Is America playing with India and Pakistan?

Status
Not open for further replies.

birdofprey

Banned Member
DID has reported on India's deepening relationship with the USA before, and on its multi-billion lightweight fighter competition that recently added US fighters like the F-16 to the platforms under consideration.

It would appear that one can also add the F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet to the list of aircraft under serious consideration by India - and the AH-64D Apache Longbow attack helicopter as well.

ENS reports that a November 21-22 meeting at the Pentagon will convey America's decision re: whether to offer the Super Hornet's top-secret AN/APG-79 AESA (active electronically scanned array) radar. If cleared, India will be the first country to be offered this particular radar, though it would not be the first to be offered comparable AESA radars by the USA. The UAE already flies F-16 Block 60 aircraft equipped with the AN/APG-80 AESA radar, and country participants in the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program will be offered the even more advanced AN/APG-81 AESA radar as part of that aircraft's standard equipment.

The AN/APG-79 AESA radar, with its dual mode air-air and air-ground capabilities, is the only major sub-system yet to be cleared by for sale to India as part of the offer of 126 fighters. Every other part of the potential offers has cleared Congressional scrutiny.On another front, the Indian Air Force has an expressed need for 80 new attack helicopters. ENS also reports that the US will soon offer its top of the line AH-64D Apache Longbow to fill that need. The IAF is in the market for light and agile assault helicopters for possible use in counter-insurgency operations, and HAL's indigenous Light Combat Helicopter (LCH) is estimated to take at least another decade before it will see service.


With respect to the AESA radar, the India/US relationship is at something of a dating stage. It is not unusual, therefore, to see dating behaviours - including tests of one's partner that are not backed by real intentions.

Before reading too much into these inquiries re: India's buying intentions, it's worthwhile to recall the hangover effects from US military equipment sanctions in the wake of India's 1998 nuclear tests. Sources at the US Embassy told The Indian Express that the inclusion of the APG-79 AESA radar in an American offer will effectively offset New Delhi's fear of sanctions, which DID noted has made many players in India leery of American military hardware.

That reassurance of commitment may well be all that this meeting represents. While receiving America's most advanced naval aircraft may have some allure and prestige value, in reality the Super Hornet doesn't add up very well given India's needs.With India looking to expand its carrier force over the next decade, the carrier-capable F/A-18 E/F Super Hornets could appear attractive. Yet its $50-70 million price tag is far above the $20-35 million range typical of the lightweight fighter class (and indeed, of earlier F/A-18 Hornet models), and upon which India's expected 126-plane order is predicated.

Given that the lightweight fighter order is intended to replace some of India's 300-350 aging and dangerous MiG-21s that are slated for retirement, cutting the order to 50-60 Super Hornets seems like a bit of a leap given India's needs on multiple fronts. The F/A-18 also requires full catapult launch facilities if used in a naval role, which would preclude its naval use on either India's present Viraat or its next carrier, the ski-jump equipped INS Vikramaditya (Admiral Gorshkov) which is currently envisioned to carry naval MiG-29Ks. Furthermore, India already flies the excellent Sukhoi SU-30MKI, a fighter with a similar price tag to the F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet but superior combat range, weaponry, maneuverability, and overall performance.

The only major advantage it appears to offer is the AESA radar technology. Whether this is worth reducing the number of aircraft bought, and distorting the prupose of the weapons buy to fit, is less clear. If India feels that AESA is a technical imperative for some reason, or sees the buy as a prestige issue, the decision could swing accordingly.

That's possible. The military logic of an F/A-18 Super Hornet buy may seem somewhat thin, therefore - but as is the case with cars, logic doesn't always win out when making purchases.One plane that could serve India very well in both naval and land roles would be the F-35B Joint Strike Fighter STOVL, which is also equipped with an AESA radar. It's noteworthy that India has pointedly been invited to F-35 Joint Strike Fighter events, and that the coming US Quadrennial Defense Review is expected to result in cutbacks of the USA's F-35 orders. Purchases by India would be one way of offsetting those cutbacks, thus keeping the program in the $45-55 million per plane range.

While membership in the F-35 JSF production team is essentially closed due to the design's advanced timeline status, the JSF STOVL would still be a less expensive option than the F/A-18 Super Hornet, giving the IAF a prestigious mid-range option with affordable stealth features and the ability to operate from any of India's carriers. If the indigenous LCA Tejas lightweight fighter project can get itself on track and become a success, India's Air Force would have a strong 3-tier base (Su-30 family, F-35B STOVL, LCA Tejas) for its future fighter force.What seems to be keeping the Joint Strike Fighter from active consideration is the belief by Indian officials that the F-35 will not be combat-ready in numbers before 2015. Given the program's planned IOC date of 2013, this is a reasonable assumption. By then, however, even the IAF's 125 upgraded MiG-21 BiS 'Bisons' would be slated for retirement. Worse, the purchase would do nothing to fill the immediate gaps created by the mothballing and accident rate of the other MiG-21 aircraft.

This is not to say that some kind of innovative deal involving a 'bridge' of leased F-16s couldn't be worked out, if the USA really wanted to sell the F-35B JSF to India and India saw the aircraft as an excellent fit. So far, however, neither party has made a move in this direction and India is considering a joint development pact with Russia for its next generation fighter needs.

The F-16 has elicited very little interest in India from the moment it was proposed. When that observation is combined with India's delivery timing needs, expressed concerns re: platform proliferation and the need for commonality within its fighter force, adverse new foreign procurement rules for American offerings, dropping fighter strength, and budgetary priorities that force the military to battle for funds... it's reasonable to conclude that India sees the US offer of F-16 and F/A-18 aircraft as more of a testing opportunity than a buying opportunity.

Given that, and the JAS-39 Gripen's long odds, the best bets in India's lightweight fighter competition would still seem to be foreign modifications of aircraft the IAF already flies: the French Mirage 2000-5, and Russia's Mig-29M2 or MiG-29OVT/MiG-35.

For now, at least.

UPDATE: New developments may change this analysis. The AESA radars have always had performance advntages over mechanically-steered arrays, but recent research may make AESA a quantum leap. It seems AESA radars may turn out to be extremely effective for secure, very high bandwidth communications between AESA-equipped aircraft.

The F-16 Block 60 and F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet are the only AESA-fited aircraft in this competition, which could give the US fighters a significant enough edge to justify investment in a wholly new platform and technology source.


what the hell is wrong with uncle sam??
first these guys say they want peace in the reagion.
no arms race between the two nuke power countries..
both should cut down there defence bugets so that they can feed poor with bread and corn then putting bullets up in there @ss!
what more they will offer india F-22.. thats it???:soldier
 

BilalK

New Member
If India can afford to spend 50mn USD on each AH-64D, 90-100mn USD on each Super Hornet - hell even 300mn USD on each Raptor - then so be it. If U.S interests want to see India blow a ton of cash on American weapons; then so be it.
 

Rich

Member
what the hell is wrong with uncle sam??
first these guys say they want peace in the reagion.
no arms race between the two nuke power countries..
both should cut down there defence bugets so that they can feed poor with bread and corn then putting bullets up in there @ss!
what more they will offer india F-22.. thats it???
Whats wrong with Pakistan and India? Or is personal and Governmental responsibility not part of your languages? And Pakistan has as much chance as India in getting F-22s, which means none.

I suggest you start looking inward to solve your problems and get off your "Uncle Sam controls everything" kick.

Offhand I'd say our new relations with India are meant to offset the China emergence and to remind Musharraf our love is conditional and based on Pakistans anti-terror efforts. It doesn't sit well here that Osama has de-facto sanctuary in Pakistans tribal lands.

Pakistan is a huge benefactor of American aid, both military and non-military. I wonder how that makes the American taxpayer feel? The fact that we give Pakistan Billions of $$ in free systems while they spend "their" $$ buying military equipment from China. With both Russia and China supplying far more military equipment to both countries then we are. And throw the French into the mix as well.

But Americans are supposed to feel guilty about the arms race on the subcontinent right?:teary
 
the pakistanis have done a lot for us in past(cold war) and now with the wot. i am an american taxpayer and i dont have any problem giving them aid.
 
Last edited:

birdofprey

Banned Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #5
Rich said:
Whats wrong with Pakistan and India? Or is personal and Governmental responsibility not part of your languages? And Pakistan has as much chance as India in getting F-22s, which means none.

I suggest you start looking inward to solve your problems and get off your "Uncle Sam controls everything" kick.

Offhand I'd say our new relations with India are meant to offset the China emergence and to remind Musharraf our love is conditional and based on Pakistans anti-terror efforts. It doesn't sit well here that Osama has de-facto sanctuary in Pakistans tribal lands.
Pakistan is a huge benefactor of American aid, both military and non-military. I wonder how that makes the American taxpayer feel? The fact that we give Pakistan Billions of $$ in free systems while they spend "their" $$ buying military equipment from China. With both Russia and China supplying far more military equipment to both countries then we are. And throw the French into the mix as well.
But Americans are supposed to feel guilty about the arms race on the subcontinent right?:teary
you are exaggerating american aid little bit too much.. my friend after all we have sacrificed thounds of our soldiers life in the name of war in terrorism. the only american military aid package that was offered to pakistan is $1.2 billion which includes 8 P-3, 6 Phalanx rapid fire guns for the Pakistan navy, and more than 2,000 TOW 2 missiles for the army, all to be used for americans own interist in war aganist terrorism.
there is no proof that every little of american aid to pakistan is spend on military "buying chinese stuff"...
the biggest deal we had with chines were the T-84 worth less then $400 million.. as far as the FC-1 goes, it is a joint venture between the two countries..

my point is if american wants to see peace in the reagion then it has to do more then enough... i say stop suppling military equipments to both countries.
 

birdofprey

Banned Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #7
radiosilence said:
the pakistanis have done a lot for us in past(cold war) and now with the wot. i am an american taxpayer and i dont have any problem giving them aid.
hey nice to see some support from non pakistani..:)
 
Last edited:

Rich

Member
my point is if american wants to see peace in the reagion then it has to do more then enough... i say stop suppling military equipments to both countries.
If the countries involved want to see peace in the region then maybe they out to stop building, buying, and fielding military systems in the region. I'd bet the Russians and Chinese would love it if American companies were left out of the arms equation in the region. They are already the largest suppliers of military equipment to both Pakistan and India. And the French? Lets not forget them, especially with the Scorpene program which cost Pakistan over 3 billion $$.

And lets not forget the Chinese and their assistance in building your nuclear weapons capability, and, your missile program. Gee...that was Billions well spent no? An emerging 3rd world country that has a literacy rate of 48% of the population and an average per capita income of $2,400 US. Or was that the Americans holding a gun to your heads to spend countless $$ building nuclear weaponry you never needed in the first place? The truth is nobody knows how much Pakistan spends to buy its toys because they consider it secret, even from their own citizens. Especially from their own citizens.

I myself am against giving or selling advanced systems to any Muslim nation with the exception being Turkey, which at least has a Government that resembles a Democracy that meets the needs of its citizens. All the other nations of the Islamic world??? They are intolerant Dictatorships that will hate us no matter what we do. This poster with his image of America being responsible for the inadequacies of His own Govt.'s to meet the needs of its people is a case in point. Boy..it never occurred to you to make such a statement about the Chinese, the French, or the Russians, did it?

Pakistan is a unwilling partner is the war against terrorism. The last thing Musharraf wanted to do was go along with us but he knew we would have gone after Al Qaeda no matter what. Even if we had to shoot our way thru them. True many Pakistanis have died fighting Al Qaeda but Osama was a threat to the military Dictatorship of Musharraf as well. And we cant forget that many of the Wahhabi religious schools that have mindwashed countless Muslim children to hate "non-believers" are located in Pakistan. It was the Pakistani Intelligence that created and aided the Taliban to begin with. And then we have the close cooperation between Pakistani and North Korean nuclear scientists in developing their respective programs, again with Chinese help and Saudi funding.............Gosh, what great partners in the cause of freedom.

Why dont you ask the Saudis why they are giving Pakistan Billions in free oil and money to build your WMD capacity when 1/2 your population is illiterate, 65% of your woman, and 32% of your population lives below the poverty line. Ask the Saudi Dictators why they didn't instead spend all that money on education for Pakistani children, "other then the madrases which only teach reading the Koran and murdering infidels".

what the hell is wrong with uncle sam??
Oh brother...........Thats beautiful.

But Americans continue to believe this country and its people are "friends". No matter what the facts are or the history. Just like our Govt. wants us to believe the Saudis are "friends". Its really time we all grew up. I'm leaving this thread because its starting to get Political but I suggest anyone that believes in this pipedream do some studying of history. Heres a start.

[Sorry, such nonsense won't fly here.]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
^instead of posting necon talking points like you usually do. here is from the horses mouth

U.S. General Praises Pakistan's Role In Fighting War On Terrorism
Published on 10/8/2006

Islamabad, Pakistan — The commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East praised Pakistan's intelligence service on Saturday for its fight against terrorism. Gen. John Abizaid, who met with President Gen. Pervez Musharraf on Saturday, made the comments in talks with Musharraf at his office in Rawalpindi, near the capital Islamabad, a government statement said. “(Abizaid) particularly lauded the role of Pakistan's intelligence agencies in the anti-terror campaign, and said their cooperation was crucial in thwarting plots and apprehending most-wanted terrorists,” it said.

link

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/ISL10958.htm

Kabul has made veiled charges Islamabad still supports its former protege and the Afghan intelligence chief said last week Pakistan had not given up "its interference and aggression".

There is always this notion there is collusion on the part of the Pakistan government," U.S. General John Abizaid, whose command includes Iraq and Afghanistan, told reporters at Bagram airbase outside Kabul on the eve of a visit to Islamabad.

"And I absolutely don't believe that. Pakistani soldiers are fighting and dying to accomplish their military missions. You don't order your soldiers into the field against the enemy in order to play some sort of a game in neighbouring countries.

"My experience with the Pakistani military has been that they are committed. My experience with President (Pervez) Musharraf is that he is committed."

http://192.31.19.143/sites/uscentcom1/Shared Documents/PostureStatement2006.htm#VIIIA

"Pakistan remains an enormously valuable ally in the broad struggle against extremists in the region. Since September 11, 2001, Pakistan has captured or killed more al Qaida operatives than any other country. It also launched major conventional operations against al Qaida strongholds. Pakistani Army offensive operations in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) have disrupted extremist activity, but they have not fully shut down al Qaida safe havens along the border with Afghanistan. This is likely more an issue of capability than of intent.

The Pakistani Army’s deployment of additional troops along the border of Afghanistan prior to that country’s September 2005 parliamentary elections helped ensure that the threats of violence by the Taliban and al Qaida did not disrupt these important elections. And Pakistan continues to hunt down and capture high level al Qaida and Taliban operatives, such as al Qaida operations director Faraj al Libi and Taliban chief spokesman Abdul Latif Hakimi. Continued operations against al Qaida and Taliban safe havens in Pakistan are in both of our countries’ interests. We will continue to support these important efforts by Pakistan with intelligence sharing, security assistance, and military coordination."
 
Last edited:

kams

New Member
birdofprey said:
On another front, the Indian Air Force has an expressed need for 80 new attack helicopters. ENS also reports that the US will soon offer its top of the line AH-64D Apache Longbow to fill that need.[/B] The IAF is in the market for light and agile assault helicopters for possible use in counter-insurgency operations, and HAL's indigenous Light Combat Helicopter (LCH) is estimated to take at least another decade before it will see service.
Its the first time I heard about IAF looking for 80 attack helicopters. IAF is going for 80 Mi-17s and proposal has already got govt. approval. Its IA which is looking for Light Utility Helicopters (195) and Bell 407, and Eurocopter, er are in competition although recent news reports suggest Bell 407 is likely winner. In an interview HAL CEO revealed that IA wants 65 LCH. While its not ready, its unlikely that another 10 years is required before it flies as LCH is based on ALH. You can hardly call Apache a Light heli anf for COIN its an overkill. I think reporter got it all mixed up.


That reassurance of commitment may well be all that this meeting represents. While receiving America's most advanced naval aircraft may have some allure and prestige value, in reality the Super Hornet doesn't add up very well given India's needs.With India looking to expand its carrier force over the next decade, the carrier-capable F/A-18 E/F Super Hornets could appear attractive. Yet its $50-70 million price tag is far above the $20-35 million range typical of the lightweight fighter class (and indeed, of earlier F/A-18 Hornet models), and upon which India's expected 126-plane order is predicated.
Err. what are you trying to say? IN is not looking at F/A 18 E/F. Its IAF. So the discussion about F/A-18 for IN is idiotic. None of the Indian carriers can handle F/A18. In has standardized Mig-29K, period. F-35 was offerered for IN, but due to 2012-2013 time period, IN decided to not to go ahead.

Given that the lightweight fighter order is intended to replace some of India's 300-350 aging and dangerous MiG-21s that are slated for retirement, cutting the order to 50-60 Super Hornets seems like a bit of a leap given India's needs on multiple fronts. The F/A-18 also requires full catapult launch facilities if used in a naval role, which would preclude its naval use on either India's present Viraat or its next carrier, the ski-jump equipped INS Vikramaditya (Admiral Gorshkov) which is currently envisioned to carry naval MiG-29Ks.

First IAF is not looking for light wieght fighters, but medium weight multi role combat aircraft. And its not 50-60 SHORNET..its 125 medium multirole combact aircraft.

Furthermore, India already flies the excellent Sukhoi SU-30MKI, a fighter with a similar price tag to the F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet but superior combat range, weaponry, maneuverability, and overall performance.
IAF is looking for something in between Su30MKI and LCA.

The only major advantage it appears to offer is the AESA radar technology. Whether this is worth reducing the number of aircraft bought, and distorting the prupose of the weapons buy to fit, is less clear. If India feels that AESA is a technical imperative for some reason, or sees the buy as a prestige issue, the decision could swing accordingly.
Why do they have to reduce the no. of aircraft? Shornet is around $57 million. Apart from AESA, US can offer most variety of A2A and A2G ordanace on offer.

While membership in the F-35 JSF production team is essentially closed due to the design's advanced timeline status, the JSF STOVL would still be a less expensive option than the F/A-18 Super Hornet, giving the IAF a prestigious mid-range option with affordable stealth features and the ability to operate from any of India's carriers. If the indigenous LCA Tejas lightweight fighter project can get itself on track and become a success, India's Air Force would have a strong 3-tier base (Su-30 family, F-35B STOVL, LCA Tejas) for its future fighter force.What seems to be keeping the Joint Strike Fighter from active consideration is the belief by Indian officials that the F-35 will not be combat-ready in numbers before 2015. Given the program's planned IOC date of 2013, this is a reasonable assumption. By then, however, even the IAF's 125 upgraded MiG-21 BiS 'Bisons' would be slated for retirement. Worse, the purchase would do nothing to fill the immediate gaps created by the mothballing and accident rate of the other MiG-21 aircraft.
In addition to buying the aircraft, India is looking for significant ToT. Unlikely to happen with F-35. India has publicly stated that fir 5th generation aircraft, it wants to get involved from design state and it will be a joint development effort. So f-35 is out.
This is not to say that some kind of innovative deal involving a 'bridge' of leased F-16s couldn't be worked out, if the USA really wanted to sell the F-35B JSF to India and India saw the aircraft as an excellent fit. So far, however, neither party has made a move in this direction and India is considering a joint development pact with Russia for its next generation fighter needs.


Given that, and the JAS-39 Gripen's long odds, the best bets in India's lightweight fighter competition would still seem to be foreign modifications of aircraft the IAF already flies: the French Mirage 2000-5, and Russia's Mig-29M2 or MiG-29OVT/MiG-35.
Mig-29M2/ or 35 lightweight? :confused:






what the hell is wrong with uncle sam??
first these guys say they want peace in the reagion.
no arms race between the two nuke power countries..
both should cut down there defence bugets so that they can feed poor with bread and corn then putting bullets up in there @ss!
what more they will offer india F-22.. thats it???:soldier
If US does not offer the technology, there will be someone else who will eventually. Both Rafale and Typoon are working on AESA. AESA is not a must have for IAF right now, but will be nice to have.

All I can say is the reporter has mixed up lot of facts.
 

aaaditya

New Member
BilalK said:
If India can afford to spend 50mn USD on each AH-64D, 90-100mn USD on each Super Hornet - hell even 300mn USD on each Raptor - then so be it. If U.S interests want to see India blow a ton of cash on American weapons; then so be it.
honestly,you realy have the tendency to exaggerate things,the longbow is the most advanced attack helicopter but it does not cost 50 million dollars per helicopter ,it cost about 20 million dollars per helicopter according to jane's.

india has so far not looked into the longbow ,though it was offered to it,india had evaluated the russia ka-50 twice and were almost about to buy it ,but a shortage of funds made them postpone and then cancel their decision(this was in 1997).

the super hornet has been offered to india for 55-60 million dollars per aircraft depending on the configuration and is amongst the cheapest combat aircraft on offer for the 126 mrca deal ,the rafale was quoted at 65 million dollars per aircraft,the ef2000 is expected to cost around 80 million dollars per aircraft ,and the grippen around 45 million dollars per aircraft and the mig35 at around 35 million dollars per aircraft ,however as of now only the super hornet and the f-16 can be equipped with the aesa radar ,while other countries also have aesa projects ,they are still in the development stage.
 

aaaditya

New Member
.


On another front, the Indian Air Force has an expressed need for 80 new attack helicopters. ENS also reports that the US will soon offer its top of the line AH-64D Apache Longbow to fill that need.[/B] The IAF is in the market for light and agile assault helicopters for possible use in counter-insurgency operations, and HAL's indigenous Light Combat Helicopter (LCH) is estimated to take at least another decade before it will see service.





the lch is under adavnced stage of development and is expected to be test flown during the year 2007 ,the prototype may be unveiled at the aero india 2007,most of the critical systems on the lch have already been developed and are currently in service on the alh dhruv,these include the main rotor ,tail rotor and the transmission ,the avionics and the cockpit display are being developed by a company called datasol in a joint venture with israel ,there have been reports that indian company bel and elsira of israel are developing an advanced integrated self defence system for the indian lca,lch and the jsf which israel may acquire ,this system is known as mayavi (magician),i tried to post that link,but somehow it is not appearing in my posts since the website(which is a reputed indian defence website is not accepted by this forum).

the engines of the lch are to be the turbomecca tm333 2c2 ardiden ,to be know as the ardiden in france and shakti in india ,this engine is an uprated version of the turbomecca engine currently being used on the alh dhruv.
 

aaaditya

New Member
mig35 is considered to be medium weight fighter and has very little relation to the mig29's,the mig35 has a weapon load of 5 tons as compared to the mig29's 4 tons and has a longer radius of action .
 

aaaditya

New Member
the ah-64 apached longbow weighs nearly 12 tons and is one of the heaviest attack helicopters available as of now along with the csh-2 rooivalk,the ka-50 and the russian havoc.

the light attack helicopters are ah129 mangusta international(italy) and the french tiger ,the mangusta weighs around 4.5-5 tons and the tiger weighs around 5.5-6 tons,indian lch is believed to be in the same class as the tiger.
 
rich said:
Pakistan is a unwilling partner is the war against terrorism. The last thing Musharraf wanted to do was go along with us but he knew we would have gone after Al Qaeda no matter what. Even if we had to shoot our way thru them. True many Pakistanis have died fighting Al Qaeda but Osama was a threat to the military Dictatorship of Musharraf as well. And we cant forget that many of the Wahhabi religious schools that have mindwashed countless Muslim children to hate "non-believers" are located in Pakistan. It was the Pakistani Intelligence that created and aided the Taliban to begin with. And then we have the close cooperation between Pakistani and North Korean nuclear scientists in developing their respective programs, again with Chinese help and Saudi funding.............Gosh, what great partners in the cause of freedom.

Why dont you ask the Saudis why they are giving Pakistan Billions in free oil and money to build your WMD capacity when 1/2 your population is illiterate, 65% of your woman, and 32% of your population lives below the poverty line. Ask the Saudi Dictators why they didn't instead spend all that money on education for Pakistani children, "other then the madrases which only teach reading the Koran and murdering infidels".
.
mods and webmaster do we have to continueously read this kind of off topic rant from this same person?
 
Last edited:

webmaster

Troll Hunter
Staff member
Pakistan is a unwilling partner is the war against terrorism. The last thing Musharraf wanted to do was go along with us but he knew we would have gone after Al Qaeda no matter what. Even if we had to shoot our way thru them. True many Pakistanis have died fighting Al Qaeda but Osama was a threat to the military Dictatorship of Musharraf as well. And we cant forget that many of the Wahhabi religious schools that have mindwashed countless Muslim children to hate "non-believers" are located in Pakistan. It was the Pakistani Intelligence that created and aided the Taliban to begin with. And then we have the close cooperation between Pakistani and North Korean nuclear scientists in developing their respective programs, again with Chinese help and Saudi funding.............Gosh, what great partners in the cause of freedom.

Why dont you ask the Saudis why they are giving Pakistan Billions in free oil and money to build your WMD capacity when 1/2 your population is illiterate, 65% of your woman, and 32% of your population lives below the poverty line. Ask the Saudi Dictators why they didn't instead spend all that money on education for Pakistani children, "other then the madrases which only teach reading the Koran and murdering infidels".
First of all, lets get one fact straight: Pakistan is the frontline state in war against terror. After US, it is the only country which has over 80,000 troops deployed in war against terror, it is the only country which has played major role in capturing big "Al-Qaeda" leaders and it is the only country which is being asked to "to do more" by certain group of people due to their own lack of judgement, ignorance and lack of knowledge as far as ground reality is concerned.

Whatever led to Pakistan being a frontline state against terrorism is not a matter of discussion nor does it matter, what matters is that people of pakistan, pakistani government recognize the threat posed by extremists and it is ready to fight to counter that threat, unlike some nations that start a war and then abandon it for other economical gains in other parts of the world.

Pakistan is still fighting the people that are the "real" targets of War on Terrorism, unlike US which is busy in Iraq. It speaks a great deal about what kind of strategic depth we have about problems that we helped create and then abandon it yet again.

Why stop and start at Pakistani ISI creating the Taliban? The problem stems from the 1980s when Russian invaded Afghanistan, which US helped in creation of the Mujahideen and at the end of the war, US abandoned Afghanistan, after years of civil war, Taliban were created to PUT an END to the war which led to death of millions of people, refugee crisis which continues to be one of the worlds largest into Pakistan and Iran. So, Pakistan had to deal with both internal as well as eternal threats which were results of western interventions and if it weren't for Pakistani brain, US would still be fighting USSR and India today and right wing extremists as well as neocons who question Pakistani importance and what Pakistan has done for their favorite president would still be crying "evil empire" instead of "Al-Qaeda and terrorism."

The Saudi oil belongs to Saudis an they have the right to sell it to whomever they wish at whatever price, why is that anybody's problem? Every country has the right to defend it self, right? You talk about "educating the children" (so sweet of you) how many children can we educate with 450 billion bucks? Yeah, thought so. How many children can we educate with 2 billion per day that is being spent in Iraq which should be going to Afghanistan and should be spent on forces in Afghanistan where Al-Qaeda is strong and happens to be the main target. Next time spare us the self promoting sanctimonious brouhaha.
 

merocaine

New Member
First of all, lets get one fact straight: Pakistan is the frontline state in war against terror. After US, it is the only country which has over 80,000 troops deployed in war against terror, it is the only country which has played major role in capturing big "Al-Qaeda" leaders and it is the only country which is being asked to "to do more" by certain group of people due to their own lack of judgement, ignorance and lack of knowledge as far as ground reality is concerned.

Whatever led to Pakistan being a frontline state against terrorism is not a matter of discussion nor does it matter, what matters is that people of pakistan, pakistani government recognize the threat posed by extremists and it is ready to fight to counter that threat, unlike some nations that start a war and then abandon it for other economical gains in other parts of the world.

Pakistan is still fighting the people that are the "real" targets of War on Terrorism, unlike US which is busy in Iraq. It speaks a great deal about what kind of strategic depth we have about problems that we helped create and then abandon it yet again.

Why stop and start at Pakistani ISI creating the Taliban? The problem stems from the 1980s when Russian invaded Afghanistan, which US helped in creation of the Mujahideen and at the end of the war, US abandoned Afghanistan, after years of civil war, Taliban were created to PUT an END to the war which led to death of millions of people, refugee crisis which continues to be one of the worlds largest into Pakistan and Iran. So, Pakistan had to deal with both internal as well as eternal threats which were results of western interventions and if it weren't for Pakistani brain, US would still be fighting USSR and India today and right wing extremists as well as neocons who question Pakistani importance and what Pakistan has done for their favorite president would still be crying "evil empire" instead of "Al-Qaeda and terrorism."

The Saudi oil belongs to Saudis an they have the right to sell it to whomever they wish at whatever price, why is that anybody's problem? Every country has the right to defend it self, right? You talk about "educating the children" (so sweet of you) how many children can we educate with 450 billion bucks? Yeah, thought so. How many children can we educate with 2 billion per day that is being spent in Iraq which should be going to Afghanistan and should be spent on forces in Afghanistan where Al-Qaeda is strong and happens to be the main target. Next time spare us the self promoting sanctimonious brouhaha.
you guys better be careful he'll put you on his ignore list!
 

Rich

Member
First of all, lets get one fact straight: Pakistan is the frontline state in war against terror. After US, it is the only country which has over 80,000 troops deployed in war against terror, it is the only country which has played major role in capturing big "Al-Qaeda" leaders and it is the only country which is being asked to "to do more" by certain group of people due to their own lack of judgement, ignorance and lack of knowledge as far as ground reality is concerned.
Of course its the "front line state". Its the "front line state" because its a major terrorist state. Now, caught between a vise, it has no choice but to hunt down Al Qaeda leaders, at least those dumb enough to leave the tribal lands.

North Korea exploded its first nuke today. Who do you think helped them to build it? Who do you think sent them the uranium processing factory used to build it?

Pakistan is still fighting the people that are the "real" targets of War on Terrorism, unlike US which is busy in Iraq.
Were fighting them too. And I withhold judgement on the Pakistani effort, and not just because they are the ones who sponsored the Taliban and Al Qaeda, but their intelligence agency "ISI" has a long history of collusion with terrorists. Musharraf himself is caught in a trap and a no win situation. Much of his country sympathizes with the Islamic terror groups while the moderates are screaming for true Democracy, which Musharraf is resisting. How long do you think he's going to last?

You speak of 9/11/01. Does your memory go back before that Web Master? Do you remember the first WTC attack? The USS Cole? The African embassy attacks? Somalia? The fact is the Pakistanis, and most of all their ISI, has a long history of aiding and colluding with Islamic fundamentalist terror groups and no amount of "wishing" is going to make them our friends. But go ahead and "wish" away. http://www.saag.org/papers6/paper554.html http://www.jamestown.org/publications_details.php?volume_id=400&issue_id=3101&article_id=2368659

which US helped in creation of the Mujahadeen
We didnt "create" the Mujahadeen. We did help equip it to fight the Soviets. Even there there was actually very little US made equipment sent to Afghanistan. Mostly we sent money which was used to buy Soviet block equipment to equip the Mujahadeen. The Saudis were the main fiananciers. The Mujahadeen would have been "created" no matter what we did and probably would have eventually won no matter what we did.

Taliban were created to PUT an END to the war which led to death of millions of people, refugee crisis which continues to be one of the worlds largest into Pakistan and Iran.
They were created by the ISI, and aided and supplied, in order to establish a Islamic theocracy in Afghanistan that would be friendly to Pakistans interests. And establish a theocracy it did. One that was such a pariah that only 3 countries in the world recognized it. Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Pakistan. The same three countries that supply the manpower, the money, the training grounds, the support, for the exportation of Wahabbi extremism and militancy that birthed Al Qaeda.
The Saudi oil belongs to Saudis an they have the right to sell it to whomever they wish at whatever price, why is that anybody's problem? Every country has the right to defend it self, right? You talk about "educating the children" (so sweet of you) how many children can we educate with 450 billion bucks?
You missed my point didnt you? Or are you now an advocate for the Terrorist supporting Dictatorship called Saudi Arabia?

For everyone else my point was, while this poster from Pakistan seemed comfortable with blaming "Uncle Sam" for many of Pakistans problems, by our Government stupidly sending them swords instead of plows, why did it never occur to him to say the same about the Saudis who sent their "Muslim Brothers" countless billions to finance their WMD program instead of giving them the money to spend on domestic needs. In other words I accused the poster of hypocrisy, no doubt spawned by the "blame America and the Jews" propaganda cultivated throughout the Muslim world for their many internal problems.

No doubt made worse by the pandering to these same dictatorships and theocracies by the many American Political, business, and defense industry poltroons whose careers or livelihoods depend on hoodwinking the American public into believing such peoples and regimes are "friends". We went thru this with Iran remember? Then Saudi Arabia! Then Afghanistan! Now Iraq. We will never learn will we?

I wonder what this webmasters motivation is for spreading this facade of American/Pakistani friendship? This on the day of North Koreas membership into the "club". Which wouldn't have happened without the aid of our "Pakistani friends".:unknown

Your post was about as full of as much substance as Merocaines one-liner. But go on wishing.

Heres how our "friends" wage war http://www.gendercide.org/case_bangladesh.html
 
Last edited:

Ding

Member
I actually wanted to say something... but now i couldt be bothered. What you say is just pure ignorance from your side, just seeing what you want to see and not the whole picture... and saying all muslims states are dictatorial in nature except turkey? dude! wake up!. Yep I am a Malaysian, we have democracy and yet we are also a muslim nation. An islamic state. Are we not your ally? Fine sometimes we might not agree on what US did or do or going to do, but by disagreeing on US actions, does that make us you enemy? not your allies anymore? Tell me Rich, you have a best friend? Dont tell me you and your best friend never had a fight or disagree about something.

Your are ignorant. Webmaster, why is he still here? This guy is prejudiced as implied in his post.
 

webmaster

Troll Hunter
Staff member
Rich,

I get a chuckle reading your posts, it seems you are on some type of blind personal crusade? Pakistan, a country which cleans up mess created by western powers is a terrorist state? It seems you are very angry and mad at something and only way for you to relax is through pile of accusation along with articles from anti-country/hate sites which are run by Pakistan's enemy #1.

North Korea exploded its first nuke today. Who do you think helped them to build it? Who do you think sent them the uranium processing factory used to build it?
Pakistani government nor its people did not have anything to do with what North Korea does. If it weren't for our own government (US) who abandoned Afghanistan, went off track when they were suppose to be catching bin Laden. Your accusation points to the fearfull "AQKhan network," which had its headquarters in Europe and US and folks there continue to do business even when AQ Khan is dying. European and US companies continue to do business with Iran! You can blame it on Pakistan when Iran tests its first nuke, just to so that we (west) do not have to claim any responsibility for lack of strategic depth and a plan for the region which we love to mess with.


You speak of 9/11/01. Does your memory go back before that Web Master? Do you remember the first WTC attack? The USS Cole? The African embassy attacks? Somalia? The fact is the Pakistanis, and most of all their ISI, has a long history of aiding and colluding with Islamic fundamentalist terror groups and no amount of "wishing" is going to make them our friends. But go ahead and "wish" away.
Those attacks have nothing to do with Pakistan, stop reading you know what. Again, to support your argument you come up articles written by Indians and those that blame every ill in their country on Pakistan and ISI while at the same time ignore the praise of Pakistan and its government from US government, UN and other international bodies.


We didnt "create" the Mujahadeen. We did help equip it to fight the Soviets. Even there there was actually very little US made equipment sent to Afghanistan. Mostly we sent money which was used to buy Soviet block equipment to equip the Mujahadeen. The Saudis were the main fiananciers. The Mujahadeen would have been "created" no matter what we did and probably would have eventually won no matter what we did.
Watch some of the documentaries done by Frontline, Nova, etc. on PBS and other news channels. You seems to have missed a huge chunk of facts and details without which the Afghan vs USSR story is not complete. The only way to defeat USSR was the creation of Mujahideen, their creation was collaboration between CIA and ISI... if it were CIA doing the work alone, it would have failed miserably. Even then, with US support and CIA, the muhahideen were not doing good until stingers (supplied by our government in the 1980s) came into the play and that brought a halt to Russian advances. Again, if it weren't for Pakistani brain, the ISI you love to hate, US today would be fighting a bigger and richer enemy and the evil empire would still be a threat along with its ally India.


No doubt made worse by the pandering to these same dictatorships and theocracies by the many American Political, business, and defense industry poltroons whose careers or livelihoods depend on hoodwinking the American public into believing such peoples and regimes are "friends". We went thru this with Iran remember? Then Saudi Arabia! Then Afghanistan! Now Iraq. We will never learn will we?
Tell that to our government and blame the past problems on past western governemnts, no point in taking out your anger on a country which IS doing something about the terrorist threat unlike creating more wars.

Or are you now an advocate for the Terrorist supporting Dictatorship called Saudi Arabia?
Current US government doesn't seem to think so... the appointment of dictatorships goes back to 1920s and 30s and western governments back then enjoyed doing that. Muslims didn't ask for them, Saudis didn't ask for it. When we shape our policies based on facts and ground realities, only then we can have any chance of winning wars and winning hearts not when we twist and turn facts and hope our policy is shaped around such fantasies, especially in middle east.

Every country (regardless of its political standing) has the right to defend it self and choose its allies with whatever weapons they can afford.

Let us appreciate our allies and friends (acknowledged by our governments and international bodies) who have helped us in the past yet we abandoned them, who are helping us now yet we abandoned them again and we have some ungrateful people who would rather throw accusations and baseless allegations rather than deal with facts and the truth. Even before that can happen, these people must come to terms with themselves and their bias (which is probably the reason behind fact twisting) towards our allies and friends especially when stakes are very high in war against terrorism and extremism.

Rich, are you sure you are an American because you sure don't sound like one? Such allegations and blame it on Pakistan attitude is only seen from one group of people and that is not Americans, at least not those who know their history and know who is friends with us and has acknowledgement and praise of our governments in the west.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top