F-16s to Pakistan—Why Now?
Karamatullah K Ghori April 5, 2005
#131 Posted by arjun_m on April 8, 2005 4:11:50 pm
US offers to sell India advanced weaponry
We intend to redraw the strategic map of Indo-US relations, say top US officials g Natwar to visit Washington on 12th
By Iftikhar Gilani
NEW DELHI: The United States has offered India an assortment of advanced weapons to balance its decision to sell F-16 fighter aircrafts to Pakistan. The weaponry offered includes Patriot PaC II anti-missile systems, network-centric early warning and battlefield control and command systems.
During US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice’s visit here last month, the two sides agreed to consolidate defence and energy ties and conclude the second phase of the Next Step in Strategic Partnership (NSSP), which encompasses high technology trade.
“We intend to re-draw the strategic map of Indo-US relations,” said senior US Embassy officials, adding that the two countries would engage more closely in the coming weeks. External Affairs Minister Natwar Singh will visit Washington on April 12, which will be followed by US Pacific Command Commander-in-Chief Admiral William J Fallone’s first visit here.
A high-level US delegation visited India recently and made presentations about the Patriot PaC II systems to Indian defence officials, which was a follow-up of three Indian observers attending the missile shield system’s live demonstration trials in Texas, said officials.
The officials said US aviation majors Lockheed Martin and Boeing would bid for India’s plan to buy 126 multi-role combat aircraft and were hopeful of getting the contract. They said that US armed forces had proposed to give a new dimension to military-to-military engagements between the two countries by company-level joint exercises in California in June and taking these manoeuvres to battalion-level first and then to brigade-level by 2007.
Indian Air Force’s wish to engage in joint manoeuvres with F-16s and early warning aircraft would be realised soon, said US officials, referring to the planned joint exercises in November over the Kalaikunda base in West Bengal.
Asserting the US was committed to “serious energy dialogue” with India, including on civilian use of nuclear energy, the officials said this issue would be boosted with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Petroleum Minister Mani Shankar Aiyer’s upcoming visit to Washington. “India and US are both energy deficit countries and a close cooperation in this field is viewed by us as mutually advantageous,” they said.
Declaring that US viewed its strategic engagement with India in a global rather than regional context, US officials said an indication of this was that defence sales between the two countries had shot up to 200 million US dollars in 2002 from zero in 2000.
Deputy Chairman of the Planning Commission Montek Singh Ahluwalia and Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran will accompany Natwar on his visit.
His delegation includes Department of Atomic Energy’s Strategic Planning Group Director RB Grover, Indian Space Research Organisation Scientific Secretary V Sundararamaiah and External Affairs Ministry Joint Secretary (Americas) S Jaishankar.
We intend to redraw the strategic map of Indo-US relations, say top US officials g Natwar to visit Washington on 12th
By Iftikhar Gilani
NEW DELHI: The United States has offered India an assortment of advanced weapons to balance its decision to sell F-16 fighter aircrafts to Pakistan. The weaponry offered includes Patriot PaC II anti-missile systems, network-centric early warning and battlefield control and command systems.
During US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice’s visit here last month, the two sides agreed to consolidate defence and energy ties and conclude the second phase of the Next Step in Strategic Partnership (NSSP), which encompasses high technology trade.
“We intend to re-draw the strategic map of Indo-US relations,” said senior US Embassy officials, adding that the two countries would engage more closely in the coming weeks. External Affairs Minister Natwar Singh will visit Washington on April 12, which will be followed by US Pacific Command Commander-in-Chief Admiral William J Fallone’s first visit here.
A high-level US delegation visited India recently and made presentations about the Patriot PaC II systems to Indian defence officials, which was a follow-up of three Indian observers attending the missile shield system’s live demonstration trials in Texas, said officials.
The officials said US aviation majors Lockheed Martin and Boeing would bid for India’s plan to buy 126 multi-role combat aircraft and were hopeful of getting the contract. They said that US armed forces had proposed to give a new dimension to military-to-military engagements between the two countries by company-level joint exercises in California in June and taking these manoeuvres to battalion-level first and then to brigade-level by 2007.
Indian Air Force’s wish to engage in joint manoeuvres with F-16s and early warning aircraft would be realised soon, said US officials, referring to the planned joint exercises in November over the Kalaikunda base in West Bengal.
Asserting the US was committed to “serious energy dialogue” with India, including on civilian use of nuclear energy, the officials said this issue would be boosted with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Petroleum Minister Mani Shankar Aiyer’s upcoming visit to Washington. “India and US are both energy deficit countries and a close cooperation in this field is viewed by us as mutually advantageous,” they said.
Declaring that US viewed its strategic engagement with India in a global rather than regional context, US officials said an indication of this was that defence sales between the two countries had shot up to 200 million US dollars in 2002 from zero in 2000.
Deputy Chairman of the Planning Commission Montek Singh Ahluwalia and Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran will accompany Natwar on his visit.
His delegation includes Department of Atomic Energy’s Strategic Planning Group Director RB Grover, Indian Space Research Organisation Scientific Secretary V Sundararamaiah and External Affairs Ministry Joint Secretary (Americas) S Jaishankar.
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#132 Posted by taqat-e-parvaaz on April 8, 2005 9:29:53 pm
Re: # 131
yeah keep dreaming veggie samosa. man, a lack of protein really can screw up someones brain. i can believe you buffoons still believe the US wants to be your `strategic partner.` pakistan can match whatever india can throw at it. its only going to get worse from here on out. advanced F-16s, JF-17s armed with swedish data links, an italian radar and BVR missiles, not to mention the deadly chinese J-10, which the US navy has admitted is more potent than its own super hornet. go ahead, tell your bhangee government to buy F-16s and F-18s. you`ll be falling right into place.....
yeah keep dreaming veggie samosa. man, a lack of protein really can screw up someones brain. i can believe you buffoons still believe the US wants to be your `strategic partner.` pakistan can match whatever india can throw at it. its only going to get worse from here on out. advanced F-16s, JF-17s armed with swedish data links, an italian radar and BVR missiles, not to mention the deadly chinese J-10, which the US navy has admitted is more potent than its own super hornet. go ahead, tell your bhangee government to buy F-16s and F-18s. you`ll be falling right into place.....
#130 Posted by KaalChakra on April 8, 2005 4:05:51 pm
re: vivek # 125
Count me in on everything jingoistic, even if it is all dreamy. he he
All peoples must dream very big.
Count me in on everything jingoistic, even if it is all dreamy. he he
All peoples must dream very big.
#129 Posted by arjun_m on April 8, 2005 4:03:23 pm
What part of ``no redrawing of borders`` isn`t clear to the pakis?
India keeps Indian Kashmir, Pakistan keeps paki Kashmir...china keeps the part it was gifted by Pakistan....
No redrawing maps, Natwar tells Pakistan
Staff Report
NEW DELHI: India has told Pakistan that it is open to all options that they offer except redrawing the map of India and having a second partition.
“Our views are quite clear. We are open to all options that they offer, except redrawing the map of India and having a second partition,” External Affairs Minister Natwar Singh told BBC World.
India keeps Indian Kashmir, Pakistan keeps paki Kashmir...china keeps the part it was gifted by Pakistan....
No redrawing maps, Natwar tells Pakistan
Staff Report
NEW DELHI: India has told Pakistan that it is open to all options that they offer except redrawing the map of India and having a second partition.
“Our views are quite clear. We are open to all options that they offer, except redrawing the map of India and having a second partition,” External Affairs Minister Natwar Singh told BBC World.
#128 Posted by arjun_m on April 8, 2005 1:40:41 pm
#123 by stuka on April 8, 2005 8:46am PT
Taqat e Parvaz:
``no one in pakistan is brainwashed as to what happened in kargil.``
You need brains to be brainwashed...
t-e-p is probably in his teens...he doesn`t understand anything he`s pasting...check out the details of what he thinks is super-cool IC technology....
Taqat e Parvaz:
``no one in pakistan is brainwashed as to what happened in kargil.``
You need brains to be brainwashed...
t-e-p is probably in his teens...he doesn`t understand anything he`s pasting...check out the details of what he thinks is super-cool IC technology....
#127 Posted by bbabu on April 8, 2005 12:59:35 pm
HisExcellency #108
`` At best this is a necessary evil (i.e. in case of the US which must strengthen its military alliances with Pakistan and India in order to meet the emerging Chinese threat), and at worst it is a vainglorious attempt by an undemocratic regime to project military power ``
The primary Chinese threat is economic. Pakistan would be of marginal importance for both USA and China in economic matters.
`` America has learnt its lessons from the 1990s when US naively imposed nuclear sanctions on Pakistan. This monumental blunder cost America considerable leverage with Pakistan. And for what benefit? Pakistan still continued its nuclear program relentlessly. And this nuclear program was India-specific, not meant to be used against US or Israel. The F-16s sale [and the US silence over A.Q.Khan scandal] are just indications that US wants to develop a long-term relationship with Pakistan. ``
Here we go again.
What were US nuclear sanctions on pakistan in 1990 ?
1. Weapons embargo - F-16 spares parts. There are alternative suppliers for other military equipment like China and France
It is not like USA was selling weapons to India during the 1990s either. While Pakistani military was hurt by the Pressler amendment Indian military was suffering from financial problems and collapse in the Indo-Soviet weapons agreements.
2. $$$ - Given US budget deficit do not expect any goodies. Aid to Israel has falled in real terms over the years.
USA never cut off diplomatic relations, never cut off trade relations. USA buys 25% of your textile exports.
This whole hoopla over sanctions is something manufactured by the Pakistani establishment.
`` Pakistan`s economic situation is now qualitatively better than 1999. We can now afford these fighter jets `without eating grass`, affecting the various economic development programmes in progress or giving up the JF-17 project. These jets are a long-term investment.``
You are still begging for debt forgiveness and debt relief.
`` At best this is a necessary evil (i.e. in case of the US which must strengthen its military alliances with Pakistan and India in order to meet the emerging Chinese threat), and at worst it is a vainglorious attempt by an undemocratic regime to project military power ``
The primary Chinese threat is economic. Pakistan would be of marginal importance for both USA and China in economic matters.
`` America has learnt its lessons from the 1990s when US naively imposed nuclear sanctions on Pakistan. This monumental blunder cost America considerable leverage with Pakistan. And for what benefit? Pakistan still continued its nuclear program relentlessly. And this nuclear program was India-specific, not meant to be used against US or Israel. The F-16s sale [and the US silence over A.Q.Khan scandal] are just indications that US wants to develop a long-term relationship with Pakistan. ``
Here we go again.
What were US nuclear sanctions on pakistan in 1990 ?
1. Weapons embargo - F-16 spares parts. There are alternative suppliers for other military equipment like China and France
It is not like USA was selling weapons to India during the 1990s either. While Pakistani military was hurt by the Pressler amendment Indian military was suffering from financial problems and collapse in the Indo-Soviet weapons agreements.
2. $$$ - Given US budget deficit do not expect any goodies. Aid to Israel has falled in real terms over the years.
USA never cut off diplomatic relations, never cut off trade relations. USA buys 25% of your textile exports.
This whole hoopla over sanctions is something manufactured by the Pakistani establishment.
`` Pakistan`s economic situation is now qualitatively better than 1999. We can now afford these fighter jets `without eating grass`, affecting the various economic development programmes in progress or giving up the JF-17 project. These jets are a long-term investment.``
You are still begging for debt forgiveness and debt relief.
#126 Posted by bbabu on April 8, 2005 12:46:43 pm
taqat-e-parvaaz #114
`` WASHINGTON — How damaging would a concerted attack on American satellite systems be? Pentagon officials cite the 1998 malfunction of the Galaxy IV satellite, which shut down 80 percent of pagers in the United States, as an example of the disruptions that could follow an attack. The episode was deemed an accident. China, however, made it known that future malfunctions might not be accidental. ``
It is one thing to make a threat. It is another thing to shut down a satellite.
`` In January, a two-year study by a panel of generals and civilian defense experts, including Donald Rumsfeld, the man who would become secretary of defense, laid out a host of emerging threats to U.S. satellites: ``
One of the goals of such studies is to generate govt funds for newer weapon systems
`` *Attacks on satellite ground stations: Such assaults could range from a physical attack on stations to computer hackers breaking into the networks that direct the satellites and receive their transmissions. ``
Try attacking a satellite ground station
`` *Jamming: Many countries, including Russia, China, Iraq, North Korea, Iran and Cuba, possess electronic jamming capabilities to disrupt satellite operations. Pentagon officials say the chances of such capability falling into the hands of terrorist groups or individuals has increased with the miniaturization of jamming devices. Russia now markets a hand-held system the size of a cigarette packet that can jam Global Positioning Satellite transmissions for 50 miles. A slightly larger version can block transmissions for 160 miles. Both could be used not only against U.S. ground forces but also against aircraft. ``
It does not take too long to whack a jammer
`` *Ground lasers: Directed at an orbiting satellite, these high-energy beams can be projected into space to dazzle or blind a satellite’s sensors and cameras. Some U.S. military satellites are equipped with shutters to guard against laser attack, but many are defenseless, the report said. ``
Be my guest. Try firing a laser into sky. Let alone hitting a satellite spinning at extremely high speed.
`` *Microsatellites and nanosatellites: With the miniaturization of space system technologies, these small satellites range between 200 and 20 pounds and even come in sizes as small as a compact disc player. Highly maneuverable and packed with super-sophisticated electronics, they can zoom up beside other satellites, inspect them with cameras and transmit images back to Earth. ``
Exactly how do you plan to transmit images back to earth ? What makes you think such transmissions cannot be jammed ?
`` Weaponized microsatellites loaded with rockets or lasers are expected to emerge in the coming years, capable of disrupting, disabling or destroying enemy satellites. Among the countries that possess microsatellite technology are the United States, Russia, China, Israel and Pakistan. ``
There is no documentation of micro-satellite technology being deployed. USA is still building its next generation of microsatellites for spying.
`` *Nuclear detonation: The explosion of even a small nuclear device in space would destroy or damage nearby satellites and leave lingering radiation that would halt new satellite operations for months. Pentagon officials say all that is needed for an attack like this is a rocket and simple nuclear device. Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Israel and Pakistan, along with the five declared nuclear states, already have missiles that can reach the necessary altitudes, and either possess or are believed to be developing nuclear weapons. ``
Why would India not be a nuclear state ? Did you selectively edit the article ?
`` WASHINGTON — How damaging would a concerted attack on American satellite systems be? Pentagon officials cite the 1998 malfunction of the Galaxy IV satellite, which shut down 80 percent of pagers in the United States, as an example of the disruptions that could follow an attack. The episode was deemed an accident. China, however, made it known that future malfunctions might not be accidental. ``
It is one thing to make a threat. It is another thing to shut down a satellite.
`` In January, a two-year study by a panel of generals and civilian defense experts, including Donald Rumsfeld, the man who would become secretary of defense, laid out a host of emerging threats to U.S. satellites: ``
One of the goals of such studies is to generate govt funds for newer weapon systems
`` *Attacks on satellite ground stations: Such assaults could range from a physical attack on stations to computer hackers breaking into the networks that direct the satellites and receive their transmissions. ``
Try attacking a satellite ground station
`` *Jamming: Many countries, including Russia, China, Iraq, North Korea, Iran and Cuba, possess electronic jamming capabilities to disrupt satellite operations. Pentagon officials say the chances of such capability falling into the hands of terrorist groups or individuals has increased with the miniaturization of jamming devices. Russia now markets a hand-held system the size of a cigarette packet that can jam Global Positioning Satellite transmissions for 50 miles. A slightly larger version can block transmissions for 160 miles. Both could be used not only against U.S. ground forces but also against aircraft. ``
It does not take too long to whack a jammer
`` *Ground lasers: Directed at an orbiting satellite, these high-energy beams can be projected into space to dazzle or blind a satellite’s sensors and cameras. Some U.S. military satellites are equipped with shutters to guard against laser attack, but many are defenseless, the report said. ``
Be my guest. Try firing a laser into sky. Let alone hitting a satellite spinning at extremely high speed.
`` *Microsatellites and nanosatellites: With the miniaturization of space system technologies, these small satellites range between 200 and 20 pounds and even come in sizes as small as a compact disc player. Highly maneuverable and packed with super-sophisticated electronics, they can zoom up beside other satellites, inspect them with cameras and transmit images back to Earth. ``
Exactly how do you plan to transmit images back to earth ? What makes you think such transmissions cannot be jammed ?
`` Weaponized microsatellites loaded with rockets or lasers are expected to emerge in the coming years, capable of disrupting, disabling or destroying enemy satellites. Among the countries that possess microsatellite technology are the United States, Russia, China, Israel and Pakistan. ``
There is no documentation of micro-satellite technology being deployed. USA is still building its next generation of microsatellites for spying.
`` *Nuclear detonation: The explosion of even a small nuclear device in space would destroy or damage nearby satellites and leave lingering radiation that would halt new satellite operations for months. Pentagon officials say all that is needed for an attack like this is a rocket and simple nuclear device. Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Israel and Pakistan, along with the five declared nuclear states, already have missiles that can reach the necessary altitudes, and either possess or are believed to be developing nuclear weapons. ``
Why would India not be a nuclear state ? Did you selectively edit the article ?
#125 Posted by vivek on April 8, 2005 12:24:13 pm
kaalchakra,
Comments on your two visions:
India`s vision is not unrealistic if it is stretched for a period of 50 years. The doctrine is good in the sense that it assumes that nobody is India`s friend or enemy, and our threat over the years can come from anywhere. India should aim to become a great power but it will take a long time. However, they should working on it from now.
About Pakistan`s vision, I think they still consider the need for united block of islamic nations. How realistic they are is something for Pakistanis to judge. Its their country and they know it best.
Comments on your two visions:
India`s vision is not unrealistic if it is stretched for a period of 50 years. The doctrine is good in the sense that it assumes that nobody is India`s friend or enemy, and our threat over the years can come from anywhere. India should aim to become a great power but it will take a long time. However, they should working on it from now.
About Pakistan`s vision, I think they still consider the need for united block of islamic nations. How realistic they are is something for Pakistanis to judge. Its their country and they know it best.
#124 Posted by KaalChakra on April 8, 2005 11:51:24 am
Our two ``ludicrously unrealistic`` visions:
To understand the military-political behavior of the Indian ``establishments,`` we should look at its modern `ludircously unrealistic`` vision: to be counted among the world`s great powers, with long reach of its influence, and to be in such a secure position that no other nation can impose her `unreasonable` will upon India.
In Pakistan`s case, until recently, it seemed to be as follows: to be the leader of a strong and united block of all Islamic nations, and to engage with all non Islamic countries, particularly with India, in the capacity of the leading representative of all of the earth`s muslims.
These arose as just random thoughts. Anyone who finds them ``ludicrously inappropriate`` is most welcome to say so.
To understand the military-political behavior of the Indian ``establishments,`` we should look at its modern `ludircously unrealistic`` vision: to be counted among the world`s great powers, with long reach of its influence, and to be in such a secure position that no other nation can impose her `unreasonable` will upon India.
In Pakistan`s case, until recently, it seemed to be as follows: to be the leader of a strong and united block of all Islamic nations, and to engage with all non Islamic countries, particularly with India, in the capacity of the leading representative of all of the earth`s muslims.
These arose as just random thoughts. Anyone who finds them ``ludicrously inappropriate`` is most welcome to say so.
#123 Posted by stuka on April 8, 2005 8:46:55 am
Taqat e Parvaz:
``no one in pakistan is brainwashed as to what happened in kargil.``
Yeah right. Most Pakistanis think they were winning a great victory and Clinton begged Sharif to get his troops out. Whatever!!!
``yes pakistan made some mistakes in 1971, but so did india. was there a report there? why did india intrude in a personal matter?``
Personal matter? What about the millions of refugees fleeing into India from East Pakistan? Was Yahya going to pay India for them? India announced the economic burden of the rerfugees for 10 months but the US under Nixon ignored it.
`` but theres no mistakes about kargil and that pakistan army commandos were butt raping skinny indian soldiers. ``
Your statement is half right...it is no secret that Pakistani troops (mainly Pathans) prefer butt raping due to latent homo tendencies. However, in Kargil, they never got close enough to Indians without getting killed. I believe they took solace with Sheep but you can confirm that with GHQ Rawalpindi. LOL!!!
``no one in pakistan is brainwashed as to what happened in kargil.``
Yeah right. Most Pakistanis think they were winning a great victory and Clinton begged Sharif to get his troops out. Whatever!!!
``yes pakistan made some mistakes in 1971, but so did india. was there a report there? why did india intrude in a personal matter?``
Personal matter? What about the millions of refugees fleeing into India from East Pakistan? Was Yahya going to pay India for them? India announced the economic burden of the rerfugees for 10 months but the US under Nixon ignored it.
`` but theres no mistakes about kargil and that pakistan army commandos were butt raping skinny indian soldiers. ``
Your statement is half right...it is no secret that Pakistani troops (mainly Pathans) prefer butt raping due to latent homo tendencies. However, in Kargil, they never got close enough to Indians without getting killed. I believe they took solace with Sheep but you can confirm that with GHQ Rawalpindi. LOL!!!
#133 Posted by taqat-e-parvaaz on April 8, 2005 9:56:54 pm
Re: # 123
keep deluding yourself. such a common indian inferiority complex shield. why dont you go research the scandal that erupted over coffins in the indian army. you army couldnt even keep up! SSG commandos were so deep in your territory and were causing such heavy damage, the bhindians had to buy coffins from other places! haha. but of course since you`re an indian like shri arjun, you have an inferiority complex when it comes to pakistan!
keep deluding yourself. such a common indian inferiority complex shield. why dont you go research the scandal that erupted over coffins in the indian army. you army couldnt even keep up! SSG commandos were so deep in your territory and were causing such heavy damage, the bhindians had to buy coffins from other places! haha. but of course since you`re an indian like shri arjun, you have an inferiority complex when it comes to pakistan!
#122 Posted by dost_mittar on April 8, 2005 4:47:55 am
taqat-e-parvaaz#116:
Pakistan cricket team zindabad!
I am a regular volunteer at a place where I meet children suffering from cancer and their parents. I know how Inzamam and his team-mates felt. I also know how the kids felt as I know how the kids feel whenever any of the Ottawa Senators hockey player visits them.
Pakistan cricket team zindabad!
I am a regular volunteer at a place where I meet children suffering from cancer and their parents. I know how Inzamam and his team-mates felt. I also know how the kids felt as I know how the kids feel whenever any of the Ottawa Senators hockey player visits them.
#121 Posted by tahmed32 on April 8, 2005 4:28:29 am
HisExcellency #108 first, and btw, your nick reminds me of the man who had the door to his house made only 4 feet high, so everyone visiting him was forced to bow down.
:-)
Anyway, sir, I am all for ensuring proper defense of Pakistan so indian ambitions at projecting regional power end where the Pakistan boundary beings, and the missile/nuke combination does this effectively. However, any penny spent beyond that is improper use of public funds. As long as a single child goes hungry in Pakistan, as long as a single sick person goes without medical treatment, it is contrary to the ``national interest`` for Pakistan to spend more than absolutely necessary for ensuring Pakistan`s defense. The national interest of Pakistan is the welfare and security of its people, not the acquisition of weapons it does not need for self-defense.
As for the long run that you mention, the only long run goal is peace and not unnecessary weapons.
:-)
Anyway, sir, I am all for ensuring proper defense of Pakistan so indian ambitions at projecting regional power end where the Pakistan boundary beings, and the missile/nuke combination does this effectively. However, any penny spent beyond that is improper use of public funds. As long as a single child goes hungry in Pakistan, as long as a single sick person goes without medical treatment, it is contrary to the ``national interest`` for Pakistan to spend more than absolutely necessary for ensuring Pakistan`s defense. The national interest of Pakistan is the welfare and security of its people, not the acquisition of weapons it does not need for self-defense.
As for the long run that you mention, the only long run goal is peace and not unnecessary weapons.
#120 Posted by cayenne on April 8, 2005 1:28:50 am
Indian Oil Corporation, is now the largest oil trading company in the Asia-pacific region, and this includes China and Japan!!!.Acc. to Forbes latest issue, Reliance industries is bigger than PepsiCo and Coke Incs.!!!.And, IOC, is but only one of the oil trading companies in India.It is only fitting that our armed forces reflect our corporate and national structure.Bigger and more powerful.India is now acquiring 400 T-90 tanks.Why worry about others and what they think??.We don`t need them as much as they may need us.Acc. to ``Pakistan This Week``, a weekly program on CNBC World, pakistan has approached indian officials to allow indian merchant naval vessels to use its` ports as a conduit for goods to north-western india , as pakistan ports are under utilized and pakistan does not have the funds or merchant navy to fully utilize their port facilities.Currently 65 % of Singapore and Colombo` s port revenues are from acting as a conduit for cargo to mainland India.
#119 Posted by vivek on April 7, 2005 11:46:35 pm
HisExcellency,
``This monumental blunder cost America considerable leverage with Pakistan. ``
What leverage has the USA lost in Pakistan? Pakistan even today cannot move an inch without american approval. You got even your nuclear weapons because america chose to look the other way. Had USA put pressure on Pakistan to hand over Xerox Khan to Netherlands when he ran from there, Pakistan would have quietly handed him over.
``This monumental blunder cost America considerable leverage with Pakistan. ``
What leverage has the USA lost in Pakistan? Pakistan even today cannot move an inch without american approval. You got even your nuclear weapons because america chose to look the other way. Had USA put pressure on Pakistan to hand over Xerox Khan to Netherlands when he ran from there, Pakistan would have quietly handed him over.
#118 Posted by harish_hyd on April 7, 2005 11:28:31 pm
#115 by taqat-e-parvaaz
[yes pakistan made some mistakes in 1971, but so did india. was there a report there?]
Here is an excerpt from the Hamoodur Rahman report.
``This became necessary in view of the vehement assertions made before the Commission by a large number of respectable witnesses drawn from various sections of society, including highly placed and responsible Service Officers, to the effect that due to corruption arising out of the performance of Martial Law duties, lust for wine and women and greed for lands and houses, a large number of senior Army Officers, particularly those occupying the highest positions, had not only lost the will to fight but also the professional competence necessary for taking the vital and critical decisions demanded of them for the successful prosecution of the war. It was asserted by these witnesses that men given to a disreputable way of life could hardly be expected to lead the Pakistan Army to victory.``
No wonder the Indian Army has beaten the pulp out of your Army every time there was a war. Stick it in your pipe and smoke it, dumbass!
[yes pakistan made some mistakes in 1971, but so did india. was there a report there?]
Here is an excerpt from the Hamoodur Rahman report.
``This became necessary in view of the vehement assertions made before the Commission by a large number of respectable witnesses drawn from various sections of society, including highly placed and responsible Service Officers, to the effect that due to corruption arising out of the performance of Martial Law duties, lust for wine and women and greed for lands and houses, a large number of senior Army Officers, particularly those occupying the highest positions, had not only lost the will to fight but also the professional competence necessary for taking the vital and critical decisions demanded of them for the successful prosecution of the war. It was asserted by these witnesses that men given to a disreputable way of life could hardly be expected to lead the Pakistan Army to victory.``
No wonder the Indian Army has beaten the pulp out of your Army every time there was a war. Stick it in your pipe and smoke it, dumbass!
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- anil: Re: # 42 Dost sahib: I... Government Wins Manmohan Singh
- dost_mittar: dehliwala#48: I am not a... Government Wins Manmohan Singh
- dost_mittar: GT#47: Yes, we do and... Government Wins Manmohan Singh
- guru: Ahmed, We had come to... Dhokha and Being a
- sattar2: tahir bhai (re #408),... Of Medical Students, Passports
- guru: Re: # 283 "After... Dhokha and Being a
- mohar11: looks like Guru kicked... Dhokha and Being a
- guru: Ahmed, Mind also this the... Dhokha and Being a
