Immy duh Dimmy describes why he proposed to Maneka:

Immy duh Dimmy describes why he proposed to Maneka:
Sorry, Peregrine ji. my mistake.Peregrine wrote:chetak Ji :chetak wrote:isn't it good when the guru gets a rise out of her aged pupil??![]()
It only proves that im the dim was paying attention in class, no??
Imran has been visiting her for spiritual guidance for quite some time, so what kind of tipple did she serve??
im looks like the single malt type.
maybe a mellow lahori laphroaig aged in goat skin??
You have insulted my Wee Dram of the Drop from the Ol' Crater situated at Loch Laphroaig in the Isle of Islay.
Repent or you will face the wrath of Laphroag![]()
Cheers
It is also lucrative for them to let the trucks ply.abhik wrote:So pakies haven't started burning down the ISAF supply convoys yet? Wonder if the US took some preventive measures.
Before the news cycle—and the president himself—got consumed with the new White House tell-all last week, Donald Trump made a good foreign policy decision, albeit seemingly in haste. The administration announced it was suspending security assistance to Pakistan, on the grounds that the country is continuing to arm, assist, fund, and provide sanctuary to a wide array of Islamist militant groups that are murdering U.S. troops and their allies in Afghanistan. Well-placed sources involved with calculating the relevant funds have told me that this was not a planned policy and took the other agencies, not to mention the Pakistanis, by complete surprise. Rather it was an ex post facto response to Trump’s January 1, 2018 tweet vituperatively repining that:
With this move, though, the president may well stumble into a foreign policy success. Alternatively, he may break the U.S.-Pakistan relationship beyond repair while reaping few actual benefits. Which way it goes depends on the ability of his team to counter or even pre-empt likely Pakistani reprisals. So what might those be?The United States has foolishly given Pakistan more than 33 billion dollars in aid over the last 15 years, and they have given us nothing but lies & deceit, thinking of our leaders as fools. They give safe haven to the terrorists we hunt in Afghanistan, with little help. No more!
We’ve been here before.
In February 2011, Pakistan closed off ground routes America was using to resupply troops in Afghanistan, first because of the episode of Raymond Davis, a CIA contractor, who shot and killed two men linked to Pakistan’s intelligence agency after they menaced him at gun point. When the CIA rescue vehicle came, it killed a bystander who was uninvolved in the event. Just as the relationship was recovering, in May the Obama administration staged a unilateral raid on Osama bin Laden’s compound, which was in Pakistan less than a mile from the premier military academy. Then in November, NATO troops in Afghanistan killed 24 Pakistani troops, when they attacked a position near the Pakistani border from which they claimed to have been receiving fire. Pakistan disputed the characterization. In my view, the evidence suggests that the most acute mistakes were made by U.S.-NATO forces rather than Pakistan. The ground routes thus remained closed for much of the year; Pakistan did not fully reopen them until July 2012.
The United States was well into the surge at this point; between NATO forces and Afghan forces, there were hundreds of thousands of troops to resupply, all of whom had relied on the routes through Pakistan. The need to find alternative routes by land and air—including through Central Asia—ended up costing the Americans about $100 million per month more than the previous arrangement. Many feared that while this worked to get supplies into Afghanistan, it would not be sufficient to get massive amounts of war materiel out of Afghanistan when the United States and NATO withdrew. Consequently, the U.S. government hoped that Pakistan would reopen the ground routes. But it turns out that weaning itself off them was not such a bad option after all.
I argued at the time that Americans should not fall for the cheap ground transport solution Pakistan seemed to offer, in part because what America later spent on air supply was cheaper than the so-called Coalition Support Fund payments they paid Pakistan to help guarantee the use of those routes. Moreover, having kicked the cheap ground supply habit, the United States could be in a better position to do what it needed to do if it wanted to win: Put real and costly pressure on Pakistan for continuing to support the Taliban, which was one of the principle reasons for the U.S. inability to prevail in Afghanistan.
Arguably, America is in an even better position now than in 2011, because it only has about 14,000 troops in Afghanistan compared to 90,000 or so in 2011 (of a total of 132,000 NATO troops). America can certainly sustain this through air shipments, especially if it’s pocketing savings by not paying Pakistan the nearly $1 billion a year in Coalition Support Funds, among other funding streams.
But Pakistan has aces in sleeve.
Pakistan now says the alliance is over—and good riddance. Foreign Minister Khawaja Muhammad Asif complained that “This is not how allies behave.” He is absolutely correct: U.S. allies do not take its lower and middle-class taxpayers’ hard-earned money and hand it over to enemies such as the Taliban, the Haqqani Network, and Lashkar-e-Taiba.
Asif went on to offer the usual protestations that Pakistan’s military operations have cleared Pakistan of sanctuaries for these groups to hide in. But if there were such scoundrels on Pakistan’s territory, he said that if Pakistan went after them, “then the war will again be fought on our soil, which will suit the Americans.”
What is not clear in Asif’s statement is what Pakistan will cease doing. (We know for certain that it will not cease supporting the Taliban, the Haqqani Network, or Lashkar-e-Taiba.) Will Pakistan do as it has done in the past: Close the ground resupply routes? Will it escalate and close down its air space to American resupply flights? If that happens, what will the Trump administration do? Will it consider this action to be an act of war?
There is still space for further escalation short of conflict. Washington has been silent about U.S. economic assistance to Islamabad, which has totaled more than $11 billion since 9/11 and is thus about one third of the total $34 billion given to Pakistan thus far. And there are several kinds of sanctions that could be applied against persons as well as the country. It is not likely that the administration has pondered the next steps that both capitals can or will take.
In the meantime, Pakistan has repeatedly said that its relationship with the United States is redundant because it now has China. In fact, after Trump’s contumelious tweet, China’s Foreign Ministry declared that it is “ready to promote and deepen” its cooperation with Pakistan. But as with all things that sounds too good to be true, so is the Chinese embrace.
Unlike Washington, which has given Pakistan mostly grant aid, the Chinese only disburse loan aid, largely designed to enable Chinese businesses to build infrastructure in Pakistan on terms favorable to the Chinese. Sri Lanka provides a case study of the risks: Unable to pay back a Chinese loan to finance a port, Sri Lanka was forced to relinquish sovereignty over it and now the Chinese hold the lease to the port for 99 years. China is not truly a substitute for the United States, and it will take time for China to assemble a suite of programs to replace U.S. aid.
Still, Pakistan likely suspects it has the upper hand, and for good reason: It has cultivated a global fear that it is too dangerous to fail. This is why many Americans have been afraid to break ties with Pakistan and have never encouraged the International Monetary Fund and other multilateral organizations to cut off the country and let Pakistan wallow in its own mess. Pakistan believes it has effectively bribed the international community with the specter that any instability could result in terrorists getting their hands on Pakistani nuclear technology, fissile materials, or a weapon. In fact, Pakistan has stoked these fears by having the world’s fastest-growing nuclear program, including of battlefield nuclear weapons. It is conceivable that Pakistan could use funds from a future IMF bailout to service its burgeoning Chinese debt.
Still, one positive side effect of having an erratic head of state is that the United States now has a genuine and credible threat to act against Pakistan. America has not been in such a position since 9/11, when it used its position of leverage to coerce Pakistan to facilitate the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. Whereas Pakistan had long comforted itself that neither Presidents Bush nor Obama would seriously alter course, due to the petting zoo of Islamist militants that Pakistan cultivated as crucial tools of foreign policy, and to its nuclear weapons, Pakistan will have to seriously consider that Trump means what he says. Since the early months of the war on terror that began in October 2001, the United States has ultimately swerved when confronted with Pakistani brinkmanship. Pakistan can’t count on that this time.
Still, Pakistan likely suspects it has the upper hand, and for good reason: It has cultivated a global fear that it is too dangerous to fail. This is why many Americans have been afraid to break ties with Pakistan and have never encouraged the International Monetary Fund and other multilateral organizations to cut off the country and let Pakistan wallow in its own mess. Pakistan believes it has effectively bribed the international community with the specter that any instability could result in terrorists getting their hands on Pakistani nuclear technology, fissile materials, or a weapon. In fact, Pakistan has stoked these fears by having the world’s fastest-growing nuclear program, including of battlefield nuclear weapons. It is conceivable that Pakistan could use funds from a future IMF bailout to service its burgeoning Chinese debt.
Still, one positive side effect of having an erratic head of state is that the United States now has a genuine and credible threat to act against Pakistan. America has not been in such a position since 9/11, when it used its position of leverage to coerce Pakistan to facilitate the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. Whereas Pakistan had long comforted itself that neither Presidents Bush nor Obama would seriously alter course, due to the petting zoo of Islamist militants that Pakistan cultivated as crucial tools of foreign policy, and to its nuclear weapons, Pakistan will have to seriously consider that Trump means what he says. Since the early months of the war on terror that began in October 2001, the United States has ultimately swerved when confronted with Pakistani brinkmanship. Pakistan can’t count on that this time.
No, these countries are not the backer. It is the US. Has any of these countries given aid even close to 32 billion dollars? + IMF loans?vimal wrote:We must always remember that Terroristan has two powerful backers Saudis and Chin. As long as these are around there is little impact on the shitistan.
Nitpick retd is retired, retarded is implicit when you said PakjabiBart S wrote:^In fact the rumours on some of the Paki channels are that NS family influenced Saudis who interceded on their behalf and caused the POTUS to pressure Pakis (who are now run solely by the Army and no longer PML) as a favour to NS. Of course that could just be some conspiracy theory put out by rabid retd (retarded) Pakjabi Army folk.
+72*786!!!Vips wrote:It is on US support that the future King of Saudi Arabia is bringing in changes and also consolidating Power.US has leverage on Saudi to influence any likely financial support ($$ or Oil sale on deferred payment aka free basis to Pakistan). Pakistan no more has 3.5 friends. It is left with 1.5 friends (China and Saudi Arabia)
“Our expectations are straightforward,” Pentagon spokesman Colonel Rob Manning told reporters.
No mention of terrorists like hafiz suar and others.“Taliban and Haqqani leadership and attack planners should no longer be able to find safe haven or conduct operations from Pakistani soil.”
More than two-thirds of households drink bacterially contaminated water and, every year, 53,000 Pakistani children die of diarrhoea after drinking it, says Unicef.
In Lahore, Pakistan's second largest city, the situation is even worse than in Islamabad.
But Pakistan's water is not only contaminated, it is becoming scarce.
Official projections show the country, whose population has increased fivefold since 1960 to some 207m, will run dry by 2025, when they will be facing an “absolute scarcity” of water with less than 500 cubic metres available per person in Pakistan.
https://www.dawn.com/news/1381595/pakis ... householdsThat's just one third the water available in already parched Somalia now, according to the UN.
Why are we expecting them to take up our fight?anupmisra wrote:US conveys 'concrete' steps Pakistan must take to resume security aid flow
“Our expectations are straightforward,” Pentagon spokesman Colonel Rob Manning told reporters.No mention of terrorists like hafiz suar and others.“Taliban and Haqqani leadership and attack planners should no longer be able to find safe haven or conduct operations from Pakistani soil.”
https://www.dawn.com/news/1381633/us-co ... y-aid-flow
ArjunPandit wrote:Why are we expecting them to take up our fight?anupmisra wrote:US conveys 'concrete' steps Pakistan must take to resume security aid flow
No mention of terrorists like hafiz suar and others.
https://www.dawn.com/news/1381633/us-co ... y-aid-flow
From CBS here:JOHN DICKERSON: Let me ask you about Pakistan. The U.S. is cutting off aid to Pakistan. That's a- Pakistan is a nuclear power. Is it a good idea pressuring Pakistan, given all that's on the rest of the plate in the United States with a nuclear power?
MIKE POMPEO: John, again, I'm going to avoid the policy that you asked about, but I'll talk to you from the intelligence perspective what we see. We see that Pakistan is continuing to provide safe harbor havens inside of Pakistan for terrorists who present risks to the United States of America. We are doing our best to inform the Pakistanis that that is no longer going to be acceptable. So this- this conditioned aid, we've given them a chance. If they fix this problem, we're happy to continue to engage with them and be their partner. But if they don't, we're going to protect America.
JOHN DICKERSON: Haven't we always though- We get a lot of the U.S. intelligence benefits from things that the Pakistanis let the United States do as well. And so isn't there kind of a relationship that may not be perfect, but for the bad things they do they allow U.S. counterterrorism forces to benefit from staging or other benefits out of Pakistan? So isn't that at risk as a national security problem for the United States?
MIKE POMPEO: The president has made very clear that he needs Pakistan to cease being a safe haven for terrorists that threaten the United States of America. End. Period. Full stop.
Clear. Crystal.The president has made very clear that he needs Pakistan to cease being a safe haven for terrorists that threaten the United States of America. End. Period. Full stop.
Bakistanis are caught between the taller mountain and the deep sea.Instead, Ma Zhanwu, China's Consul General in Kolkata, chose to call their bilateral relationship "good."
"I would say that China has a good relationship with Pakistan, as we do with many other countries, including India. Right now we have a good relationship with India," ANI quoted him as saying.
Ma called the contentious Doklam issue between India and China an "old page," and hoped instead that the two countries would "turn a new page of further growth and development."
this is hilarious - "The report suggested that Khan met there with Bushra Maneka, known as Pinky in the area, for spiritual advice."
arun wrote:Xinhua reports that civilian underling in chief to the Uniformed Jihadi’s of the Punjabi Military Dominated Deep State of the Mohammadden Terrorism Fomenting Islamic Republic of Pakistan fronting fictional façade of civilian control over the Uniformed Jihadi’s , namely Defense Minister Khurram Dastgir Khan, has disclosed that the Islamic Republic has suspended defense and intelligence cooperation with the United States amid growing tensions over U.S. suspension of military aid to Pakistan:
Defense, intelligence cooperation with U.S. suspended: Pakistani defense minister
The Voice of America (VOA) on the other hand reports that the US insists its Major Non-NATO Ally has done no such thing.
Appears the US may be pretending that her Major Non-NATO Ally, the Mohammadden Terrorism Fomenting Islamic Republic of Pakistan has not stuck a finger up the US backside and wiggled it vigorously by claiming that that no such thing happened so as to not have to act on the tough guy threats they (the US) have made to the Islamic Republic
:
US Denies Pakistani Claims of Suspension of Military or Intel Cooperation
The fact that his spiritual guru is someone called Pinky is even funnier than the fact that the tharki buddha who wants to have his n'th marriage in his 60s is the main prime ministerial candidate of the country.Amol.d wrote:this is hilarious - "The report suggested that Khan met there with Bushra Maneka, known as Pinky in the area, for spiritual advice."anupmisra wrote:
Where are all the rahrah USA smokegetsinyoureyes people who used to come on this thread to say that the US twirls Pakistan around its little finger and that India should learn from the US. Cat got their tongue? Maun vrat?arun wrote:Xinhua reports that civilian underling in chief to the Uniformed Jihadi’s of the Punjabi Military Dominated Deep State of the Mohammadden Terrorism Fomenting Islamic Republic of Pakistan fronting fictional façade of civilian control over the Uniformed Jihadi’s , namely Defense Minister Khurram Dastgir Khan, has disclosed that the Islamic Republic has suspended defense and intelligence cooperation with the United States amid growing tensions over U.S. suspension of military aid to Pakistan:
Defense, intelligence cooperation with U.S. suspended: Pakistani defense minister
The Voice of America (VOA) on the other hand reports that the US insists its Major Non-NATO Ally has done no such thing.
Appears the US may be pretending that her Major Non-NATO Ally, the Mohammadden Terrorism Fomenting Islamic Republic of Pakistan has not stuck a finger up the US backside and wiggled it vigorously by claiming that that no such thing happened so as to not have to act on the tough guy threats they (the US) have made to the Islamic Republic
:
US Denies Pakistani Claims of Suspension of Military or Intel Cooperation