Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What would have happened?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    What would have happened?

    Indulge me for a moment please.

    We all know Musharraf's diplomacy and blind support for the 'coalition' has fallen flat on his face.

    NA is now the dominant force in Afghanistan, chanting "Death to Pakistan" on the streets of Kabul.

    US has flat out refused any cessation of bombing or war during Ramazan.

    US has flat out refused to deliver or pay for the F-16's Pakistan payed up front

    US has promised token payments of aid, but remember the war has caused over $2.8 billion loss in trade so we are still way short of at least breaking even!

    India continues it's atrocities in Kashmir and occasionally fires across the border targeting pakistani posts.

    OBL is still at large. Mullah Omar alive.

    What hell would have broken loose if we'd taken a stand like Iran; "Not with you and Not with Terrorists either".

    Would we have been any worse off than today?
    Pride wise at least, we'd have stood tall. Don't you think?
    JaddoN kaddya jaloos ghareeba tay shehr ich choatalee lug gayee

    #2
    any thoughts?
    JaddoN kaddya jaloos ghareeba tay shehr ich choatalee lug gayee

    Comment


      #3
      Hold on Pakabroad, some Patriots are taking a nap and will soon be happy to be at your service.

      I tend to agree that Musharraf had gotten the country into a real tight spot. The ISI should take all the credit for creating this mess. Meanwhile, Mullah Omar and Osama are running like a chicken without head, and will be caught sooner than you know. So things aint all that bad as they may appear.

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by PakistaniAbroad:
        What hell would have broken loose if we'd taken a stand like Iran; "Not with you and Not with Terrorists either".
        America would declare that since they linked Harkut-ul-Mujahideen camps in Pakistan with Bib Ladin, the war on terror would have to be expanded to take the Harkut-ul-Mujahideen camps. But wait a minute.... the Pakistan Airforce is in the way. So they'd take out our airbases and out planes to make sure that we couldn't pose any threat to their bombers as they attacked targets in Pakistan. But then wait.... Army bases are protected by Surface-to-Air Missile batteries, so they better bomb Pakistan army bases. And then they'd expand the bombing to other Kashmir militant facilities.

        And at the end of it all, when the US bombing is finished, India will look over and say, "Hey, look, Pakistan's defences have been destroyed. Time we waltzed into Kashmir and take it all. Oh yeah, and if Pakistan tries to use those nukes of theirs on us first, then we'll get the whole world on our side and get them to demilitarise Pakistan!"

        The fact of the matter is that Iran could afford to rebuff America, because there are no facilities in Iran that can be considered to be terrorist facilities by anyone, and so attacked.

        Pakistan, however, hosts facilities for the Kashmiri militants. If Pakistan refused to cooperate with America, India would find it easy to persuade America to expand the war to allegedly Bin-Ladin linked camps in Pakistan.
        Muslims are so good at dividing that they can divide the atom. If you see two Muslims, probably they belong to 3 parties.
        Al-Ghazali

        Comment


          #5
          Well lets put it this way, you cant win them all. Musharrafs decision was very wise, probably the only decision to take, remaining neutral would give out the same impression to atleast Afghani's, and lost any support from USA ... taking sides with them atleast earned some support ... better than nothing. Iran isnt cornered by hostiles the way Pakistan is, so it always has to choose sides, it just isnt in the position to stay neutral.

          And ofcourse this is all Pakistans asymmetric warfare that we see in Afghanistan and Kashmir ... afghanistan was never a problem to handle (they are akhrot), but Pakistan cannot face India might to might so we need this kind of terroristic or asymmetric warfare ... it ensures our survival. Just a fraction of out foreign policy ... USA aint the only one who plays dirty.

          ------------------
          Its our Wits that make us MEN .... 'Braveheart'

          Comment


            #6
            PAbroad writes:
            "US has promised token payments of aid."

            When did we reach the day when $1 billion is considered a "token?"
            "I met the surgeon general - he offered me a cigarette. " --Rodney Dangerfield

            Comment


              #7
              Mad Scientist is right if Pakistan were to refuse support to US 'alliance'. Perhaps Musharraf bought sometime for Pakistan from being bombed..... may be... I wish thats not the case.

              ------------------
              We oughta be Changez like, don't we?

              Comment


                #8
                Iran could afford to rebuff America, because there are no facilities in Iran that can be considered to be terrorist facilities by anyone, and so attacked.
                Let's not forget Israel's continued allegations of Iran supporting the militant Groups operating in Palestine.

                Iran is as involved as Pakistan in providing support to freedom fighters.

                However, Iran has been left alone for the time being because there are signs of an internal uprising against the mullahcracy and Shah's son, living in American suburbia is resurfacing on US media.

                Does anyone think that Pakistan would have been a sitting duck to attacks on it's military infrastructure?

                $1b is peanuts when we look at the loss of trade and rise in international insurances.

                I sure hope we can get a friendly government in Afghanistan.. not quite looking forward to Agni missiles pointing at us from across the border in the west too

                [This message has been edited by PakistaniAbroad (edited November 14, 2001).]
                JaddoN kaddya jaloos ghareeba tay shehr ich choatalee lug gayee

                Comment


                  #9
                  huyi muddat ke ghalib mar gaya par yaad aata hain
                  woh har ek baat pe kehna ke yoon hota to kya hota!

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by ZZ:
                    huyi muddat ke ghalib mar gaya par yaad aata hain
                    woh har ek baat pe kehna ke yoon hota to kya hota!
                    The same ZZ,Pakistaniabroad (btw not a paki anyway) & Ahmedi would say opposite if Musharaff had not aligned with America.

                    Therefore it just proves Pakistanis have 10 times more enemies than friends even on this board thanks to being Islamic sunni majority state .

                    Only paranoid sunni muslim can survive from the enemy Ahmedia,Hndu ,Jews,Christians ,Druze,Parsi ,Sikhs , Nothern alliance ,Pukhtun,pushtun,taleban what not

                    Its jungle of dangerous animals out there

                    [This message has been edited by AAmir43 (edited November 15, 2001).]

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Originally posted by PakistaniAbroad:
                      Let's not forget Israel's continued allegations of Iran supporting the militant Groups operating in Palestine.

                      Iran is as involved as Pakistan in providing support to freedom fighters.
                      Yes, Iran has openly, in fact, been declared a terrorist state by America.

                      However, my point still stands that there is nothing you can attack in Iran that will kill so-called terrorists or hinder their operations.

                      Iran funds, and provides training for, a so-called terrorist groups operating in Lebanon and Israel. These so-called terrorist groups have no facilities of their own in Iran that can be bombed in the name of counter-terrorism.

                      A similar situation does not exist in Pakistan.
                      Muslims are so good at dividing that they can divide the atom. If you see two Muslims, probably they belong to 3 parties.
                      Al-Ghazali

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Well said medic!
                        Well said!

                        Don't compare us to iran, as it is not the same situation.
                        Those who say we should have acted like iran, are really stupid or have no clue on global politics and reality.

                        ------------------
                        Ours is not to reason why;
                        Ours is but to do and die
                        You can't fix stupid. So might as well troll them!

                        Comment


                          #13
                          I think Pakistanabroad was right. THere was no need for haste. Infact it was a golden oppurtunity for Perveez Mushraaf to talk with politicans and Mullahs in televised meeetings over several days, before doing the inevitable i.e, join the coalition.
                          Instead he whined about India and Kashmir as usual in TV address.

                          I wouldn't put too much in the theory of Pakistan traininfg camps getting bombed. That will be counterproductive to do at present. Amreekans are practical people.

                          So what now. Pakistan's nightmare seems to be getting realized now.
                          Hostile neighbours everywhere

                          Pakistan's behaviuor reminds me of the behaviour of some of the Indian Newspaer establishments during Emergency. They became 100% Indira Gandhi supporters overnight.
                          When everything was over and Janata Party came into power L.K. Advani told some of them.
                          "Mrs. Gandhi only wanted you to bend a little. You Crawled!!"
                          Which is want Pakistan did now.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Two thumbs up for madscientist!

                            we cannot jeapordize our kashmir stance!

                            mad scientist, believe it or not, but youre not mad at all!! heh we need more ppl who think like you!

                            Comment


                              #15
                              atimes.com/ind-pak/CK15Dh03.html

                              Pakistan boxed into Taliban corner
                              By Syed Saleem Shahzad

                              KARACHI - With the Taliban's sudden withdrawal from key areas in Afghanistan to concentrate in the eastern provinces for a prolonged guerrilla war, and with the likelihood of an anti-Pakistan government running Afghanistan, Islamabad could be forced into lending covert support to the Taliban, whom it ditched two months ago in favor of the United States in its war on terrorism.

                              The quick retreats of the Taliban from Mazar-e-Sharif and the dramatic withdrawals from the capital Kabul and Jalalabad have exploded like a bombshell among Pakistani military decision makers at general headquarters in Rawalpindi and at the Foreign Office in Islamabad.

                              The developments are in stark contrast to what the Pakistani intelligence services had reported to President General Pervez Musharraf - that the war would drag on much longer and that Pakistan would maintain a strong bargaining position with the US and its allies over the composition of a new Afghan government.

                              All this has changed with the US's inability - or reluctance - to stop the Northern Alliance from taking over Kabul, where it is already reported that on Wednesday former Afghan president Burhanuddin Rabbani will return to pronounce himself the head of the territories now under the control of the anti-Taliban opposition. Deposed by the Taliban in 1996, the ethnic Tajik Rabbani is the political leader of the Northern Alliance and is still recognized as Afghanistan's president by the United Nations and most countries.

                              Although the United Nations is trying its best to install a broad-based government in Afghanistan, Rabbani has already made a move to set up an interim administration. It is said that General Mohammad Fahim will act as minister of defense, Abdullah Abdullah as minister of foreign affairs and Yunus Qanooni as minister of the interior. Warlords such as Rashid Dostum and Ismail Khan are expected to be left in control of the areas they have captured, Mazar-e-Sharif and Herat respectively.

                              This pretty much leaves Pakistan out in the cold as this power configuration is made up mainly of three different ethnic groups: Tajiks, who comprise some 25 percent of the population; Hazaras, about 19 percent; and Uzbeks, with about 6 percent. Pashtuns, with 40 percent of the population, dominate central and southern Afghanistan, the home base to the leadership of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, the network of Osama bin Laden.

                              Rabbani has said that he would welcome former monarch Zahir Shah, but as a "private citizen". Yet Rabbani was the founding father of the Afghan resistance movement, which began in the days of Zahir Shah. Rabbani is well documented as saying that Zahir Shah would be hanged for war crimes if he ever returned to Afghanistan, and he has never softened this stance.

                              In this perspective, it appears that Afghanistan will continue with its centuries-old traditions under which there will be no participation in government on the basis of anything but "might is right" and that the only way in which Pakistan can have any sway in balancing unfriendly forces across its border is to lend support to the Taliban to help keep a guerrilla war going.

                              Sources say that on the news of the fall of Kabul an emergency meeting was convened in Rawalpindi, headed by General Yusuf, the vice chief of army staff - Musharraf is currently on a visit to the US. At the meeting it was emphasized that a new strategic policy for Afghanistan is needed.

                              Well-placed sources suggest that in the new scheme of things the Pakistani tribal belt bordering Afghanistan, home of 10 million mostly Pashtun people, will play an important role: the Taliban will continue to fight their guerrilla war, with backup and supplies being ferried from Pakistan through the tribal areas to them.

                              Meanwhile, Asia Times Online has canvassed the views of some prominent Pakistanis across a wide spectrum of interests, and they all believe that Pakistan has lost ground in the region.

                              Former ambassador Hussain Haqqani said that Pakistan's single-track Afghan policy was now in tatters. He said Pakistan had not even contemplating what might happen should Kabul fall into the hands of a group other than the one it favored. Now all of the options that Pakistan would want to see happen, including the Zahir Shah (former king) one, are at the mercy of the Northern Alliance and its backers in Washington and London.

                              Now Pakistan, says Hussain Haqqani, will have to play a passive role as even though some of the former warlords will be blessed with Western intelligence and will have a role in the future setup of Afghanistan, the Northern Alliance will not be willing to accommodate them. This will lead to a situation in which the prospects of civil war cannot be ruled out.

                              The former director-general of the Inter-Services Intelligence, retired lieutenant-general Hamid Gul, said that the US had deceived Pakistan and it had facilitated the Northern Alliance entry into Kabul despite Pakistan's strong opposition.

                              "Professor Rabbani has had very strong support from Russia and he will retain government at all costs. It should be kept in mind that Rabbani has always been against Zahir Shah, he will not allow him into any broad-based government. Neither will he allow the Taliban to be a part of any government. This situation will lead to anarchy and civil war in Afghanistan."

                              He termed the Taliban retreat from Mazar-e-Sharif and Kabul as strategic moves, and called losing Jalalabad a "gambit". "Now pro-Indian and pro-Russian Northern Alliance forces will enter into the Pashtun stronghold of Jalalabad, which borders Pakistan. Pakistan will be forced to play a role in extending support to a group, and in the present circumstances the Taliban would be the only choice."

                              He said that Pakistan would again be made a scapegoat for US designs, and it would be asked to send its ground troops into the country under the umbrella of UN forces. "This would be a peacemaking operation rather than peacekeeping operation because otherwise there would be complete civil war in Afghanistan," he said. Pakistan should refuse to send its troops into Afghanistan, he added.

                              He believed that the Taliban would make the eastern provinces their stronghold and continue to struggle against the US-sponsored war against terrorism in the region.

                              Liaquat Baloch, the deputy leader of the Jamaat-i-Islami (JI), the premier fundamentalist party in Pakistan, said that the present situation was the result of Pakistan's misguided policies that had allowed a pro-Indian government to be installed on Pakistan's western borders [Kabul] at a time when Pakistan's armed forces were already engaged with its arch-rival on the eastern borders. He maintained that it was Pakistan's support for the US position that had enabled anti-Taliban forces to capture Kabul. He added that the US exploited Musharraf for its own designs in the region, and had dragged Afghanistan into a prolonged civil war.

                              A former senator and leader of the Pakistan People's Party, Taj Haider, said that the possible victimization of the Taliban by Northern Alliance forces was the main cause for concern. "Though they [Taliban] consider me an infidel, [Taj Haider comes from a hardcore Marxist school of thought and hails from a Shia family] my heart is crying for them. What they have done may be wrong, but once they surrendered the world community should raise its voice for them for better treatment."

                              He maintained that Pakistan had closed all doors to Northern Alliance forces, and even when their former army leader, Ahmad Shah Masood, was assassinated in September, Pakistan did not offer its condolences.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X