Pakistan from 1989, when the Soviets left, upto 2001 when the new war began.

So, because the US says funding is not "significant", it means that it has to be viewed that way by countries at are the receiving end of paki terrorism that is being funded by said rent monies, is it? So the US funds a terrorist army with money and weapons, but "not significantly", and so there is nothing to worry about then. What are strategic allies for if they cannot provide money and weapons for enemies of said strategic allies, eh?

I am sure the pakis and their taliban will assist the US in stabilizing afghanisthan just like they assisted the US in smashing terrorism after 9/11. Of course, once that happens, US will immediately be out of afghanisthan, right? sure, why not?

member_29325 · Post by **member_29325** » 14 Feb 2016 02:48

TSJones wrote:
So what exactly is the US's interest in deploying troops in ~~pakistan~~ afghanisthan, eh?
.......

typo. fixed.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 14 Feb 2016 03:47

ThiruV wrote:But there is a troop presence, yes? For what reason?

Negligible presence. For embassy/consulate protection and the like.

Already accepted the point that paki nuclear capability is not relevant, and the next question is, what is the purpose of these weapons to Pakistan? And you say because US troops needs supply via Pakistan, so this rent money to pakistan. So, for the second time, who is pakistan going to use these weapons against?

In 'peacetime' against the TTP and BLA. In wartime, against India.

So the US is keeping troops in pakistan at the behest of other countries to stabilize afghanisthan, and then giving weapons to the pakis and cash as rent money, which the pakis can then use to destabilize afghanisthan and use US weapons from rent money target India. Makes total sense.

As I said, before there are no troops in Pakistan. The 'rent money' so to speak is to secure the supply routes to Afghanistan and to turn a blind eye to cross-border operations conducted by Afghanistan-based US forces.

So, the pakistani "good" taliban that destabilizes Afghanisthan is central to stabilizing Afghanisthan, and pakistan needs to middleman here so that it can stabilize afghanisthan by getting the destabilizing pakistani taliban in control of afghanisthan, after which the US will will withdraw from pakistan. Sheer genius oozing from the people running the US, if this is their story for sticking around in Afghanisthan. It is all so obvious once this is stated in this manner.

Perhaps they should simply withdraw. Cut their losses, go home.

The Modi and Indian govt however want them stick around a little longer - Narendra Modi cautions US against hasty troop withdrawal from Afghanistan

So, because the US says funding is not "significant", it means that it has to be viewed that way by countries at are the receiving end of paki terrorism that is being funded by said rent monies, is it? So the US funds a terrorist army with money and weapons, but "not significantly", and so there is nothing to worry about then. What are strategic allies for if they cannot provide money and weapons for enemies of said strategic allies, eh?

I am sure the pakis and their taliban will assist the US in stabilizing afghanisthan just like they assisted the US in smashing terrorism after 9/11. Of course, once that happens, US will immediately be out of afghanisthan, right? sure, why not?

I have no idea what you're on about.

The US didn't say the funding wasn't significant between 1990 and 2001. I did. And I've posted the relevant figures.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 14 Feb 2016 03:48

But there is a troop presence, yes? For what reason?

"troops", not sure how many are there now, but, the entire US drone effort used to kill Taliban, etc was stationed in Pakiland. I hink most of that has moved o Djibouti.

However, even today, pretty close to 100% of the face recognition (at Paki airports) and other such efforts - to ID and track the bad guys - are US intel resources. You really cannot get through Pak security without the US getting a mug shot of you - in fact the sensitivity of the software was vastly improved in PakiLand - Karachi in particular.

Then you have the likes of the 3 alpha agencies running around PakiLand.

One among many reasons why the US is relatively safer than other nations, the US has been able to nip a lot of problems in the bud. You really have no clue how little escapes into the public domain.

*This* is what they mean by "US national interest". The ability for the US to work with AND independent of the Paki intel agencies.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 14 Feb 2016 04:07

BTW, Russia is now directly supplying Pakistan with engines for her J-17 Thunder.

member_29325 · Post by **member_29325** » 14 Feb 2016 04:12

NRao,

Yes, I know what national interest means. That is not the point. Though I am interested in understanding what this "US national interest" is in Afghanisthan, that it requires pakistan to play a lead role in protecting this US interest...but I digress.

The story about US needing troops to stabilizing afghanisthan using pakistan as middlemen is horsedung, in case that was not clear. Russia is not giving pakis weapons for free, but the US is. Selling weapons of war is not the issue, giving them for free (essentially, by giving pakis "aid" that can be used to purchase F-16s) to a terrorist nation like pakistan is. All of this is business as usual -- just stating that US is not aiding pakistan "insignificantly" as some are arguing, to explain US behavior, is just laughable.

Shreeman · Post by **Shreeman** » 14 Feb 2016 05:21

I wonder who replaces scalia. A "liberal" or at least republican position hating ex lawyer could change many many things.

It would be unprecedented if the nomination process is underway and the new guy decides to withdraw the nominee, thats even if trump does win.

Trump? thats how low we have sunk. A trump and his lady friend ticket would be a new floor even in tea party days.

member_29325 · Post by **member_29325** » 14 Feb 2016 05:23

Trump would be an idiot to select Palin as his running mate...but who knows what's going on under that blond wig.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 14 Feb 2016 05:55

Though I am interested in understanding what this "US national interest" is in Afghanisthan

?????

Not just Afghanistan, it is all over where there is a threat. WRT Pakistan, it is a two headed hydra. As I stated earlier, the US is depending on them for some things and operating independent of them where the US can - that is how it is as we type. BTW Indian PMs shut down similar efforts that India had. However, *most* of it will never be documented - until perhaps someone writes a book.

Russia is not giving pakis weapons for free, but the US is

A charged J-17 is as much of a threat to India as a free F-16

Shreeman · Post by **Shreeman** » 14 Feb 2016 05:55

Not Palin. But another face. Palin is old news, done and forgotten.

Shreeman · Post by **Shreeman** » 14 Feb 2016 05:58

Every free f16 equals ten more charged j17s. Not vice versa. Beggers will wear torn clothes if suits are not gifted to them. there is a huge difference.

Stop.giving.stuff.away.on.false.pretenses.

member_29325 · Post by **member_29325** » 14 Feb 2016 05:59

NRao wrote: ?????

Not just Afghanistan, it is all over where there is a threat.

Ok, if you say so. Afghanisthan is a threat to the US and pakistan isn't eh? That is just peachy. Haven't taken a swig of the kool aid so am unable to see the "truth" as it appears to you.

A charged J-17 is as much of a threat to India as a free F-16

A charged J-17 makes pakistan spend cash it doesn't have, and free F-16s mean pakis have more cash to buy J17s. All of this has to be spelt out? really?

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 14 Feb 2016 06:01

ThiruV wrote:NRao,

Yes, I know what national interest means. That is not the point. Though I am interested in understanding what this "US national interest" is in Afghanisthan, that it requires pakistan to play a lead role in protecting this US interest...but I digress.

There is no national interest. The entered Afghanistan as a response to 9/11 nothing else. All they want right now is an honourable exit, or the closest thing to it possible.

The story about US needing troops to stabilizing afghanisthan using pakistan as middlemen is horsedung, in case that was not clear. Russia is not giving pakis weapons for free, but the US is. Selling weapons of war is not the issue, giving them for free (essentially, by giving pakis "aid" that can be used to purchase F-16s) to a terrorist nation like pakistan is. All of this is business as usual --

Right.. so paying off Pakistan to secure their lines-of-communication is a 'horsedung' idea. Its much more logical that they're handing out money because they're in a charitable mood?

just stating that US is not aiding pakistan "insignificantly" as some are arguing, to explain US behavior, is just laughable.

Don't make stuff up.

member_29325 · Post by **member_29325** » 14 Feb 2016 06:08

Viv S wrote: Right.. so paying off Pakistan to secure their lines-of-communication is a 'horsedung' idea.

No, what is horsedung is pretending that Pakistan has a role to play in stabilizing Afghanisthan, so that US can make a "honourable exit" or whatever the story is.

Unless one has wiped one's memory clean of pakistan's role in Afghanisthan pre- and post-9/11, making up tales of "paying pakistan to stabilize afghanisthan and make a honourable exit" is hilariously stupid at multiple levels.

As I have pointed out, US playing realpolitik is expected and understandable, but pretensions of "stabilizing afghanisthan and withdrawing", while arming and funding pakistan (which has been responsible for destabilizing afghanistan) does not compute. So excuse me for chortling at the reasons given for the US's support to pakistan so far...if the US policy makers actually think what you state, US foreign policy is in a lot more trouble than it lets on.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 14 Feb 2016 06:19

ThiruV wrote:As I have pointed out, US playing realpolitik is expected and understandable, but pretensions of "stabilizing afghanisthan and withdrawing", while arming and funding pakistan (which has been responsible for destabilizing afghanistan) does not compute. So excuse me for chortling at the reasons given for the US's support to pakistan so far...if the US policy makers actually think what you state, US foreign policy is in a lot more trouble than it lets on.

The only way the US operation in Afghanistan continues is if they keep some level of funding to Pakistan in place. You can snigger or chortle away, but that fact isn't going to change.

And if you think the ISAF forces ought to pack up and leave pronto, you should let the Indian govt know because its been lobbying for them to stay longer.

member_29325 · Post by **member_29325** » 14 Feb 2016 06:25

Viv S wrote: The only way the US operation in Afghanistan continues is if they keep some level of funding to Pakistan in place.

Yes, I heard you the first time, so you can stop repeating yourself. If you bothered to read what was written, the question is what exactly is this awesome US operation in Afghanisthan that depends on the asinine idea that Pakistan as middleman will stabilize afghanisthan. You seem to have no answer to that question, and that is fine. The rest of drivel about ISAF packing up or whatever was not raised in any of my posts. Anyway, I am done with this repetitious nonsense. It is boring. over and out.

johneeG · Post by **johneeG** » 14 Feb 2016 06:28

Viv S wrote:
ThiruV wrote:As I have pointed out, US playing realpolitik is expected and understandable, but pretensions of "stabilizing afghanisthan and withdrawing", while arming and funding pakistan (which has been responsible for destabilizing afghanistan) does not compute. So excuse me for chortling at the reasons given for the US's support to pakistan so far...if the US policy makers actually think what you state, US foreign policy is in a lot more trouble than it lets on.
The only way the US operation in Afghanistan continues is if they keep some level of funding to Pakistan in place. You can snigger or chortle away, but that fact isn't going to change.

And if you think the ISAF forces ought to pack up and leave pronto, you should let the Indian govt know because its been lobbying for them to stay longer.

So, Indian Govt wants US to stay in Afghanistan while US needs to pay pakistan in cash and gifts(like F16) to stay in Afghanistan?

US has been invading(Iraq & Afghanistan), destabilizing(Syria & Ukraine) and sanctioning(Iran & NoKo) so many countries for so many reasons. Yet, when it comes to Pakistan(which is accused of sheltering Osama), they are absolutely helpless?!! And the only way they can get Pakistan to agree is by gifting them F16 which will be used against India?!

Pakistan doesn't have any functioning economy without US help directly or indirectly. US helps Pakistan because US wants Pakistan to stay alive. Pakistan has got no leverage on Superpower US. US has got all leverage on Pakistan. Pakistan has no option but to dance to the tunes of US.

member_29325 · Post by **member_29325** » 14 Feb 2016 06:31

Pakistan has no option but to dance to the tunes of US.

US has no leverage on Pakistan these days, as it has been eroding for the past few years -- it is a lot less than it used to be in the past few years. Pakistan rents itself out to who ever wants to rent it. Pakistan is taking US money and screwing the US quite nicely.

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 14 Feb 2016 06:34

ThiruV wrote:Yes, I heard you the first time, so you can stop repeating yourself. If you bothered to read what was written, the question is what exactly is this awesome US operation in Afghanisthan that depends on the asinine idea that Pakistan as middleman will stabilize afghanisthan. You seem to have no answer to that question, and that is fine. The rest of drivel about ISAF packing up or whatever was not raised in any of my posts.

The topic related to the US aid to Pakistan, not the stability of the Afghan govt. If you have questions/comments about the latter, take it to the Afghanistan thread.