Is Pakistan or France the better friend of U.S.
Posted 04 March 2003 - 03:33 PM
Pakistan turns al qaeda members over to the U.S. without reservations, France says well you guys can only have the people who you promise will not be given the death penality.
France is attempting to hijack NATO while our depots there are full of hardware and supplies.
Are we going into a new awareness about the slickness of frogs?
Posted 04 March 2003 - 04:19 PM
Remember Danny Pearl? Every day Mush would tell Dubya that they were "on the heels of the culprits" and snicker behind Dubya's back at his naivette. But Americans are so trusting they give visas to terrorists who fly planes through buildings. Today all Dubya's hosses and all Dubya's men cant put Danny Pearl together again. Just ask Israel if Pakistan can be trusted.
If your war against terrorism is based on Pakistan as an ally you've already lost half the war. They have people who are so fanatically willing to be rewarded with the 72 virgins that they are ready to give themselves up as 'Al Qaeda' so that the real goons escape.
If Pakistan were that honest, you would have got Osama and Omar by now.
Wake up America.
Posted 05 March 2003 - 03:52 PM
Let me put it this way. Under Dubya, USA is like Wile E. Coyote and Osama is the Road Runner. And you know what happens each time there is a chase.
The following is a quote from a bigger article (which is well worth your while going through) regarding the recent "arrest" of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed:
Under the Pakistani laws, anyone arrested in Pakistani territory for a criminal offence has to be produced before a local court, tried for any offence pending against him in Pakistan and then only deported or extradited to any foreign country for facing trial in that country. The Pakistani authorities strictly followed this procedure in the Daniel Pearl case and have till now refused to hand over Sheikh Omar to the US authorities. He has been sentenced to death by a Pakistani court, but his appeal against the death sentence has not yet been disposed off. Their refusal to hand him over to the US for interrogation and trial in the US is due to his past linkages with the ISI, his self-confessed role as the king-pin of the ISI's terrorist operations in Indian territory and his reported claim, as made to the Karachi Police during his interrogation, that during a visit to Kandahar before 9/11 he had come to know of Al Qaeda's plans for the 9/11 terrorist strikes in the US and had passed on the information to Lt. Gen. Ehsanul Haq, the present Director-General of the ISI, who was then the Corps Commander in Peshawar. The Pakistani authorities were worried that if he made these disclosures to the US interrogators, the US might be constrained to act against Pakistan.
The whole article is at:
Posted 06 March 2003 - 06:37 PM
Maybe it was a multiple choice, following specific words.
Syria is hosting Iranian's for the purpose of fighting in Lebanon.
Maybe Agnostic is right, and they are having something to do with Frenching somebody.
Posted 07 March 2003 - 07:34 PM
The French are competitors, yes, allies if convenient, but a potential threat, no. Also, French special forces helped in Afghanistan and there have been a number of arrests of Al Q members in France. People tend to forget that in the Iraq hype.
Posted 07 March 2003 - 10:39 PM
America should take her military and her money and get the hell out of all those places. NATO is for protection of Europe. America gets absolutely nothing from membership. Ditto for the U. N.
Use the military and the money to make damn sure none of those spooks get into our country! And, oh yeah, boot out those already here.
Adopt the "Iron Curtain" of Russia, only around America.
Posted 08 March 2003 - 04:21 PM
Next, throw the Republicans out.
Money wasted, as Gordill has pointed out, in the NATO jamboree, could be better utilized in bettering the lot of the American citizens. At the rate at which things are going, there will be no Social Security benefits if the present regime continues in the White House.
Posted 13 March 2003 - 03:25 PM
By B. Muralidhar Reddy
ISLAMABAD March 11. Breaking off from its image as a `client-state' of the United States, Pakistan has decided to abstain from the second resolution on Iraq tabled by the U.K.-U.S. combine in the United Nations Security Council.
The Pakistan Prime Minister, Mir Zafarullah Khan Jamali, chose to explain the rationale to his people through a public address televised and broadcast on the state-run electronic media. Incidentally, it is Mr. Jamali's first speech to the nation since he took office four months ago.
Overwhelming public opinion against any military action on Iraq and widespread `anti-American sentiment' appear to have influenced the Pervez Musharraf-Jamali Government to defy the U.S. pressure to vote in favour of its resolution that could pave the way for war on or before the March 17 deadline set for Saddam Hussain to disarm or face war. While there is little doubt that Pakistan's decision is `historic' given the nature of Islamabad's relations with Washington, it has opted not to go the whole hog. Pakistan, which is largely dependent on Washington for its economic and military needs, is aware of the price it would have to pay if it were to vote against the U.S. The way Pakistan was heading on the Iraq crisis was evident when Mr. Jamali announced at a news conference that his country would not be a party to a war that would lead to Iraq's destruction and cause suffering to its people.
It was left to the spokesman of Mr. Jamali's party to translate the Prime Minister's words in the context of the second resolution. "Pakistan will abstain from the voting" at the U.N. Security Council, said Azeem Chaudhry, a spokesman for the Quaid-e-Azam faction of the Pakistan Muslim League. "We will not be giving our opinion in the Council. When he (Jamali) said Pakistan would not back a war on Iraq that means we will abstain. We want a peaceful resolution of the issue."
The Pakistan President, Pervez Musharraf, has been under tremendous pressure within and outside on the second resolution tabled by the U.K.-U.S. combine. In his interaction with Mr. Bush on telephone and other senior functionaries of the Bush Administration, Gen. Musharraf has been harping on the theme that war against Iraq at this juncture could lead to serious problems in the Muslim world in general and Pakistan in particular. He has been emphasising the need for exhausting all diplomatic options and the U.N. route.
Posted 13 March 2003 - 03:31 PM
By B. Muralidhar Reddy
ISLAMABAD MARCH 10. Amid tremendous pressure from within and without, the Pakistani Prime Minister, Mir Zafarullah Khan Jamali, announced today that "it would be very difficult for Pakistan to support war against Iraq''.
At a hurriedly convened press conference, Mr. Jamali said while Pakistan had very good relations with the U.S., its position on Iraq was based on "principles and national interest".
While the announcement of Mr. Jamali amounted to declaration that Islamabad would not back the U.S.-U.K. tabled second resolution on Iraq, the Prime Minister was not willing to say it in so many words.
Mr. Jamali's much-awaited announcement on Pakistan's position came after a special meeting of his Cabinet where the Foreign Secretary, Riaz Khokar, made a presentation. The Federal Cabinet unanimously decided to "continue to base Pakistan's position on Iraq on principles and the national interest. Pakistan has consistently stated that Iraq must comply with all relevant Security Council resolutions. Also that peace must be given a chance and all options for a peaceful resolution must be explored,'' an official statement said.
Interestingly, Chaudhary Shujaat Hussain, Parliamentary Leader of the Pakistan Muslim League (Qauid-e-Azam) also attended the presentation as a special invitee.
Mr. Jamali told the Cabinet that Pakistan's position would be based on principles and not `expediency'. He told the meeting that he would also be taking the nation into confidence shortly on this very important issue.
Earlier, the Foreign Office spokesman, Aziz Ahmed Khan described the U.N. Inspectors' report on Baghdad as positive and said Pakistan hoped maximum efforts would be made for a peaceful resolution.
``There is an opportunity to resolve this problem (Iraq crisis) peacefully (and) that is what the report of (UN) Inspectors has said and we feel that peace should be given a chance,'' he said.
To a question, he said Pakistan was discussing the matter with all the members of the U.N. Security Council and other friends.
At least the French are honest.....
Posted 13 March 2003 - 03:45 PM
By B. Muralidhar Reddy
ISLAMABAD MARCH 12. The divide between the United States and its European allies on the Iraq crisis has assumed proportions that perhaps could not have been imagined even a week ago. The convulsions of the rift among them were felt here in an extraordinary event.
The envoys of France and Russia here, along with their counterpart from China, actually invited a group of Pakistani editors in what some interpreted as an endeavour to influence Islamabad to vote against the U.K.-U.S.-sponsored second resolution on Iraq. The "over active" approach of the envoys surprised several observers.
According to M. Ziauddin, Resident Editor of Dawn, who was part of the three-hour long interactive session, while the envoys were keen on exploring the options before Pakistan on the second resolution, the editors were eager to know the plans of the respective countries if the U.S. goes ahead with war disregarding the United Nations.
It appears there were enough suggestions from the envoys that Pakistan had nothing to fear if it voted against America. When it was pointed out that all the international financial institutions were under the thumb of the U.S., the envoys told them that the share of America in IMF/World Bank was no more than 18 per cent.
The German Ambassador, Christoph Brimmer, took the initiative. He had invited his French counterpart Yanick Gerard, the Russian envoy, Edward S. Shevchenko, and the Chinese Ambassador, Zhang Chunxiang, to his residence to meet a group of Pakistani mediapersons for an "off-and-on-the record'' on America's "designs" and Pakistan's anxiety to come out of the crisis unscathed.
As the Chinese Ambassador was out of town, his deputy, Counsellor Song Deheng, represented him at the meeting. The host and his diplomatic colleagues wanted to know from their guests on how Pakistan was likely to vote and what would happen to Pakistan if it voted against or for the U.S., resolution or if it decided to abstain.
Some at the get-together thought that the best option available to Pakistan was to abstain from voting. But many thought an abstention would invite the wrath of the U.S. and, at the same time, it would be considered at home as a capitulation on the part of Pakistan.
``The host and his diplomatic colleagues appeared to have come to the conclusion that Pakistan's vote would play a decisive role, and therefore, they would like Islamabad to vote against the resolution because otherwise they said the U.S. would not even bother about the veto and go ahead with its attack plans. They appeared to believe that once that happened, the world would not be the same again, with the U.N. losing its logic and the U.S. adopting the doctrine of pre-emptive attacks without any let or hindrance,'' Mr. Ziauddin wrote.
According to him, the envoys seemed to believe that Iraq was just a decoy and that the U.S. had some other plans up its sleeve for the world and that this could be stopped only if Pakistan voted against the resolution.
Interestingly, the diplomats tried to play down the expected damage to Pakistan's economic and political interests if it voted against the resolution, arguing that in the first place the U.S. had relatively limited voting rights in the multilateral aid agencies compared to the voting rights of the Europeans. Secondly, Pakistan's past experience had demonstrated more than once that the U.S. was not always a "reliable friend."
Someone from among the ambassadors also pointed out that Pakistan did not seem to have extracted any price from the U.S. for its services if it decided to vote for the resolution.
But there was no response when another guest asked how much would the Europeans pay for the Pakistani vote.
Nice allies. Judas was Jesus' ally too..........................
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users