US lawmaker’s Bill seeks to end Pakistan’s ally status

This move is probably just an aid-negotiation tool.

The little Paki b*stards were shielding bin Laden for years, they’re no allies of ours. Carpet bomb the muzzie pricks.

While I am not a big fan of the way Pakistan has acted at times, there’s more to this proposition than the U. S. getting it’s way all the time.

A dialogue and superficial pretense of comity between the two nations has resulted in a relative cooling of hostilities between Pakistan and India.

Even as late as this year, the Pakistan government did little when we marched in and cancelled Osama Bin Laden’s ticket.

With an active theater of war in Afghanistan, it’s much preferred to at least keep a dialogue going with Pakistan. Driving them perpetually into someone else’s camp at this time would not be productive.

One rule of thumb that must always be considered.

When things look dark, could they actually get worse? In the case of Pakistan, yes. Things could be a hell of a lot worse.

There are times when even reasoned rash action, is none the less rash action, and something we should probably take a pass on for the time being. We can always take this action later if need be.

Sorry Congressman, I can’t agree for now.

“Even as late as this year, the Pakistan government did little when we marched in and cancelled Osama Bin Laden’s ticket.”

But they jailed the doctor who aided us for 30 some odd years!

Sometimes, countering what you said, we should do something that is right and proper and to hell with the other tangential issues. Your approach is what’s gotten us where we are to day, paralyzed to take any definitive action for fear of some “unintended consequences.” These worthless pricks in Pakistan might respect us if we stood for something, and cut off their money and military aid. I don’t give a rats ass about either India or Pakistan, particularly when we are expending the precious blood of our young along with our borrowed treasure on their sh!thole corner of the world. I guess you are from the “we’re hiding under our desks wing” of the Republican Party like most of those in the Congress today.

I understand your point and it is a good one.

But consider that history shows that keeping the cork in the bottle indefinitely serves to build pressure to the breaking point.

“Diplomacy” that keeps things all nice and purdy on the surface does little to nothing to resolve underlying tensions. And when those tensions finally get to a certain level, they let go all at once.

Muslims and civilized people are incompatable. There is over 1000 years of history proving that. All diplomacy with muslims does is give them time to rearm. Their teachings say so in those terms.

War is always an ugly thing. But sometimes the occasional fighting on the small scale avoids it on the larger scale...a pressure valve as it were. But ultimately muslims WILL cause war. Their history shows it. World history shows it. we can deal with this now or let it become worse for our children, when they have more nukes than they do today.

Pakistan has the only ocean port available and we need it badly. As you say, this is more of a negotiating tool.

Even as late as this year, the Pakistan government did little when we marched in and cancelled Osama Bin Laden’s ticket.

But they jailed the doctor who aided us for 30 some odd years!

And that's not good. On the other hand, fearless leader has probably not lifted a single finger to help that doctor out. In fact, I'd offer up the real possibility that Obama was so busy taking credit for things, that he forgot the good doctor would be at risk if he (or his lackeys) mentioned him in the process. Whose fault would that be? In truth it would still be the leadership of Pakistan. That doesn't reduce Obama's culpability.

Sometimes, countering what you said, we should do something that is right and proper and to hell with the other tangential issues.

Unfortunately some of those other tangential issues would very likely involve us negatively. Should we keep an air of comity between Pakistan and us in light of our having 65,000 troops next door, or should we cut off relations and expose our men to an even higher level of hostility? Pakistan has nukes. We can't just act as if they didn't and thumb our nose at them with our interests next door vulnerable. Yeah sure, I could jump on the band wagon and urge our leaders to break off relations with Pakistan. I just don't think that contributes to a perfect world for us either.

Then there's the fact that we do incur into Pakistan territory too. I don't think we'd look too favorably on Mexico's military coming fifty miles into the United States to operate unilaterally without permission?

Your approach is what’s gotten us where we are to day, paralyzed to take any definitive action for fear of some “unintended consequences.”

Okay. I can understand where you are coming from. Lets see what your desires would garner us.

Please explain to me the action you would like to see us take, perhaps one to three first steps. Then please explain what you think the Pakistan counter might be for each, and what you think we should conter with if they do. Give me three to five steps in the process of each action and counter action. I'd just like to see how you think we could successfully counter Pakistani intransigence, if our relations when that far south.

Perhaps you have thought this out clearly and have a much better idea than I do. I'm willing to listen.

These worthless pricks in Pakistan might respect us if we stood for something, and cut off their money and military aid.

Yes they might. And if Pakistan's military became unstable due to us cutting billions in aide, would that be an acceptable outcome? If the Taliban took control of nuclear facilities, would that have been a great way to show Pakistan who was boss?

I don’t give a rats ass about either India or Pakistan, particularly when we are expending the precious blood of our young along with our borrowed treasure on their sh!thole corner of the world.

Well, that's great to say, but then a destabilized nation that has nukes and a high level of Taliban presence that threatens them too, it's hard to make a big sale on the point that you have first taken the safety of our troops into consideration when you advocate for some of the things you do. For the record, Pakistan isn't high on my list of nations I want to have relations with. It being a nuclear nation, I am somewhat forced to think that less than optimal relations are better than no relations at all. I don't want a nuclear confrontation over there involving regional nations, or our troops. If the Taliban get access to those nukes, not only the region will be at risk. Everyone will be.

I guess you are from the “we’re hiding under our desks wing” of the Republican Party like most of those in the Congress today.

If that's what you want to think, you have my blessing. Go for it. Pakistan has a nuclear arsenal that is at risk. Among other concerns that I have concerning Pakistan, I believe a rational relationship with it's leadership would help facilitate a better outcome should it's nukes become so much at risk, that their compromise would be inevitable. I believe Pakistan's leadership would rather see us take control of those nukes than see them turned over to the Taliban, which is also their enemy.

Either way, we'll have a lot more access to intel, if we have an open dialog with Pakistan's leadership. Slamming that door shut, would mean that any compromise of their nuclear facilities would happen in a vacuum. That would be unconscionable. Surely you can't see that as a good outcome.

Norm, read what I wrote below. See if that alters your take on things.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2933442/posts?page=7#7

I’ll have to search the news archives but weren’t both Bush administrations negotiating with India for the use of its ports? Dependence on Pakistan has brought a lot of grief.

No it does not, although again, you make a very good argument.

IMO (and I believe the facts bear it out) none of us, the USA, India or any other country is going to return to a path of freedom and prosperity without first undoing the errors of our past. And for that matter, our ongoing present with Obama/Dems in charge.

People are going to die, both Military (and yes I have family in the USAF) and civilian. World markets will be disrupted. Costs will skyrocket.

And of course everything that can be done should be done to avoid it. But we have already done what can be done. And it has cost lives, both mil/civ, world markets are in upheaval and costs skyrocketed. Because the ‘problem’ has one goal in mind. Global Islam.

It cannot be bargained with, reasoned with, placated or appeased. It can only be put down with brutal force.

I’m sorry. But logically,I do not see another way. We are living the result of a reasonable approach to sealing with those people. And I think it’s time to take them at their word. Ergo we have a choice. Submit to Islam and it’s adherents by living under Sharia, or live as we so choose. We cannot coexist with people who want us dead or enslaved.

Now all things aside, can you (the general sense) honestly say that you believe that diplomacy, containment or any PC approach will ever result in ‘peace’ with countries ruled by Islam? I think that the history of the world has proven conclusively that we cannot.

India doesn’t share a border with Afghanistan so offloading our equipment to their ports would do no good. We need Pakistan as a land route to bring our equipment into Afghanistan. Bringing it in by aircraft is extremely expensive.

Placemark.

They got us by the... er... aid dollars in that case.

That’s okay Norm. We started this off by talking about Pakistan. What do you think we should do with Pakistan right now?

Try to give me as many steps as you can toward ten, but if you run out of plans before that, just post what you can come up with.

You’re in charge of our foreign policy.

Tell me what you’re going to do with regard to Pakistan in the next thirty days.

Sure! ;)

1: Understand and accept that the MidEast (henceforth ME)/Pak is a terrorist country no different than any of the ‘stans’ Iran or now again, Iraq. And by ‘understand’ I mean accept the fact and treat them accordingly in a more ‘Reagan’ than Obama/Carter sense.

2: Immeadiately suspend every EPA/ect rule and reg hindering domestic/offshore oil/gas/energy production and criminalize interference with this natsec issue.

3: Immeadiately meet with Putin and whoever is in charge of China this week and say “Ok guys, here’s the deal. We are aout of the wannabee worldcop business permanantly. You can HAVE the ME, with the exception of Israel. Do not screw with them via proxy or we stop stopping them from nuking every damn sandrat nation around them. Further, we will not interfere with your landgrabs in Africa. As for Japan/Taiwan, nothing changes.

In return, you be satisfied with staying the hell out of Poland and the other countries that broke off post Soviet. We will be the West and do out thing in our areas, you be you and do your stuff in yours. We can work together when our interests align as it will benefit us all. No need to nuke eachother over a bunch of fanatics that want to enslave us all since they hate you every bit as much as they hate us and lets not BS each other, we all know that’s the goal.

3: End ALL funding/support of all forms to Stan central. Pull out all Americans/troops and leave nothing we own unburned/destroyed.

4: Work with western countries to seal off the ME. Air/ocean/land from contact/interaction with the west.

5: Begin a process of screening and deporting any and all people from America who place the interests of Islam over their own country. This includes non muslims, libs and Democrat or Republican politicians.

6: Make gun ownership mandatory and make aid to ME/terrorists a capital offense. Enforce it.

7: Explain to Pak that it has a number of satellites parked overhead and it’s nuke sites are under heavy monitoring. Further explain that if a missile leaves Pak airspace or nuclear anything is caught leaving ME boundaries, the country ceases to exist. Enforce it.

8: End all associations and funding with/for the UN. Conduct diplomacy with individual western nations directly henceforth.

9: Begin construction of infrastructure connecting the US with Canada and into Alaska for the free flow of oil/gas.
Manhattan Project it and put hundreds of thousands of unemployed Americans instantly back to work.

10: Watch the west thrive in it’s own ‘New World Order’.

Now of course there are issues to be ironed out with the above, but all the above lacks only one thing to implement. The will to do it.

And lets face it. We are going to get to the above eventually, one way or another.

Sure! ;) Okay, lets take a look.

1: Understand and accept that the MidEast (henceforth ME)/Pak is a terrorist country no different than any of the ‘stans’ Iran or now again, Iraq. And by ‘understand’ I mean accept the fact and treat them accordingly in a more ‘Reagan’ than Obama/Carter sense.

I'm going to go with what you have stated here, because you didn't exactly clarify what you meant by actions 'Reagan' vs 'Obama/Carter'. In a general sense, I would support that too. When it gets down to individual actions you may mean with that blanket statement, we may agree or disagree on issue by issue. I'm sure we're about to get there down below, so I'll leave it at that here.

2: Immeadiately suspend every EPA/ect rule and reg hindering domestic/offshore oil/gas/energy production and criminalize interference with this natsec issue.

I've advocated dropping a number of federal agencies. The EPA is one of the ones I want gone. You'll get no argument out of me here. I don't think businesses should be able to pollute their surroundings, but those types of things can be handled by licensing agencies at the state level.

3: Immeadiately meet with Putin and whoever is in charge of China this week and say “Ok guys, here’s the deal. We are aout of the wannabee worldcop business permanantly. You can HAVE the ME, with the exception of Israel. Do not screw with them via proxy or we stop stopping them from nuking every damn sandrat nation around them. Further, we will not interfere with your landgrabs in Africa. As for Japan/Taiwan, nothing changes.

Okay here's where we part ways. President Reagan was not in favor of withdrawing to our own shores, and dismantling our global infrastructure. He rebuilt our military dismantled under Carter, which was then allowed to be cut back in half by Clinton and Bush. Today it's being cut even more. After the first of the year, we may see cuts that will reduce our military to levels not seen since around 1915. I know that's the plan for our Navy, and it wouldn't surprise me one bit to see our armed forces reduced in kind.

If you believe this will lead to world stability, you're wrong. And while you may not advocate for this at all, the stand-off policies you advocate here call for a much less robust military. Why spend the money to maintain a robust military when you are withdrawing globally. What happens to our interests in these regions? What happens to our ability to transit these regions with our Navy? What happens when terrorists do get nukes, and those nukes are proliferated to the Americas? We have no right to object right? I mean we can't be the world's policeman can we? Why of course not!

What happens to our traditional allies in these regions? Why should Italians look to us, if we're content to withdraw to within our own borders? Across the board, the influence of the United States dissolves under your plan. This is what the Left has advocated for since the mid-1960s. And you as a Conservative have now bought into it.

You talk about the ME and the region nearby, you're missing the point that Islamic extremists are highly represented in the Middle-East, Africa, Asia, and even parts of Europe. You're essentially advocating a U. S. withdrawel of the Middle-East, parts of Africa, the parts of Asia around Pakistan across to Malaysia. Turkey is a highly Islamic nation. Disengagement with these regions, would mean that the United States would no longer advocate for it's interests in areas containing upwards of two-thirds of the world's populace. And once we do this, how do you transit through the Mediterranean to protect Israel with a 1915 level Navy and armed forces?

In return, you be satisfied with staying the hell out of Poland and the other countries that broke off post Soviet. We will be the West and do out thing in our areas, you be you and do your stuff in yours. We can work together when our interests align as it will benefit us all. No need to nuke eachother over a bunch of fanatics that want to enslave us all since they hate you every bit as much as they hate us and lets not BS each other, we all know that’s the goal.

Look, you can kid yourself that this would mean world peace. With regard to that, I find it chilling. You honestly think that a gentleman's agreement with Russia and China would lead to world peace. That's what you are advocating here. And you're doing it in conjunction with us withdrawing our influence over two-thirds of the world's populace. That's something you think Reagan would do? I see it as the naive actions of a Carter or an Obama.

Tell me, where would the challenges to our authority be expressed then? Europe, the M/E, Asia, Africa? Well sure, but then also every nation around the planet right up to our own border.

What you advocate here is nonsense. Then when people rioted in the streets of Europe, you'd soon be advocating we withdraw from there too, since their governments must agree with it if it's taking place. That's what you have assumed with regard to all Middle-Eastern and Islamic nations.

If you think things are bad today, you wait until the entire Middle-East across to Malaysia is a Chinese/Russian satellite.

Do you understand that globalist Marxist organizations are driving much of the Islamic terrorist movements? They're doing it here. They're doing it in Europe. They've been doing it in the Middle-East for over half a century. And your fix for that is to surrender? Really?

3: End ALL funding/support of all forms to Stan central. Pull out all Americans/troops and leave nothing we own unburned/destroyed.

Yep, no longer have any presence whatsoever in Turkey, the M/E, Africa, and across to Malaysia. Just burn our embassies and property, and leave. And what happens to U. S. Citizens that happen to live in those nations, or wish to travel to them? There are so many overlooked consequences to what you advocate, that it's almost impossible to address them all. Here's just one. How do we ensure we can conduct reasoned trade with any of these nations, after you've implemented your plan? We've pulled out and burned and destroyed anything we've left behind.

Every single nation we pull this trick in, is going to consider it the ultimate insult, and hate us with a passion that will make today's displeasure with us look positively saintly.

4: Work with western countries to seal off the ME. Air/ocean/land from contact/interaction with the west.

I would suggest we stop immigration from these regions, as long as Islamists advocate death to the West. I would not withdraw from them. I would try to keep other avenues of cooperation open.

5: Begin a process of screening and deporting any and all people from America who place the interests of Islam over their own country. This includes non muslims, libs and Democrat or Republican politicians.

Sounds real good until a Democrat comes to power. Then guess what happens. Then our government could screen and deport everyone that disagreed with their policies. I do believe it is incumbent upon our government to screen what takes place in Islamic mosques. If the leadership is advocating anti-American activities, then the leadership should be expelled. That doesn't mean there wouldn't be down sides to that as well. We could expect the Left to monitor our Christian churches and take them to task for objecting to things our government supported. Objections to homosexuality, same sex marriage and abortion, could easily leave them wide open to prosecution. These types of desires enacted, open the door to problems to our interests too.

6: Make gun ownership mandatory and make aid to ME/terrorists a capital offense. Enforce it.

Actually, you don't want to force Leftists to arm. Allow unfettered gun ownership and concealed carry, but don't force idiots to arm. Do you want the members of ACORN to be armed? It's like advocating for everyone to vote. No, the stupid people should be allowed to continue not voting. As for stating that aid to terrorist nations is not helpful, Pakistan has not proliferated it's nuclear technology to other states. Egypt for a number of decades did honor it's agreements with Israel. These are not bad things.

7: Explain to Pak that it has a number of satellites parked overhead and it’s nuke sites are under heavy monitoring. Further explain that if a missile leaves Pak airspace or nuclear anything is caught leaving ME boundaries, the country ceases to exist. Enforce it.

Look, some of this stuff sounds good on the surface, but every action has an equal and opposite reaction. What happens if we come out and threaten Pakistan openly? Doesn't Pakistan seek alignment with a major nation that would back it? We would be driving Pakistan straight to Russia or China for alignment. They could sign agreements where those nations would become allies, and be forced to honor agreements to see an attack on Pakistan as an attack on their own soil. That isn't a neutral outcome. It's an escalative and highly negative outcome.

The leadership of Pakistan stood up to street protesters today, killing 15 of them for protesting violently against the United States. If the government was the operating partner of the terrorists, it would have allowed the protests to take place. It would have funded them and supported their efforts.

Is Pakistan problematic? Yes. We still have U. S. Citizens traveling to Pakistan in peace. We conducted the effort to kill Osama Bin Laden on their soil. Our press soon swooped in, and the locals were neutral on our actions to take him out. They talked openly with our press, and treated them respectfully. We are seeing the vocal terrorist minority in Pakistan. The leadership there considers the Taliban their enemy too. The Taliban presence there is large enough to cause serious problems, so Pakistan has to walk a fine line.

What you advocate would essentially undermine the government of Pakistan. In short order the Taliban take over, and the nukes you don't seem to mind if the players in the region get, they have. We're talking in the range of five years or less.

We can't expect every nation to ignore their own plight, to agree with us in all instances. We do our best to form a working relationship with them, and hope for the best.

8: End all associations and funding with/for the UN. Conduct diplomacy with individual western nations directly henceforth.

I didn't develop this graphic years ago, because I disagree with the sentiments you express here.

9: Begin construction of infrastructure connecting the US with Canada and into Alaska for the free flow of oil/gas.
Manhattan Project it and put hundreds of thousands of unemployed Americans instantly back to work.

I don't have a problem with this either. I still don't think we cut off all economic activity with nations in the Middle-East. Economic ties with them do cause them to desire decent relations with us to some degree. Today China will be more than happy to pick up the slack in our Middle-East oil consumption. Once again, we drive these nations directly into the camp of our next global adversary That would be a strategic and almost impossible to reverse mistake.

10: Watch the west thrive in it’s own ‘New World Order’.

That would be a New World Odor, if spelled correctly. What you advocate, and the resulting ramifications it would result in, would create a stinking mess globally.

Now of course there are issues to be ironed out with the above, but all the above lacks only one thing to implement. The will to do it.

Or perhaps the the good common sense to reject it.

And lets face it. We are going to get to the above eventually, one way or another.

You seriously better hope not. The worse possible outcome we could face in the future, is a unified China, Russia, and Islamic coalition. And the polices you have advocated here, would create that coalition in a very short period of time.

Western Europe has a little over 400 million citizens. The United States has a little over 300 million citizens. We're talking about somewhere around 725 million citizens between us. This in a planet with a total population of over 7 billion. Another-words, you want us to slink back behind our borders and withdraw contact with the other 90% of the world's inhabitants. Just let China and Russia have them. Pull out and burn or destroy our property there, and quit being the world's policeman.

And when China picks up the slack and becomes the world's policeman in the vacuum we left behind, you'd be happy with that? Well, evidently so.

Ah, no thanks.

You honestly think this is the world President Ronald Reagan wanted us to help evolve into? I don't.