Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Sep 22, 2011
Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Sep 22, 20
Government plans two weekly holidays
Beggistan civil servants get to spend two days doing nothing at home instead of doing the same at the office -- all in the name of power shortage. Notice in the photo that the curtains are drawn and plenty of light is streaming in. Yet, two large, fully lit chandeliers are visible, each with what appears to be 30-odd, 100-watt bulbs. Ironic!
Looking at the grandeur, you wouldn't think the whole country runs on alms, would you?
Beggistan civil servants get to spend two days doing nothing at home instead of doing the same at the office -- all in the name of power shortage. Notice in the photo that the curtains are drawn and plenty of light is streaming in. Yet, two large, fully lit chandeliers are visible, each with what appears to be 30-odd, 100-watt bulbs. Ironic!
Looking at the grandeur, you wouldn't think the whole country runs on alms, would you?
-
- BRFite
- Posts: 204
- Joined: 07 May 2011 06:43
- Location: Canuckistan
Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Sep 22, 20
Please watch this gem of a clip from 5:45 till 7:00.
The crux is, Mango Apdul caller tells host that the whole puki media is having a war of words (after Mullen made the Hack-any-ISI-veritable-arm comment) but recently the US embassy at Isloo had an auction of its "joothe bartan" & "used carpets" and other puki ppl flocked in hordes from all across porkistan to pay good price for US second hand maal. To this the host 1(Nusrat Javed) tells host 2(Mushtaq Minhas) that this is the problem with the ppl of pakhanastan, they will yell at top of their voice anti-America slogans but if US announces that by tomorrow 10AM that whoever gets in the vicinity of local US embassy will get green card will cause riot amongst the same folks to get near the US embassy to get the Green Card.
Shame on Pakhanastan and these Pakhanis.
Real Be-ghairat Qaum.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9SB_wiH ... embedded#!
The crux is, Mango Apdul caller tells host that the whole puki media is having a war of words (after Mullen made the Hack-any-ISI-veritable-arm comment) but recently the US embassy at Isloo had an auction of its "joothe bartan" & "used carpets" and other puki ppl flocked in hordes from all across porkistan to pay good price for US second hand maal. To this the host 1(Nusrat Javed) tells host 2(Mushtaq Minhas) that this is the problem with the ppl of pakhanastan, they will yell at top of their voice anti-America slogans but if US announces that by tomorrow 10AM that whoever gets in the vicinity of local US embassy will get green card will cause riot amongst the same folks to get near the US embassy to get the Green Card.
Shame on Pakhanastan and these Pakhanis.
Real Be-ghairat Qaum.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9SB_wiH ... embedded#!
Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Sep 22, 20
Rehman Malik gets 'PhD for Peace' by KU
Caption:

Caption:
Rare moment of honesty, or Freudian slip? You decide.Vice Chancellor Karachi University Pir Zada Qasim awarding PhD degree to Federal Interior Minister Senator Rehman Malik in recognition of his national services against the war on terror at Governor House on Tuesday.
Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Sep 22, 20
Pattom wrote:Government plans two weekly holidays
Beggistan civil servants get to spend two days doing nothing at home instead of doing the same at the office -- all in the name of power shortage. Notice in the photo that the curtains are drawn and plenty of light is streaming in. Yet, two large, fully lit chandeliers are visible, each with what appears to be 30-odd, 100-watt bulbs. Ironic!
Looking at the grandeur, you wouldn't think the whole country runs on alms, would you?
Is that supposed to be Djinn technology or vacuum technology or candles? I have heard of energy efficient bulbs/ CFL/ LED etc., but energy savers instead of bulbs?Other measures approved by the meeting included closure of marriage halls at 10 p.m. across the country and encouraging the use of energy savers instead of bulbs.

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Sep 22, 20
Isn't this the same guy who was quoted as saying that he too would kill a blasphemer with his own hands, if the occasion should arise. I guess religious violence is exempt.Pattom wrote:Rehman Malik gets 'PhD for Peace' by KU
![]()
Caption:Rare moment of honesty, or Freudian slip? You decide.Vice Chancellor Karachi University Pir Zada Qasim awarding PhD degree to Federal Interior Minister Senator Rehman Malik in recognition of his national services against the war on terror at Governor House on Tuesday.
Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Sep 22, 20
No, no, he is talking about Wintergreen Lifesavers candy. They produce sparks and flashes of light inside the mouth when you chew them due to a phenomenon called triboluminescence (Google chacha). So, I'm guessing that they chew on these candies collectively in dimly-lit rooms, then open their mouths to let out light and the odor of Salan-Sabzi Gosht.Is that supposed to be Djinn technology or vacuum technology or candles? I have heard of energy efficient bulbs/ CFL/ LED etc., but energy savers instead of bulbs?
Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Sep 22, 20
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/oc ... sfeed=true
Pakistan and Iraq most dangerous countries for journalists
2011 has seen the killing of 44 journalists, with the Middle East and North Africa the most dangerous region to work in
Pakistan remains the most dangerous country for journalists to work in with eight killed there so far this year.
According to figures from the World Association of Newspapers and News Publishers (WAN-IFRA), 44 journalists have been killed so far in 2011. That compares with the 66 killed in the line of duty or targeted because of their work for the full year in 2010, and 99 in 2009.
WAN-IFRA's annual World Press Freedom Review reveals that: "In the last 10 years, 36 journalists have been targeted and killed in Pakistan and none of their cases have been brought to court. In 2010, the country was the world's deadliest for the press, and 2011 has seen no let-up."
Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Sep 22, 20
http://tribune.com.pk/story/272550/paki ... ndia-khar/
Pakistan decides to grant MFN status to India: Khar
By APP
Published: October 12, 2011
Pakistan decides to grant MFN status to India: Khar
By APP
Published: October 12, 2011
ISLAMABAD: Pakistan has, in principle, decided to grant Most Favoured Nation (MFN) status to India, said Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar on Wednesday.
Responding to a question during ‘question hour’ in the National Assembly, she said that the dialogue process with India has been initiated after a gap of two years. “The top-most priority of the country is to ensure uninterrupted dialogue with India so that the resolution of core Kashmir could be ensured”, she added.
“There are a number of achievements regarding relations with India. We have achieved ground on trade with India. First time in history, the Indian Foreign Minister had attended the reception of Pakistan Foreign Minister in New York,” she said.
Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Sep 22, 20
In principle means nothing.
Meanwhile GP rips the mask of WKKitis
Rogues who run Pakistan
Meanwhile GP rips the mask of WKKitis
Rogues who run Pakistan
Someone needs to bring him update on the kabila theory of Pakistan.Pretentious intellectuals and bleeding heart liberals in India continue to push the ridiculous idea that talks can reduce the ISI’s animosity towards this country.
Indian ‘intellectuals’ and bleeding heart liberals have zealously believed that ‘dialogue’ alone can address the animosity of the Taliban and its ISI mentors towards India, as though these organisations are akin to Mother Teresa’s ‘Missionaries of Charity’. The Taliban’s animosity towards India became manifest when 75 American Cruise missiles targetted Taliban and Al Qaeda strongholds in Afghanistan on August 20, 1998. The Americans accidentally did India a favour. Instead of eliminating Osama bin Laden or Mullah Omar, the Cruise missiles destroyed an ISI camp in Khost, training terrorists of the Harkat-ul-Mujahideen, for terrorism in Jammu & Kashmir. A few months later, the then ISI chief, Lt General Ziauddin Butt, met the Taliban ‘President’ Mullah Mohammed Rabbani and asked him to provide 20,000-30,000 ‘volunteers’ for jihad in Kashmir. Mullah Rabbani startled Gen Ziauddin by offering 5, 00,000 volunteers for this effort!![]()
Throughout the hijacking of IC 814 in December 1999, the Taliban was guided by ISI handlers who took charge of the three terrorists released by us. One of them, Omar Syed Sheikh, proceeded to kill American journalist Daniel Pearl. Shortly thereafter, with the help of the then ISI chief, Lt General Mahmud Ahmed (later sacked at the instance of the Americans), Sheikh transferred $100,000 to Mohammed Atta, the leader of the 9/11 hijackers. Maulana Masood Azhar, another recipient of Indian generosity during the hijacking, soon met Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar in Kandahar and organised the December 13, 2001 attack on our Parliament.
The third released terrorist, Mushtaq Zargar, now arranges cross-Line of Control infiltration from Muzaffarabad. Post-9/11, the Taliban, its Haqqani network affiliates and the Lashkar-e-Tayyeba, have targetted Indian workers and Consulates across Afghanistan, culminating in the July 2008 attack on our Embassy in Kabul and the subsequent attack on our Embassy officials in October 2009. Illusions that the Taliban would be reasonable partners in a dialogue for national reconciliation in Afghanistan have been shattered by revelations of the Mullah Omar-led Quetta Shura’s involvement in the treacherous assassination of former President Burhanuddin Rabbani.
The ISI has a long-standing tradition of destabilising elected Governments and meddling in elections within Pakistan. The former ISI chief, Lt General Asad Durrani, revealed in Pakistan’s Supreme Court that during the 1990 elections the ISI had provided ‘logistic support’ to a Right-wing alliance, the Islami Jamhoori Ittehad, and even obtained funds for the IJI from a Karachi businessman, Mr Younas Hamid. Gen Durrani subsequently revealed during investigations led by Interior Minister Major General Nasrullah Babar that on the instructions of the then Army chief, General Aslam Beg, a small proportion of funds collected for the 1990 elections was given to politicians like Mr Ghulam Mustafa Khar (uncle of Ms Hina Rabbani Khar), Mr Hafeez Pirzada and Mr Mairaj Khalid. The bulk of money collected from businessmen, according to Gen Durrani, was deposited in the ‘K Fund’ of the ISI to finance external operations. Referring to this claim by Gen Durrani, Gen Babar noted in his own hand: “This is false. The amount was pocketed by (then Army chief) General Beg.”![]()
Indulging in such activities was not the monopoly of Gen Durrani, who had subsequently approached Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif for approval of ISI involvement in narcotics trading to finance its operations in Punjab and Kashmir. Mr Sharif later revealed that he had “refused such a plan,” adding: “As a citizen of Pakistan, I was shocked”. Gen Durrani’s predecessor, Lt Gen Hamid Gul, who fancied himself as a strategic genius, met his Waterloo when he tried to dislodge Afghan President Mohammad Najibullah Ahmadzai’s forces from Jalalabad, just after the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan.Gen Gul had no inhibitions in boasting about his affiliation with radical Islamic elements in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Gen Durrani’s successor, Lt General Javed Nasir, a fundamentalist of the Tablighi Jamat, earned an even more notorious reputation. When the ISI involvement in the 1993 Mumbai bombings was established and Pakistan faced threats of further American sanctions, Mr Sharif was forced to sack Gen Nasir, who has recently been indicted by the War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague and faces charges of having violated UN sanctions by providing weapons to Muslim elements during the Bosnian civil war.
The names of subsequent ISI chiefs constitute a veritable ‘Rogues Gallery’ of people involved in terrorism. Gen Ziauddin’s activities have already found mention. His successor, Lt General Mahmud Ahmed, now, like Gen Nasir, a bearded activist of the Tablighi Jamat, had to be sacked by General Pervez Musharraf at the behest of the Americans for his close ties to the Taliban and other radical Islamic groups. General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani’s tenure as ISI chief saw Osama bin Laden finding safe haven in Abbottabad. His successor, Lt General Nadeem Taj, a Musharraf protégé, had the dubious distinction of also being eased out because of his hard line Islamist propensities. It was during Gen Taj’s tenure that the ISI’s links with the 2008 attack on the Indian Embassy in Kabul was established. His successor and present ISI chief, Lt General Shuja Pasha, commenced his tenure with the 26/11 terrorist strike by the Lashkar-e-Tayyeba on Mumbai. Gen Pasha has been summoned by a US court to appear before it in a case filed by the families of the victims of 26/11, after the revelations of Dawood Gilani aka David Coleman Headley about the ISI’s involvement. He is also reported to have met the indicted Lashkar military commander, Zakiur Rehman Lakhvi, in jail.
Pakistan’s military, whose current protégé is Imran Khan, has forced the weak PPP Government to launch a tirade against the Americans at the all-party meeting convened by Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani, a long-time Army favourite. At this meeting, Mr Sharif pointedly remarked to the military leaders present that there must be a ‘reason’ why the whole world was holding Pakistan responsible for terrorism. Pakhtun leader Mahmood Achakzai remarked: “There will be peace in Afghanistan within a month provided that the ISI stops exporting terrorism to that country”. The Awami National Party and the Bareilvi Sunni Tehriq have voiced similar sentiments.
It is astonishing that an Army that has brought disrepute to the country, never won a war and succeeded in losing half its country in 1971, still claims to be the ‘guardian of Pakistan’s territorial and ideological frontiers’.Given its continuing adventurism in relations with India and Afghanistan and its bluff and bluster in dealings with the US and its allies, Pakistan’s Army is leading the country further down the road of extremism, violence and economic stagnation.
Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Sep 22, 20
Eagle And Snake ,Both are Fake
Washington D.C. America takes a U turn in its foreign policy by showing willingness to cut deal with Haqqani.
Washington D.C. America takes a U turn in its foreign policy by showing willingness to cut deal with Haqqani.
Hillary Clinton on Tuesday signaled the United States remains open to exploring a peace deal including the Haqqani network, the militant group that US officials blame for a campaign of high-profile violence that could jeopardize Washington s plans for withdrawing smoothly from Afghanistan."Where we are right now is that we view the Haqqanis and other of their ilk as, you know, being adversaries and being very dangerous to Americans, Afghans and coalition members inside Afghanistan, but we are not shutting the door on trying to determine whether there is some path forward," Clinton said when asked whether she believed members of the Haqqani network might reconcile with the Afghan government. "It s too soon to tell whether any of these groups or any individuals within them are serious," she said in an interview with Reuters.
Inclusion of the Haqqani network in a hoped-for peace deal now a chief objective in the Obama administration s Afghanistan policy after a decade of war -- is a controversial idea in Washington.fficials blame the group for last month s attack on the US embassy in Kabul and a truck bombing that injured scores of American soldiers.The State Department is facing heat from Capitol Hill for refraining, at least so far, from officially designating the Haqqani group, which U.S. officials say is based in western Pakistan, as a terrorist organization.
Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Sep 22, 20
Cabinet approves two candle light Dinners per week
Raat Andheri hai, Bujh gaye Bulb
Raat Andheri hai, Bujh gaye Bulb
The meeting of the federal cabinet presided over by Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani approved a number of suggestions including two weekly day-offs to help save power. The approved suggestions would be presented to the Council of Common Interests for the final approval. It was also decided at the Federal Cabinet's meeting that marriage halls would be closed at 10 pm while the shopping malls and commercial plazas would be closed after sunset. It was also decided that electricity consumers seeking new connections would have to deposit two months bills in advance and that street lights and sign board bulbs would be replaced by saver bulbs
Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Sep 22, 20
http://www.dawn.com/2011/10/12/child-he ... cases.html
Child heart surgery cases
( Yindia, Yindia,Yindia)
Child heart surgery cases
( Yindia, Yindia,Yindia)
However, the number of paediatric cardiologists and paediatric surgeons in Pakistan remains small and much less than the population and the burden of the disease requires.The same is true of India and other Saarc countries. But the number and complexity of childhood heart diseases that can be treated in Pakistan has made a tremendous progress.India has a lead over Pakistan in this field, but, the gap has become narrow. There are only a few rare conditions that cannot be treated in Pakistan at this point in time. Both Pakistan and India lag behind the most advanced centres of the world in some state-of-the-art forms of surgeries. The main problem at present being the immense workload and backlog that exists in our region.As there are very few trained people available in the world and even fewer willing to return to Pakistan, this challenge is sure to continue for the foreseeable future in this region. India with a population 10 times that of Pakistan has a bigger problem than Pakistan.
Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Sep 22, 20
The world is a far different place today than the one in which the US -paki relationship was born. That was the time fo the hot cold war. With the Berlin blockade, Soviet-PRC togetherness, US paranoia at home via the Anti American activities subcomitee in congress and Sec. Dulles running US foreign policy. Today has no relationship to those days. Today, The US is the sole super power - at least militarily. Today, the paki is the head of a world wide terror network, working to undermine the existing world order for the greater glory of islam, and to generate new opportunities for islam through jehad. Today, the paki has nukes with with it openly threatens the existing world order of trade and commerce in which it cannot compete. the world today functions in a way that totally excludes islamic skill sets. The oil producing islamic societies are hanging on by their oily finger nails, and when alternate enrgy sources replace oil, then, the entire islamic set of humanity will be reduced to abject poverty and irrelevence. The paki has enough brains to understand that. So the paki, in its self appointed role as the leader of islam, has taken on itself to develop the only alternative that is part of islamic tradition - jehad, embodying loot, plunder, rape, mayhem by which to live their lives. So, yes, the world is different, very different from what it was when the US and the paki joined hands.
As for the US having access to central asia, and the paki's hold on geography, the US does indeed have a problem. But it is more than just access to central asian markets, oil, gas, trade and commerce. China has almost completed a coup of coralling all those assets. The Russians have gone along with the PRCees out of habit and compulsion - they certainly have enough siberian resources and do not need to corall the others. Indeed, by providing unfettered access of the others to the PRCees, they are protecting their hold on siberia against encroaching chinese takeover in the face of declining russian population and russian social fatigue working against taking firm control of siberia. Taken together with the PRCees aggressive trade and geopolitical offensive in Africa and the islam world, their offensive posture in SE Asia, the US is stymed, for the moment. To all this, a strategic alliance with the paki is NOT the answer, whatever the answer might be. Now I do believe that the US will, in the end, enter into the "grand alliance" - a strategic partenship with Moscow. It is an historic necessicity, and both the PRC and the paki and islamic aggressive posture against Europe point to this happening. In that case, access to the heart of Eurasia will not be an issue for the Americans. In return, it is likely that the US will open the Monroe doctorine wide to let in the Russians as a partner. For the US does control, in hard geopolitical terms, what goes in latin america, as it own "western hemisphere" backyard (all, that is, other than Cuba - with the consequences for Cuba that we see). Once that Grand Alliance happens, the paki will be toast - burnt toast, and one of the first to be targeted, thanks to its nukes. It is in India's best interests that such a grand alliance comes about, so it should work towards making it happen and when it does, to become a significant partner with it. That is the only way the world can evolve in an orderly way, without total chaos and mayhem led by the islamists, who will attack any sense of order other than what is in its own interests, and the interests of the PRC. For a while, the US will, I believe, attempt to avoid the inevitable - allying with Moscow, and sharing some of the power, and, instead, try and work out its seperate deals with both the PRC and the paki and the islamists. This will not work, in the end.
As for the US having access to central asia, and the paki's hold on geography, the US does indeed have a problem. But it is more than just access to central asian markets, oil, gas, trade and commerce. China has almost completed a coup of coralling all those assets. The Russians have gone along with the PRCees out of habit and compulsion - they certainly have enough siberian resources and do not need to corall the others. Indeed, by providing unfettered access of the others to the PRCees, they are protecting their hold on siberia against encroaching chinese takeover in the face of declining russian population and russian social fatigue working against taking firm control of siberia. Taken together with the PRCees aggressive trade and geopolitical offensive in Africa and the islam world, their offensive posture in SE Asia, the US is stymed, for the moment. To all this, a strategic alliance with the paki is NOT the answer, whatever the answer might be. Now I do believe that the US will, in the end, enter into the "grand alliance" - a strategic partenship with Moscow. It is an historic necessicity, and both the PRC and the paki and islamic aggressive posture against Europe point to this happening. In that case, access to the heart of Eurasia will not be an issue for the Americans. In return, it is likely that the US will open the Monroe doctorine wide to let in the Russians as a partner. For the US does control, in hard geopolitical terms, what goes in latin america, as it own "western hemisphere" backyard (all, that is, other than Cuba - with the consequences for Cuba that we see). Once that Grand Alliance happens, the paki will be toast - burnt toast, and one of the first to be targeted, thanks to its nukes. It is in India's best interests that such a grand alliance comes about, so it should work towards making it happen and when it does, to become a significant partner with it. That is the only way the world can evolve in an orderly way, without total chaos and mayhem led by the islamists, who will attack any sense of order other than what is in its own interests, and the interests of the PRC. For a while, the US will, I believe, attempt to avoid the inevitable - allying with Moscow, and sharing some of the power, and, instead, try and work out its seperate deals with both the PRC and the paki and the islamists. This will not work, in the end.
Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Sep 22, 20
http://www.america-russia.net/
http://en.rian.ru/columnists/20101230/161988632.html
Uncertain World: U.S.-Russian alliance cannot be ruled out
16:40 30/12/2010
Weekly column by Fyodor Lukyanov
http://en.rian.ru/columnists/20101230/161988632.html
Uncertain World: U.S.-Russian alliance cannot be ruled out
16:40 30/12/2010
Weekly column by Fyodor Lukyanov
When U.S. President Barack Obama was sworn in two years ago, no one thought the Russian question would become the focal point of not only his foreign but also his domestic policy.
© RIA Novosti.
Fyodor Lukyanov
The policy of resetting relations with Russia, launched to help resolve other more acute problems, has become Obama’s most successful foreign policy initiative. The ratification of the New START treaty, although it is more of a technical document than any kind of real breakthrough, is proof that the current U.S. administration can drive its point home.
We cannot be sure about relations between Russia and the United States in the 21st century. At least the Cold War paradigm was clear-cut and understandable. START-3 is the last of the big treaties designed to regulate the two superpowers’ rivalry in conditions when that very rivalry formed the backbone of global politics.
But the global situation has changed, and the international community is no longer tracking the ups and downs of U.S.-Russia talks. Iran and North Korea will attempt to produce their own nuclear bombs irrespective of how many missiles and warheads Russia or the United States may have, and China is steadily increasing its arsenal irrespective of what the nuclear giants do.
The U.S.-Russian relationship will only change when Moscow and Washington admit that much less depends on them in the world than they are accustomed to think, and that keeping the confrontations of yesteryear alive is actually a total waste of time and effort.
It is difficult to imagine Moscow and Washington as allies. But it would be unwise to rule out the possibility of any alliance in a world of such “mutable geometry,” where the lineup of forces is not set in stone but is an ever-changing quality.
Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Sep 22, 20
Acharya: Thank you for your post. It makes my point, and that many others have been suggesting, that a grand alliance between Washington and Moscow is going to happen - just a matter of time, and when it happens, some order will be re asserted on world geopolitics, some thing that is needed in the face of islamic jehaadi and PRC destabilizing efforts throughout the world.
Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Sep 22, 20
Prem: it is funny to read about concerns about pediatric surgery in Dung, the paki's sensible face to the world, given that the paki cannot run its trains for lack of locomotives. The paki has greater need for locomotive surgery than pediatric surgery, specially when, to the paki, half of those pediatric patients, the girls, do not matter.
Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Sep 22, 20
What a tragedy for us that we will no longer be able to see the spectacle of short circuits of light bulbs in vacuum.RCase wrote:Other measures approved by the meeting included closure of marriage halls at 10 p.m. across the country and encouraging the use of energy savers instead of bulbs.
Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Sep 22, 20
I think it is important to understand that Britain became superpower by default. That is to say Britain did not say "We are going to become a superpower". They just did all the things needed to help themselves and luck was on their side One day people woke up and realised that Britain ruled the world in a multipolar world where other powers (like the French, Germans and Italians and Spanish) were all runners up.ShauryaT wrote: I will restate my question again.
The question is what facts, interests and risks have changed since 1951 for the US to make a fundamental different policy choice. A choice that reflects US interests and assessment of risks, going forward. What are its realistic choices?
The above is an open question, not to say nothing has changed. Not sure if this fast moving thread has a place for it.
The same thing is true of the US. The US did not set out to become superpower. The US was pulled into two wars (WW1 and 2) shortly after the industrial era. In those wars the existing powers bashed each other senseless leaving only the US. The USSR only became a political-military superpower. It was big enough not to be intimidated by anyone. But it was never a superpower in America's league. America was the only industrial giant standing at the end of WW2. That, compared with its huge military Industrial complex made it superpower. Americans never spent the 20s and 30s saying "We wil become superpower" like I hear Indians (and Chinese) saying today.
The point I seek to make is that the status "superpower" is not so much one of "national ambition" as one of forces of history that bring down old powers and leave others at the top of the heap. American found itself at the top of the heap and then said "Hey we are at the top of the heap. Therefore what we are doing must be right. So we will continue to do what we are doing and will stay at the top of the heap"
American interests in the post WW2 era have been aimed at staying on top of the heap on the assumption that it was something special about American-ness and American actions that put them at the top of the heap. Not chance or the forces of history. America made it seem like "Freedom" (in an American sense) and "Capitalism" were somehow the key to greatness. The world swallowed this because America was already great when they started saying it and no one could argue. But if we just wind the clock back 1000 years then "superpower" would mean Islam. Not freedom. Not democracy. Looting and not capitalism was the basis of economy, although capitalism requires some looting I guess.
i would not assume the continuing of American power. Pakistan may well end up having aspects of power that are greater than America's power. And as America fades we will be left with a extraordinarily powerful Pakistan that contributed to a small extent to the fading of American power. The only question is how much power America will give to Pakistan before it fades away in the mistaken belief that not opposing Pakistan is in American interests.
Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Sep 22, 20
shiv ji: namaskar. re:
That is an astute assumption, and ifthe Americans are as stupid as you assume, then they will certainly suffer the fate you prescribe. But, living among the Americans most my life, I have to say that what you assume about Americans re the paki, is not true. As any rational state (super power or not) follows policies for its own interests, the Americans are in the process of reviewing what good comes to them from associating with the paki. You and I, and this entire forum are welcome to entertain the same question, and dispassionately arrive at conclusions based on information freely available to us. And then, perhaps we can decide whether it is in the interests of the US to continue associating closely with the paki, and if so, then in what capacity. I believe at the moment, the US is going to let the paki hang by the rope of uncertainity, and let it twist slowly in the wind while they decide their next move with it. Of course, the paki is an impatient animal, and it is likely to take actions on its own, and those may force the Americans hand, but I do believe that the US is in a wait and see mode with the paki, and it does not like being in that state.i would not assume the continuing of American power. Pakistan may well end up having aspects of power that are greater than America's power. And as America fades we will be left with a extraordinarily powerful Pakistan that contributed to a small extent to the fading of American power. The only question is how much power America will give to Pakistan before it fades away in the mistaken belief that not opposing Pakistan is in American interests.
Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Sep 22, 20
parsuram wrote:I believe at the moment, the US is going to let the paki hang by the rope of uncertainity, and let it twist slowly in the wind while they decide their next move with it. Of course, the paki is an impatient animal, and it is likely to take actions on its own, and those may force the Americans hand, but I do believe that the US is in a wait and see mode with the paki, and it does not like being in that state.
Parsuram, I cannot dismiss this as false, but I can question the underlying presumptions that reveal themselves by the analogies you use and the tone and tenor of the post. The picture you paint is one of a small Pakistani animal - maybe a fish hanging on a fishing line that the US fisherman is looking at, wondering whether it needs to be thrown back in the water, or beaten on the head with a club, or allowed to writhe and die.
The Pakistani military has less to lose in this game than the US. Loss of territory or lives are all acceptable for the Pakistani military as long as there is personal benefit to a small core group of Pakistani interests. None of these can even be contemplated as acceptable by the US, and the US in any case is not fighting for its own territory and will not lose any by withdrawing. The US again loses very little by buying cooperation from the Pakistan army and establishment. To that extent US interests and the interests of the Paki military establishment exactly coincide.
The US can cop out and pull out leaving a powerful Pakistan military. If the US does that it would no be a US victory no matter which which way it is spun. It was Pakistani military interests that controlled Afghanistan till 9-11, and a continuation of that with a failure of US control would be a defeat of the US to Pakistani interests.
So what can the US do? Actually the US cannot and will not fight the Pakistan military. It is a strawman for anyone to say that Indians hope that the US will fight the Pakistan military. The only country in the world that has successfully fought and defeated the Pakistan military is India. It will be India's burden to defeat that Pakistani military if push comes to shove. So at best Indians can hope that if the US is defeated and cornered by Pakistan, they will not leave the Pakistan military more powerful than it was when they came in. In fact even this hope is a useless hope. the Pakistan military in 2011 is already more powerful than it was in 2001. And the US is no more ready to fight Pakistan in 2011 than it was in 2001. How do you then draw the analogy that "the US is going to let the paki hang by the rope of uncertainity, and let it twist slowly in the wind while they decide their next move with it". The observation hardly matches the facts. All that the US has done is to make the Pakistan army more powerful than it was and if push comes to shove the US is not going to fight the Pakistan military.
Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Sep 22, 20
Shiv, all these countries consciously tried to become the top dog. For the US, the "Manifest Destiny" began in the 19th century. It morphed into President Woodrow Wilson's ""The world must be made safe for democracy."
Here is a quote from "American Mythos: Why Our Best Efforsts to Be a Better Nation Fall Short", by Robert Wuthnow.
Here is a quote from "American Mythos: Why Our Best Efforsts to Be a Better Nation Fall Short", by Robert Wuthnow.
Musing as he often did about America's future, Walt Whitman predicted in 1872 that the United States would become the world's leading power and remain so for some time to come. The anguish of the Civil War, Whitman believed, would soon fade from memory, and a more optimistic spirit would take hold. The transcontinental railroad had recently been completed, commerce was growing, and an army of hardy pioneers was moving west. Whitman was inspired by these developments. More than by the prospect of military and economic dominance, Whitman's imagination was fired by the thought of America's become a noble people. America's role, he wrote, was "to become the grand producing land of nobler men and women - of copious races, cheerful, healthy, tolerant, free- to become the most friendly nation, (the United States indeed)-the modern composite nation, form'd from all, with room for all, welcoming all immigrants- acepting the work of our own interior development, as the work fitly filling ages and ages to come;- the leading nation of peace, but neither ignorant nor incapable of being the leading nation of war; - not the man's nation only, but the woman's nation- a land of splendid mother, daughters, sisters, wives."
Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Sep 22, 20
Pakistan has more nukes in 2011 than in 2001, but apart from that I doubt it has become more powerful in the last 10 years. To wage a war for any period of time requires an economic base. At least an industrial base that can make locomotives.
Pakistan is all the more desperate about having Afghanistan as its protectorate because of its increasing weakness, especially relative to India. You can view the Pakistani hits on the US of A as the snapping of a cornered rat. The real or perceived decline of the US of A has little bearing on it.
Pakistan is all the more desperate about having Afghanistan as its protectorate because of its increasing weakness, especially relative to India. You can view the Pakistani hits on the US of A as the snapping of a cornered rat. The real or perceived decline of the US of A has little bearing on it.
Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Sep 22, 20
I liked much of your post and agree largely. I do not think, anyone who matters in US policy circles not realize that Islam pasand nations are not in its interests, especially after 9/11. Hence there is a sombre realization that they cannot leave this region alone but the question of what is the level of resources and capital expended to confront and maintain interests is still an open policy question.shiv wrote: The only question is how much power America will give to Pakistan before it fades away in the mistaken belief that not opposing Pakistan is in American interests.
This is where India has to find a balance and an opening to pursue her interests.
Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Sep 22, 20
No. Not for asymmetric war. Or guerilla war. That is why Pakistan has invested so heavily in Islamic indoctrination and hate of kafirs in its own population. Human populations do not sit back and accept military domination. The obvious response to Indian military superiority was asymmetric war. When an entire population is ready to fight - the nation may fail (like Somalia) but the "invader" cannot win. Pakistan may not win, but will not allow the US to win either. The US's (allies) victory over Germany was total. as it was over Japan. Japan and Germany followed "rules" of war where the "accepted" military defeat as defeat. But the victors had learned their lessons from the resentment of post WW I Germany and the defeated nations were treated graciously with quaint rules like "If you are an Nazi leader you will be prosecuted, but if you were a soldier we will let you off"A_Gupta wrote:Pakistan has more nukes in 2011 than in 2001, but apart from that I doubt it has become more powerful in the last 10 years. To wage a war for any period of time requires an economic base. At least an industrial base that can make locomotives.
Those rules all break down in the sort of war fought by the Taliban. The Pakistan army is the only army in the world that maintains conventional and "unconventional" capability based on low cost ideological armies. Nations like India and the US rely on their militaries to fight both the conventional (world war 2 type) military to military war as well as the asymmetric guerilla war of the Taliban/Islamist groups. The political structure of India and the US do not allow the utilization of groups like the Taliban officially. The US utilised Pakistan for that. Pakistan pays the price that needs to be paid for maintaining such allies but will not be defeated by the US.
Last edited by shiv on 13 Oct 2011 08:07, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Sep 22, 20
In the period 2001 to 2011, communications networks in Pakistan have changed dramatically. This has happned on the back of US aid which eased Pakistan's burden. The Pakistan army now has bulletproof vests, military grade night vision equipment, UAVs and comm like never before. And its decrepit armed forces have been renewed in terms of equipment although morale is down and costs are probably up.
But it is easy to be drowned by USA hurrahs at the spectacular bin Laden raid and forget all the instances when shared US intelligence has kept Pakstani fugitives safe and ISAF soldiers dying. When you think of the US and Pakistan negotiating, you are looking at a USA that will try to get away at least cost to itself. or at least avoid higher cost option. Pakistani negotiators will look for greatest benefits from the US. For thatthey have to see where they can raise the cost to the US and reduce the cost if the US pays them
So Pakistan US relations is all about Pakistan raising the cost while the US pays for lower cost option and skirts higher cost options. War with Pakistan would be the highest cost. If you rule out US war with Pakistan you are ruling out the awesome power of the US military. Now what is the US minus its military? It's about dollars and the good life. The US can give dollars and a good life and Pakis elite want dollars and a good life. The US does not want war with Pakistan. Pakistan says "We the army don't want to fight with you but the Islamic people are fighting against you. You get out and they will become quiet"' Pakistan is using its asymmetric war capability against the US with the same deniability that the US used vis a vis the USSR.
For those who understand Tamil expressions Pakistan is showing "thanni" to the US.
But it is easy to be drowned by USA hurrahs at the spectacular bin Laden raid and forget all the instances when shared US intelligence has kept Pakstani fugitives safe and ISAF soldiers dying. When you think of the US and Pakistan negotiating, you are looking at a USA that will try to get away at least cost to itself. or at least avoid higher cost option. Pakistani negotiators will look for greatest benefits from the US. For thatthey have to see where they can raise the cost to the US and reduce the cost if the US pays them
So Pakistan US relations is all about Pakistan raising the cost while the US pays for lower cost option and skirts higher cost options. War with Pakistan would be the highest cost. If you rule out US war with Pakistan you are ruling out the awesome power of the US military. Now what is the US minus its military? It's about dollars and the good life. The US can give dollars and a good life and Pakis elite want dollars and a good life. The US does not want war with Pakistan. Pakistan says "We the army don't want to fight with you but the Islamic people are fighting against you. You get out and they will become quiet"' Pakistan is using its asymmetric war capability against the US with the same deniability that the US used vis a vis the USSR.
For those who understand Tamil expressions Pakistan is showing "thanni" to the US.
Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Sep 22, 20
They don't have money to run their trains but have money to send to Naxalites in India.parsuram wrote:Prem: it is funny to read about concerns about pediatric surgery in Dung, the paki's sensible face to the world, given that the paki cannot run its trains for lack of locomotives. The paki has greater need for locomotive surgery than pediatric surgery, specially when, to the paki, half of those pediatric patients, the girls, do not matter.

Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Sep 22, 20
^^ That is the counterfeit money that they produce anyway! To run the trains, they need PK Rupees/ USD; which I guess is in short supply.
Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Sep 22, 20
Everyone knows the final solution is Poak dissolution. Ropetelian Djinnites will remain in Southj Asian drain till civilized world make up its mind to act and do Jhatka wala Khatka. Inherrent nature of Pakiststaniat will make sure of such conflict with Kuffar, ending up in either Dirty Defanging or Decapitatiion of them. Soon, within a decade , they reach the stage where they will want to get over , do Aar or Paar and lets hope preparation are made for their check out of here.
Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Sep 22, 20
Shiv wrote:
The Wardak truck bomb that injured 77 US troops in A'stan was the only thing the ISI could come up with for the 10 year salgirah of 911. Something was expected in the US instead and security was really high in anticipation.
Also, its also a little known fact that all cost issues will be off the table if TSP is involved in a terror act of some significance on US soil. That is the only trigger now. They may try and spin it if and when it happens, but that is the only true trigger, nothing else. POTUS' will come and go.
This is the way everyone understands it and is really true. We would never have imagined before 911 that Pai-kiss tan would have the jurrat to fund Atta. This changed everything in the Western psyche. The African Embassy bombings were just a wake up call.So Pakistan US relations is all about Pakistan raising the cost while the US pays for lower cost option and skirts higher cost options.
The Wardak truck bomb that injured 77 US troops in A'stan was the only thing the ISI could come up with for the 10 year salgirah of 911. Something was expected in the US instead and security was really high in anticipation.
Also, its also a little known fact that all cost issues will be off the table if TSP is involved in a terror act of some significance on US soil. That is the only trigger now. They may try and spin it if and when it happens, but that is the only true trigger, nothing else. POTUS' will come and go.
Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Sep 22, 20
shiv ji, if you compare paki army or fizzle ya of 2001 to that of 2011, yes they have progressed. but that means little without a comparison with its likely adversaries. even somalia's GDP would have increased in that time period.
in purely military terms forces have to keep running to stay at the same place, pakistan hasn't been able to run that hard. the gap with India has only widened.
in purely military terms forces have to keep running to stay at the same place, pakistan hasn't been able to run that hard. the gap with India has only widened.
Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Sep 22, 20
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/stor ... -strike/50
The problem is the Haqqani network is not mapped. So we dont know is this real progress or ISI passing of goats as camels.
The problem is the Haqqani network is not mapped. So we dont know is this real progress or ISI passing of goats as camels.
Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Sep 22, 20
My take on the predicament that the US is facing in the Af-Pak region is due to ill defined goals. Unlike WW1 and WW2, there was a clear cut definition of the enemy and the goals to be achieved. The current low grade wars are cloaked with dubious missions of GWOT, WMD, Spreading of Democracy etc. The milestone markers for 'mission accomplished' are hard to define for the masses.
Typically, it is easier to invade a country and achieve a military victory and pull out. The outcome of this can be predicted with military capability (who has the most modern weapons etc.) However, it is harder to occupy a country for peace keeping missions and imposing will over a populace (regime change). Recent history is replete with countries that have failed to achieve this, including US in Iraq, former SU in Afghanistan etc.
The US is finding itself in a pickle in Afghanistan. How does one declare victory in a GWOT? Even if one OBL is killed, there are numerous other worthies to fill the slot, which TSP has been milking to the hilt. The US has put itself in a no-win situation.
I tend to agree with Shiv and other posters. Despite all the rhetoric, TSP is able to show the middle finger as every one is fretting and fuming in impotent rage; supremely confident that US and the rest of the world do not yet have the appetite to wage a hot war in Pakistan. The damages done by TSP is like a low grade fever that the US (and India) hope can be cured with OTC drugs (drones, dossiers etc.) and has not reached the level for IV or ER surgery (full on, hot war).
TSP has lived with the impression that it can have terror proxies and rein them in anytime. US lived with a similar impression that it can rein in its proxy (TSP) anytime. Sadly, both of them now know that is not true. Never underestimate the basic instinct of wild animals.
Typically, it is easier to invade a country and achieve a military victory and pull out. The outcome of this can be predicted with military capability (who has the most modern weapons etc.) However, it is harder to occupy a country for peace keeping missions and imposing will over a populace (regime change). Recent history is replete with countries that have failed to achieve this, including US in Iraq, former SU in Afghanistan etc.
The US is finding itself in a pickle in Afghanistan. How does one declare victory in a GWOT? Even if one OBL is killed, there are numerous other worthies to fill the slot, which TSP has been milking to the hilt. The US has put itself in a no-win situation.
I tend to agree with Shiv and other posters. Despite all the rhetoric, TSP is able to show the middle finger as every one is fretting and fuming in impotent rage; supremely confident that US and the rest of the world do not yet have the appetite to wage a hot war in Pakistan. The damages done by TSP is like a low grade fever that the US (and India) hope can be cured with OTC drugs (drones, dossiers etc.) and has not reached the level for IV or ER surgery (full on, hot war).
TSP has lived with the impression that it can have terror proxies and rein them in anytime. US lived with a similar impression that it can rein in its proxy (TSP) anytime. Sadly, both of them now know that is not true. Never underestimate the basic instinct of wild animals.
Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Sep 22, 20
Meanwhile, droneacharya scores another 3, inluding a Hack-any bigwig.
http://news.yahoo.com/us-missile-kills- ... 47973.html
They identified the Haqqani member as Jalil and said he was a "coordinator" for the group.
http://news.yahoo.com/us-missile-kills- ... 47973.html
Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Sep 22, 20
shiv ji: Among other things, you write:
Shiv ji, you have to understand that it is the US which constantly practice dispropotionate personnel warfare. They fought and won in Bosnia without having any boots on the ground. Zero casualties. They can go after the paki army the same way - from the air, against known paki army installations. and in the air, the US is king. Against anyone. Paki cantonements will be sitting ducks. Known paki army installations will be wiped out. They will have trouble meeting any place. The US will go after the paki army/airforce/navy with a ferocity they have not experienced before - not even from the Indians. And they will go after them in 1s and 2s. They will destroy their infra structure before they touch anything else. Thing is, a balkans type war against the paki army will decimate it. Their tech level is primitive compared to the americans; and most of it is from the US anyway - so they know their way around it. The paki should check with the serbs on how that war went. No shiv, I disagree with you on this one. The paki vs the US is no contest and game over for the paki. PS the nukes will not be a factor.The US can cop out and pull out leaving a powerful Pakistan military. If the US does that it would no be a US victory no matter which which way it is spun. It was Pakistani military interests that controlled Afghanistan till 9-11, and a continuation of that with a failure of US control would be a defeat of the US to Pakistani interests.
So what can the US do? Actually the US cannot and will not fight the Pakistan military. It is a strawman for anyone to say that Indians hope that the US will fight the Pakistan military. The only country in the world that has successfully fought and defeated the Pakistan military is India. It will be India's burden to defeat that Pakistani military if push comes to shove. So at best Indians can hope that if the US is defeated and cornered by Pakistan, they will not leave the Pakistan military more powerful than it was when they came in. In fact even this hope is a useless hope. the Pakistan military in 2011 is already more powerful than it was in 2001. And the US is no more ready to fight Pakistan in 2011 than it was in 2001. How do you then draw the analogy that "the US is going to let the paki hang by the rope of uncertainity, and let it twist slowly in the wind while they decide their next move with it". The observation hardly matches the facts. All that the US has done is to make the Pakistan army more powerful than it was and if push comes to shove the US is not going to fight the Pakistan military.
Last edited by parsuram on 13 Oct 2011 12:06, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Sep 22, 20
Not likely to happen while troops are stuck in Afghanistan and need a route through TSP. That is why all the downhill skiing by DoS. It was easier to saber rattle and threaten bombing to stone age when high level of troops were not in Afghanistan. An expansion of the war theater to Pak is not likely to go down well in the US as well as rest of the world (Vietnam syndrome). The US public is war-weary and does not quite understand the goals of a 10 year war with multiple fronts.
Libya was relatively easier - outsourced aerial bombing by NATO and covert operations did the trick in a short period. This assumption cannot be done in the case of TSP with the troops in Afghanistan.
That is why there is a difference in the level of bark. If some rogue elements in Iran are responsible for awful stuff, the whole country is immediately branded as a terror sponsoring state, whereas in the case of TSP, there are verbal gyrations of trying to paint specific wings, specific persons etc. and pretending that the whole TSP state is not involved in roguish activity.
Libya was relatively easier - outsourced aerial bombing by NATO and covert operations did the trick in a short period. This assumption cannot be done in the case of TSP with the troops in Afghanistan.
That is why there is a difference in the level of bark. If some rogue elements in Iran are responsible for awful stuff, the whole country is immediately branded as a terror sponsoring state, whereas in the case of TSP, there are verbal gyrations of trying to paint specific wings, specific persons etc. and pretending that the whole TSP state is not involved in roguish activity.
Last edited by RCase on 13 Oct 2011 11:52, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Sep 22, 20
parasuram - the US can indeed utterly destroy the conventional military infrastructure of pakistan from the air, in perhaps 2-3 weeks or less just using their normal conventional means. they can do a shock n awe on the ground and rout the pak fauj faster than the republican guard and taliban. but the destruction of the irregular military complex and the occupation and pacification of pakistan is not do-able by american air power or boots on the ground - at an acceptable cost at this stage. the same applies for india. the restructuring of the jehad factory must ultimately be political change.
Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Sep 22, 20
The Interesting question is WHY some Iranian tried to kill the Saudi Ambassador to the US?
As some one on the this thread said, "just like clock work"
As some one on the this thread said, "just like clock work"
Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Sep 22, 20
Just treat them lraq, impose economic sanctions where no international flights, no oil imports no trade Banking transactions in and out of Pakistan, no commercial ships in and out of pakistan and close the Karakoram highway. This will ensure Pakis start fighting amoung themeselves, descend into choas.Lalmohan wrote:parasuram - the US can indeed utterly destroy the conventional military infrastructure of pakistan from the air, in perhaps 2-3 weeks or less just using their normal conventional means. they can do a shock n awe on the ground and rout the pak fauj faster than the republican guard and taliban. but the destruction of the irregular military complex and the occupation and pacification of pakistan is not do-able by american air power or boots on the ground - at an acceptable cost at this stage. the same applies for india. the restructuring of the jehad factory must ultimately be political change.
Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Sep 22, 20
Lalmohan: Thing is, the paki is not prepared for the US or anyone else to "utterly destroy the conventional military infrastructure of pakistan". This is unacceptable to the paki. At the first hint of any such shock n awe, the paki will fold totally. You must understand their mentality - the strutting about and parading their missiles, the swagger about their nukes and so on. Oh, the very thought of all that beauty getting bombed to the stone age..ugh..., no paki worth his pakiness can contemplate this without voiding. Oh, and the thought of that happening to isloo the beautiful... nah nah nah, it is too horrible to think about it (reload & re-void). No collection of Afghanistan rocks, or the whole kit'n'kaboodle is worth this.
Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): Sep 22, 20
Even if US has to go after TSP , surely it would have learnt lessons from the past in Pakistan as well as around the world. Conventional strikes against TSP are damn near useless because if one wants to hurt an adversary then then the wounds should be so bad that there is no chance of vengeance. US and TSP know that the paki response to any conventional strike will mean more and more terror strikes against American interests and civilians across the globe.
If anything US will want to see more of the same i.e. pakis fighting among themselves, economy going to dogs and ramping up military capability which they cannot afford onto the path of self destruction.
If anything US will want to see more of the same i.e. pakis fighting among themselves, economy going to dogs and ramping up military capability which they cannot afford onto the path of self destruction.