The Cellar

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)
-   Current Events (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=4)
-   -   Pakistan (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=19926)

ZenGum 03-30-2009 06:47 AM

Pakistan
 
We need a thread about Pakistan. There are probably some old ones, but they're dormant, so I thought I'd start a fresh one.

Why should we care about Pakistan?
Pakistan is probably more important than Iraq or Afghanistan. It's population exceeds the other two combined. They have nuclear weapons and an army that obeys the political government only when it feels like it. They have a history of political instability, corruption and violence. A significant portion of the country is not under the control of the central government, and in many cases, is held and run by Taliban-like Islamists. It's right next door to Afghanistan.

On the other hand, there are a lot of people who are very active in support of civil justice and rights, who will protest loudly sometimes effectively, and they do have elections from time to time. And I have a friend from there, and he is cool.

More recently, Pakistan was probably a staging point for the mass shootings in India, and saw a team of gunmen attack the visiting Sri Lankan cricket team. Very recently, a police academy in Lahore was stormed by a small group of fighters and held for about 8 hours.

This (Northern) spring is looking "interesting" in Afghanistan. It is expected that the coalition will step up efforts do drive their enemies out of the mountain strongholds. My worry is that this will simply drive them, at best, into other places in Afghanistan or, much worse, into Pakistan. This would destabilize Pakistan further. Do we interfere inside Pakistan?

So I thought I would start a thread about Pakistan, and we can update and discuss as things happen.

DanaC 03-30-2009 07:00 AM

Fascinating place, Pakistan. As is Kashmir. Lot of Kashmiris in my borough.

Even more than India, Pakistan is contradiction incarnate. Their gender politics are bizarre. Outlying traditional villages might be marrying off their daughters at 9, but the middle class Pakistani women are a completely different kettle of fish.

TheMercenary 03-30-2009 07:04 AM

Great thread. And an important issue. I think we need to be very careful in our intervention in Pakistan. We are pushing the issue already with the missle attacks in the un-governed areas along the border, but I believe that is an acceptable risk. You really can't discuss Pakistan with out discussing Afghanistan in the issue. The ISI has supported the Taliban for years. And the problem most people have is separating the Taliban from al-Qaida. And it seems like the government, first Bush, now Obama, have no interest in ensuring that the public understand the difference. As you stated pouring more US troops into Afghanistan and increasing operations there has the potential for creating more problems in Pakistan, an already fragile government. I fear that Afghanistan will become a bigger quagmire than Iraq ever was, and so far history has proven that notion to be correct.

For some light reading on the subject and from a historical position there are some good reads here:

http://www.theatlantic.com/fs/search...words=Pakistan

sugarpop 03-30-2009 08:31 PM

I saw an interview with Jehan Al Sadat with Rachel Maddow last week. She was married to Egyptian president Anwar Sadat. She spoke about Pakistan. According to her, almost all the middle eastern terrorist groups work out of Pakistan. She believes peace is possible though. Egypt was the first Muslim country to sign a peace treaty with Israel, and it is still in effect to this day. You can catch the interview here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#29905028

I believe Pakistan is more important than Afghanistan for the stability of the region, but it is hard to separate those two countries when we talk about this. Clearly we will need to work in concert with the government of Pakistan. We cannot afford a war with them. We will never win over the people of those countries though if just continue to occupy the countries over there. That was their beef with us in the first place (well one of them anyway). We need to rethink our strageties.

I was dismayed when Obama announced he would be sending more troops to Afghanistan. Since we ARE planning on spending money there to build things though, I reeeeally hope they use the local population for as many jobs as they are qualified for, because that would go a long way toward creating good will. If we just bring in Americans, that won't help.

Same goes for Pakistan. I think a lot of the people don't support al qaeda or the Taliban, but they don't support us either, so they are choosing the (to them) lesser of two evils when they support terrorist or extremist groups. In order to turn that around, we need to be their partners, not their dictators.

piercehawkeye45 03-31-2009 12:03 AM

Pakistan will most likely be, if not is, a failed state soon. Once that happens, Pakistan will need to be the number one priority in the region.

xoxoxoBruce 03-31-2009 01:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zen Gum (Post 550999)
snip~ And I have a friend from there, and he is cool.~snip

No no, he's a terrorist... kill him now. :haha:

The radical Islamists that are trying to minimize, if not usurp, the elected government of Pakistan derives major funding from the afghan poppy crops. They operate like the mafia making it impossible for the Afghan peasants to survive without growing poppies for the Taliban.

The central Afghan government has never controlled the country, because the power belongs to the tribal chiefs who have never bowed to the Afghan government or any foreign government.

If General Petraeus is given the tools and support, I believe his counter insurgency tactics of providing security for the peasants and doling out authority to tribal chiefs that help, can gain the cooperation of the Afghan people in defeating the Taliban and depriving them of that major funding.

I feel this is the best way to help the moderate Pakistanis regain and retain control of their country

sugarpop 03-31-2009 06:58 AM

Maybe WE could start paying farmers for the poppy growing. We do it with other countries. That is where a lot of our painkillers come from.

piercehawkeye45 03-31-2009 07:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarpop (Post 551456)
Maybe WE could start paying farmers for the poppy growing.

I thought we do...

At least pay for the final product.

DanaC 03-31-2009 08:16 AM

The answer's been staring us in the face. The USA needs to become a producer of poppies and exporter of heroin. That'd fuck the Afghan poppy trade once and for all.

sugarpop 03-31-2009 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45 (Post 551472)
I thought we do...

At least pay for the final product.

We do with other countries, but I don't believe we do in Afghanistan. I could be wrong though.

tw 03-31-2009 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanaC (Post 551473)
The answer's been staring us in the face. The USA needs to become a producer of poppies and exporter of heroin. That'd fuck the Afghan poppy trade once and for all.

Cannot happen. The farmers are too busy screwing the oil producing nations by growing ethanol.

ZenGum 03-31-2009 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce (Post 551419)
No no, he's a terrorist... kill him now. :haha:


Worse, he's a post-modernist. I tried to argue some sense into him, but failed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanaC (Post 551473)
The answer's been staring us in the face. The USA needs to become a producer of poppies and exporter of heroin. That'd fuck the Afghan poppy trade once and for all.

I like your lateral thinking. Australia grows some poppies, maybe we could expand.
And the USA could take the pressure of Mexico et al by becoming self-sufficient in cocaine.
To hell with energy security, food security, how about some DRUG security???

sugarpop 03-31-2009 09:30 PM

yea Zen, we are on the verge of a serious drug war here because of Mexican drug cartel violence spilling over into the border states. We have been so worried about Iraq for the past 6 years we have completely ignored our own borders. Yet another reason why I think all drugs should be legalized and controlled, except for plants, which should just be legal, because they're, you know, plants.

classicman 03-31-2009 10:28 PM

Even the Opium poppy?

xoxoxoBruce 04-01-2009 01:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZenGum (Post 550999)
We need a thread about Pakistan.

But instead we have a poppy thread. :haha:

sugarpop 04-05-2009 10:43 AM

it is ridiculous to outlaw a plant, any plant.

xoxoxoBruce 04-05-2009 10:51 AM

1 Attachment(s)
Any plant? :eek:

sugarpop 04-05-2009 11:45 AM

bwahahahaha

classicman 04-08-2009 08:55 PM

Pakistan rejects U.S. plan

Quote:

U.S. envoys met with Pakistani leaders on Tuesday to ensure that the $7.5 billion that President Obama plans to send their way over the next five years will be used to achieve common goals in the fight against extremism.

But according to a Pakistani newspaper, regional envoy Richard Holbrooke and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen came up empty-handed and received a "rude shock" when a proposal for joint operations against al Qaeda and Taliban forces in the volatile tribal regions was rejected.

Dawn newspaper reported that Pakistan also asked the U.S. to turn over the unmanned drone missions over the territory to them, saying that the drone strikes were fueling extremism.

And The Independent published an interview with Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari on Wednesday in which he said Pakistan would go after high-value targets on their own if the U.S. would hand over its drone technology and intelligence.

"President Obama once said that he would act if we weren't willing and able," Zardari said. "We certainly are willing and with international support we will become even more able."

President Obama's plan to battle extremism in Afghanistan includes sinking $1.5 billion each year for the next five years into neighboring Pakistan, up from the current aid of $500 million. But the plan is being watched with a skeptical eye by legislators who doubt the ability of Pakistan — which recently brokered a deal with Taliban in the North-West Frontier Province that allows the militants to impose their brutal interpretation of Islamic law on the populace — to use that money as intended.

Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said during a hearing last week that there was "ambivalent evidence" to suggest that Pakistan would rein in extremism to America's satisfaction.

sugarpop 04-10-2009 11:43 AM

I do not think we can turn over that technology. I think we need other nations involved in this process.

classicman 04-10-2009 12:52 PM

What do we need other nations for? I'm not sure what you mean?

sugarpop 04-10-2009 05:37 PM

Because. We do not want to "go it alone" again. That has caused us enough trouble in the world community, so having other countries involved in negotiations and with whatever other kinds of actions (including diplomacy) we take in Pakistan and Afghanistan is key to success. Personally, I think we should get the hell out, but we won't, so since we are staying, this is what we need to do. We can't turn our technology over to a nation that is allowing the Taliban and al qaeda santuary in their country when they are supposed to be helping us catch them. That is just not acceptable. But since Pakistan wants that, we need help negotiating some other outcome that is acceptable to everyone.

TheMercenary 05-02-2009 03:43 PM

36min long.

http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/st...deo_index.html

PBS Frontline shows are all on line now. Better video feeds than in the past.

TheMercenary 05-02-2009 04:19 PM

Another, this one about the moderates struggle.

http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/st...deo_index.html

sugarpop 05-06-2009 04:44 PM

yea, Frontline has been online for ages Merc. I really like and respect that show.

footfootfoot 05-06-2009 07:55 PM

How come the Pakistani football team has never won the world cup?


Every time they get a corner, they open up a corner shop.

You may continue.

TheMercenary 05-06-2009 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarpop (Post 563335)
yea, Frontline has been online for ages Merc. I really like and respect that show.

Yes it has. I have been watching it on line at least since 2000-01. What has changed is the quality of the feed and the fact that the video is now embeded in the website.

ZenGum 05-06-2009 11:16 PM

Meanwhile, back in Pakistan, the Swat valley is getting very dodgy.

About a month ago, the Islamabad government made a very dangerous deal to allow talleban to control the Swat valley and have sharia law there, provided they behaved themselves externally - not helping their buddies over in Afghansitan or destabilising the rest of Pakistan.
Surprise surprise, the deal has collapsed, there is significant fighting. I've seen conflicting media reports, but the central govt is sending in forces, there is fighting 100 km from the capital, civilians are trying to flee.
I really don't know what is going on but it looks a bit dodgy. I just hope they keep their nukes locked up really really tightly!

classicman 06-22-2009 12:54 PM

Al Qaeda says would use Pakistani nuclear weapons
Quote:

DUBAI (Reuters) - If it were in a position to do so, Al Qaeda would use Pakistan's nuclear weapons in its fight against the United States, a top leader of the group said in remarks aired Sunday.

Pakistan has been battling al Qaeda's Taliban allies in the Swat Valley since April after their thrust into a district 100 km (60 miles) northwest of the capital raised fears the nuclear-armed country could slowly slip into militant hands.

"God willing, the nuclear weapons will not fall into the hands of the Americans and the mujahideen would take them and use them against the Americans," Mustafa Abu al-Yazid, the leader of al Qaeda's in Afghanistan, said in an interview with Al Jazeera television.

Asked about the group's plans, the Egyptian militant leader said: "The strategy of the (al Qaeda) organization in the coming period is the same as in the previous period: to hit the head of the snake, the head of tyranny -- the United States.

"That can be achieved through continued work on the open fronts and also by opening new fronts in a manner that achieves the interests of Islam and Muslims and by increasing military operations that drain the enemy financially."

The militant leader suggested that naming a new leader for the group's unit in the Arabian Peninsula, Abu Basir al-Wahayshi, could revive its campaign in Saudi Arabia, the world's top oil exporter.

"Our goals have been the Americans ... and the oil targets which they are stealing to gain power to strike the mujahideen and Muslims."

"There was a setback in work there for reasons that there is no room to state now, but as of late, efforts have been united and there is unity around a single leader."

Abu al-Yazid, also known as Abu Saeed al-Masri, said al Qaeda will continue "with large scale operations against the enemy" -- by which he meant the United States.

sugarpop 06-23-2009 09:39 PM

That is a very good reason to switch over to alternatives as soon as possible. Republicans only want to drill for oil though, which would take too much time, or build nuclear plants. We need something that we can do much faster. The sooner we can get out of those countries, the better.

ZenGum 06-23-2009 10:09 PM

There is no oil in Afghanistan. Nor Pakistan.

(Mind you, I'd like to see "us" all well out of these countries.)

sugarpop 06-23-2009 10:33 PM

I was responding to this

"Our goals have been the Americans ... and the oil targets which they are stealing to gain power to strike the mujahideen and Muslims."

in the article that was quoted.

MoonFreckle 06-24-2009 06:32 AM

I'd rather live in Purgatory than Pakistan:rolleyes:

ZenGum 06-24-2009 08:30 AM

I've got a mate in Pakistan. Mostly it is quite livable, he says. But if I was there, I guess I'd be constantly thinking about escape routes.

piercehawkeye45 06-24-2009 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZenGum (Post 576969)
There is no oil in Afghanistan. Nor Pakistan.

(Mind you, I'd like to see "us" all well out of these countries.)

No oil? Maybe. But there are many pipelines in the those countries.

TheMercenary 06-24-2009 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarpop (Post 576956)
Republicans only want to drill for oil though, which would take too much time, or build nuclear plants.

:lol2:

TheMercenary 08-04-2009 09:43 PM

An hour long, but well worth the loading time for those who are interested in an intellectual assessment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWsmJIwe9Q4

TheMercenary 08-09-2009 10:15 AM

No surprise here.

Quote:

Billions of pounds of American aid given to Pakistan for the war on terror have been used to bolster its defences against India in its dispute over Kashmir or looted by corrupt officials, according to a study by a government adviser.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6788782.ece

TheMercenary 08-11-2009 11:53 AM

WOW, that is scary:

Quote:

WASHINGTON: Pakistan's nuclear facilities have already been attacked at least thrice by its home-grown extremists and terrorists in little reported

Related videos

More Videos »
incidents over the last two years, even as the world remains divided over the safety and security of the nuclear weapons in the troubled country, according to western analysts. ( Watch )

The incidents, tracked by Shaun Gregory, a professor at Bradford University in UK, include an attack on the nuclear missile storage facility at Sargodha on November 1, 2007, an attack on Pakistan's nuclear airbase at Kamra by a suicide bomber on December 10, 2007, and perhaps most significantly the August 20, 2008 attack when Pakistani Taliban suicide bombers blew up several entry points to one of the armament complexes at the Wah cantonment, considered one of Pakistan's main nuclear weapons assembly.

These attacks have occurred even as Pakistan has taken several steps to secure and fortify its nuclear weapons against potential attacks, particularly by the United States and India, says Gregory.

In fact, the attacks have received so little attention that Peter Bergen, the eminent terrorism expert who reviewed Gregory's paper first published in West Point's Counter Terrorism Center Sentinel, said "he (Gregory) points out something that was news to me (and shouldn't have been) which is that a series of attacks on Pakistan's nuclear weapons facilities have already happened."
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/n...ow/4879235.cms

ZenGum 10-21-2009 08:04 AM

Man, Pakistan is going wobbly right now. There have been 8 separate significant attacks on police, military, government and civilian targets in the last two weeks. They've attacked the training headquarters of the anti-taliban commando force.
The general public have little faith that the secular government can protect them, but they have a good enough idea of what life would be like if the taliban took over, and they don't want that. Good luck to them.

TheMercenary 10-22-2009 03:52 AM

Yea but it does sound like they are trying to hit back at the previous no-go zones in a big way. Hopefully it is not just political grandstanding. I would imagine that with the support of our drones it has given them the kind of air support they lack to go into areas that they previously never would have gone to and begin the process of kicking some ass.

SamIam 10-22-2009 10:32 AM

Pakistan is certainly participating in some ass kicking - its own. This just in:

Quote:

ISLAMABAD (Reuters) – Suspected Taliban militants shot and killed a Pakistani army brigadier and his driver in the capital on Thursday as the military continued a major offensive against the insurgents in their strongholds near the Afghan border.

Exposing the country's frayed nerves, the stock market dipped nearly three percent on false reports that a bomb had been found and shots fired at a courthouse in the capital, Islamabad.

The false alarm came as the country remained on high alert for possible retaliatory strikes by Taliban militants while the army attacks their strongholds in South Waziristan.

The offensive is a test of the government's determination to tackle Islamic fundamentalists, and the campaign is being closely followed by the U.S. and other powers embroiled in Afghanistan.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/us_pakistan_violence

TheMercenary 10-22-2009 10:47 AM

Yea I heard about that. I think it just means they are ramping up the pressure on the insurgents. They are obviously feeling the pain. It is about time Pakistan stepped up to the plate.

xoxoxoBruce 10-22-2009 12:02 PM

The Army made a deal with two of the South Waziristan warlords, to stay out of the fighting and not interfere with the Army crossing their land. Divide and conquer.

ZenGum 10-22-2009 07:20 PM

I saw a Pakistani army spokesman saying that the offensive in South Waziristan is meeting less resistance than expected.


That's because they enemy guerrilas have all slipped through your lines and are now behind you, blowing up your cities. Duh. Or D'oh! They're playing whack-a-mole. With guns. And armed moles.

xoxoxoBruce 10-23-2009 01:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce (Post 602633)
The Army made a deal with two of the South Waziristan warlords, to stay out of the fighting and not interfere with the Army crossing their land. Divide and conquer.

Uh Oh, an American Predator hit one of those warlords with a missile, now they are pissed.

ZenGum 10-23-2009 06:57 AM

You don't get to be a warlord by not responding to that kind of thing.

Spexxvet 10-23-2009 07:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZenGum (Post 602704)
... And armed moles.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3586/...677b62.jpg?v=0

ZenGum 10-23-2009 07:31 PM

Osama's really let himself go.

TheMercenary 10-23-2009 07:47 PM

Bomb fucking video!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43DKlEe8Ko8

TheMercenary 10-23-2009 07:49 PM

Ok, that one fucking hurt. :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zg2A9M6QqY

Spexxvet 10-24-2009 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 602919)

I wonder how the repubicans are going to spin that into a negative.

TheMercenary 10-25-2009 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spexxvet (Post 602972)
I wonder how the Demoncrats are going to spin that into a negative?

Good question.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:42 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.