Zardari claims win in terror row with UK

[Turborama]

Source: The Guardian

A triumphant President Asif Ali Zardari tonight claimed to have convinced David Cameron that Pakistan was doing all it could to stop militant jihadi groups "exporting terror" to Afghanistan and Britain, while appearing to rule out a new crackdown or any specific additional security measures.

Speaking after talks at Chequers that followed the furious row over Cameron's claim that elements of Pakistan's security establishment were looking "both ways" on terrorism, Zardari said he had looked the prime minister in the eye. "We had some straight talk and we became friends," he said. Downing Street described the talks as "positive and constructive", with "excellent dynamics" between the two.

In an exclusive interview with the Guardian, a beaming Zardari said he had won British backing for the idea of a Marshall plan to rebuild Afghanistan and Pakistan after more than 30 years of "devastating" regional war. He said Britain had agreed to lobby the European Union for greater trade access for Pakistani goods and was donating an additional £10m in immediate relief for victims of the flooding in northern Pakistan. And he made light of differences over the US-led coalition's Afghan war strategy, which he suggested this week was heading for defeat.

=snip=

Zardari said investment was the key to winning hearts and minds in Afghanistan and Pakistan. "Some form of Marshall plan needs to be made for Pakistan. That's what I mean how we will get the hearts and minds of the poor people of Afghanistan, by giving them a commercial boost, taking them away from the Talibs who are giving them better pay than we are giving."

Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/06/zardari-cameron-pakistan-talks

---

I've been saying this for 9 years!

Biden actually proposed a Marshall type plan prior to the invasion of Afghanistan: http://www.c-spanvideo.org/videoLibrary/clip.php?appid=596279065

But the $4.5 billion which was pledged by several countries in January 2002 never surfaced and it all went downhill from there
http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=afghanwar_tmln&afghanwar_tmln_us_invasion__occupation=afghanwar_tmln_economic_reconstruction

Afghanistan could have ended up in a much better condition in a relatively short period of time if this hadn't happened instead
http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=afghanwar_tmln&afghanwar_tmln_us_invasion__occupation=afghanwar_tmln_us_redirection_of_forces_to_iraq

[BeFree]

1. Oh great

Now Pakistan gets bailout money?

Tell ya what, bubs, sell us your nukes and we'll take care of you.
Protecting you from India (reason for your nukes) should be easy.

Or are ya just looking for a bailout/handout?

[Turborama]

3. What? "donating an additional £10m in immediate relief for victims of the flooding" is a bailout

Let's look up the meaning of bailout.

1. Empty water out of a boat, usually by dipping with a bucket or other container. For example, We had to keep bailing out water from this leaky canoe.
2. Rescue someone in an emergency, especially a financial crisis of some kind, as in They were counting on an inheritance to bail them out.
http://www.answers.com/topic/bail-out

You do know there's been a flood going on there that has cost over 15,000 lives, detroyed 80% of their food reserves and affected 12 million people, don't you?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4494524

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4494156

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4492707

[dipsydoodle]

7. Well if they get the same result as Haiti

who still appear to be waiting for promised International aid donations , not charity ones , they ain't getting much.

[cosmicone]

2. The great Pakistani art of begging and playing victim

seems to win again despite all the atrocities Pakistan has committed.

Although ... this was only Zardari's view of what went down and Pakistanis are also adept at claiming victories right after defeat.

They even claimed they won the Bangladesh war until it was impossible to deny the defeat lol.

[Turborama]

4. His wife was murdered by terrorists. So yeah, he is a victim of terrorism.

You are also saying Pakistanis are beggars. That is racism.

Quoting here in case you edit it out: "The great Pakistani art of begging and playing victim"

[cosmicone]

5. Well ....

Despite his wife being murdered by Musharraf and the ISI (using ISI funded Taliban as a tool), Zardari is still pursuing the Pakistani policy of state terrorism.

What David Cameron said was 100% true and the very fact that Zardari tries to refute it proves his collusion with the terrorist forces.

The "Pakistani art of begging" was actually from a column in Pakistan's Dawn newspaper and it applied to Pakistani government. Third world countries do a lot of begging routinely as nations -- doesn't mean their citizens are beggars. If unsure, talk to any World Bank or IMF official.

If Zardari really wants to clean up Pakistan, he would work towards strengthening the civilian politicians and weakening the military in Pakistan while diverting funds intended for the military to help the people of Pakistan, invest in infrastructure, education and local industry to create jobs.

Would you not agree?

[Turborama]

6. That "begging" comment was what you stated without any attribution

Therefore, no matter how hard you try and spin it, you own this racist statement...

"The great Pakistani art of begging and playing victim seems to win again"



Regarding: "Despite his wife being murdered by Musharraf and the ISI (using ISI funded Taliban as a tool)"

Got any proof Musharraf was behind Bhutto's murder?

Regarding "investing in infrastructure, education and local industry to create jobs".

What do you think the "Marshall Plan" he was referring to in the OP would do?

Also, time to keep up to date with what's been going on...

Kerry, Lugar push for enterprise fund to help build up Pakistan
By Roxana Tiron - 07/31/10 09:48 AM ET

Two leading senators on foreign affairs are calling for creation of an enterprise fund to boost Pakistan’s private sector.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry (D-Mass.) and ranking member Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) have introduced legislation to create the Pakistan-American enterprise fund with monies from an aid package approved by Congress last year.

That package provides $1.5 billion annually in non-military assistance over five years.

“Pakistan’s private sector suffers from a lack of capital, which has a negative impact on the daily lives of Pakistani people,” Kerry said in a statement. “The United States can help the Pakistani private sector provide jobs, opportunity, and hope to Pakistanis using creative tools such as this enterprise fund."

Lugar stressed that indigenous job creation will “empower the people of Pakistan to reject radical voices” and said the fund will allow more businesses there to open and expand.

Full article: http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/111991-kerry-lugar-push-for-enterprise-fund-in-pakistan

-

Kerry and Lugar introduce new investment fund for Pakistan

Posted By Josh Rogin Monday, August 2, 2010 - 3:01 PM

Senate Foreign Relations heads John Kerry and Richard Lugar have put forth a bill that would create a new fund to lure private enterprise to Pakistan, using funds out of their own aid bill.

The idea is to use money to help drive capital and foreign direct investment into Pakistan. It's based on similar programs Congress has funded in other parts of the world, such as the Support for East European Development http://www.seedact.com/">(SEED) Act and the Freedom Support Act (FSA), which authorized nearly $1.2 billion for USAID to establish funds throughout Central and Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union.

"The United States can help the Pakistani private sector provide jobs, opportunity, and hope to Pakistanis using creative tools such as this Enterprise Fund," Kerry said in a statement July 30. "It's a clear example of how the Kerry-Lugar-Berman aid package can help make a real difference in stimulating growth in Pakistan based on the remarkable results we have had with similar funds in Eastern Europe and elsewhere."

Last Friday, The Cable reported that the fund was outside of the administration's plan for the Kerry-Lugar aid money. But several administration officials told The Cable that the fund was something the administration has been working on for months and that they completely endorse Congress's efforts to pass legislation to support it.

"Creating an enterprise fund for Pakistan has been a priority for months in the administration and big part of our strategic dialogue with Pakistan," said Vikram Singh, a top advisor to Special Representative Richard Holbrooke. "We have had very productive consultations with Congress on the legislative framework that would be required for such a fund. We are grateful to Senator Kerry and Senator Lugar for their leadership with this bill and hope the House will also support such a fund to help build Pakistan's vibrant private sector."

On her recent trip to Pakistan, Secretary of State http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/07/19/holbrooke_wins_the_war_against_usaid">Hillary Clinton announced a set of big projects focused on building up Pakistan's ailing energy, water, and agriculture sectors. The administration's idea is that focusing on large infrastructure investments is the best way to have regular Pakistanis notice the U.S. assistance and therefore provides the best chance of winning over the country writ large.


Full article: http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/08/02/kerry_and_lugar_introduce_new_investment_fund_for_pakistan

[cosmicone]

8. It is well-known in intelligence circles that

Musharraf (former head of the ISI) carried out the hit on Benazir Bhutto. In fact, Nawaz Sharif (former and future PM of Pakistan) made the accusation publicly.

Why should the US have a Marshall plan for Pakistan while it remains a threat to India and Afghanistan plus everywhere else Pakistan exports terror to?

Some $140 billion have gone into Pakistan since the late 70's and what have we to show for it? -- a Pakistan armed to the teeth, supporting terrorist and separatist movements in India, supporting, arming and directing the Taliban. For all that money, our FBI can't even interview AQ Khan.

Pakistani military is indoctrinated with the glories of the 12th through 14th centuries when muslim invaders invaded, occupied and partially ruled India. They want to recreate the days of Babur, Qutubuddin Aibak, Shershah, Ahmedshah Abdali and Maliq Gafoor. THAT is where all aid to Pakistan goes.

A country practically on its knees and trying to get F16s -- what does Pakistan need F16s for?

Pakistan doesn't need a Marshall plan -- it needs to reduce its defense budget by 80% and feed its people without US help.

Nevertheless, I'd support a US aid package if Pakistan gave us their nukes, dismantled the nuclear program, dismantled the ISI and cut military spending by 60-80%. We shouldn't have to fund Pakistan's military ambitions at all.

Kerry and Biden are completely misguided about this and I'd support a republican filibuster to stop this nonsense.

Edited to add: I pointed out to you before that Pakistani people are the same race as I am -- so I can hardly be racist towards them. So, please stop using the racism card.

[Turborama]

9. What if some random anonymous poster said "The great Jewish art of being tight with money and

... playing victim. It's ok, though. I'm allowed to say it because http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4481944&mesg_id=4485573">I'm from the same DNA"? Would/should that be allowed here?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4481944&mesg_id=4485683">Like I said before I have no idea whatsoever where you are really from. You don't even have a profile and your username is nothing to go on.

This is a public internet discussion board available to be read by anyone who has an internet connection and there is a strong possibility that a majority of Pakistanis who read what you wrote would see it as being racist.

If I see racism being used anywhere I will always call it out.

With regards to your Musharraf comments. "It is well-known in intelligence circles" and "Nawaz Sharif made the accusation publicly" are what's known as accusations based on supposition rather than evidence. I asked for PROOF not conjecture. I'm not defending Musharraf in any way, I suspect he played a part in it somehow, too. If there is evidence that he played a part in her murder I want to see it. I am very keen to see the murderers of Bhutto being brought to justice, that's why I asked for proof.

Re. the Kerry Lugar plan, which part of "non-military assistance" don't you understand?

You'd support a republican filibuster to stop this "indigenous job creation (which) will “empower the people of Pakistan to reject radical voices”" nonsense? Erm, ok.

[cosmicone]

11. Wrong example entirely.

"Jewish" is uniquely an ethnicity designation.

"Pakistani" can refer to the state as well as people and it is not necessary to constantly make it obvious because context determines the meaning.

For example, "Habitual American policies of imperialism have adversely affected diplomatic relationships with many countries" doesn't imply all American people are imperialists.

You can play the race card all you want but it was clear in my mind that I was referring to the Pakistani state and not all people. I am not dense and obtuse enough to paint all people of Pakistan with the same brush and color.


Secondly, since no one knows who actually killed Benazir Bhutto, one has to go by noises in the media. You seem to favor one flavor of noise and I seem to favor another. Unless someone interviewed the actual perpetrators and they confessed, it would be impossible to determine with "proof."


Lastly, the Kerry-Lugar bill is misguided. Pakistan has enough money for its own development if it gave up its military ambition and dreams of conquering India. A tinpot country like that doesn't need a standing army of 1 million nor does it need thousands of war planes. All those can be scrapped and funds diverted to civilian programs. Furthermore, once a check is written to Pakistan, the money is diverted to the military in wacky-wascally ways and there is no accountability whatsoever. Where have the $140 billion dollars gone paid to Pakistan over the past 30 years? Compare that to a measly $22 billion spent on AIDS which is a far bigger problem and pretty much every penny of that can be traced.

The key to creating a civilian infrastructure in Pakistan is for Pakistan to give up its military dreams and become a non-terrorist state. Not throwing good money after bad.

[Turborama]

13. You missed the point entirely

The key words were "random anonymous". No-one knows who you really are or what your genetic origins are so saying, "I can say whatever racist comments I want about (fill in blank with the name of an ethnicity) because I am genetically linked to them" doesn't hold any water.

The great Pakistani art of begging and playing victim Might in your mind mean "the Pakistani state" but it doesn't read that way. You need to be more careful with your words, if that's what you really meant. For example, how about The Pakistani state's great art of begging and playing victim just to make sure?

"Habitual American policies of imperialism have adversely affected diplomatic relationships with many countries" is contextually about America as a country, obviously. Again, your comment read as if you were talking about Pakistanis in general.

I don't "favor one flavor of noise", I just wanted you to back up your assertion which you stated as a fact. Again, you need to be more careful with your words.

"Where have the $140 billion dollars gone paid to Pakistan over the past 30 years?" Good question which we both know the answer to. However, with the new administration in the WH there is now actual real oversight and strict conditions, which you either don't know about or are ignoring on purpose.

"Pakistan has enough money for its own development". You yourself have said they are worthless and insignificant, how does a "tinpot country like that" have enough money for its own development?

[cosmicone]

14. I stand by my previous post ...

you're way too prejudiced/biased when you start seeing racism where it doesn't exist and insist on its existence even when a cogent explanation is provided.

I shall end this debate here. Peace.

[Turborama]

15. Pure projection. I'm not the one who's posts are prejudiced and biased

I'll tell you what I am. I'm sensitive to racist comments and will call them out whenever I see them.

If you are "standing by" your comments after reading what I wrote it only means you are entrenched in your opinion and refuse to try to be more careful with how you convey your thoughts lest anyone sees them as racist.

nice way to avoid all the other points I raised in that post, too.

[karynnj]

10. Your past comments - far more anti-Pakistan than this one,

leave you with absolutely no credibility on this issue - which is mostly what you post on.

As to being racist, that is perhaps the wrong word, but you are clearly absolutely anti-Pakistan and have posted inflammatory comments.

[cosmicone]

12. I didn't get the memo that freedom of speech had been abolished!

Yes, I make comments that are anti-Pakistan (the state) because it uses terrorism as an official state policy.

Unfortunately, old cold war era comraderies between state department curmudgeons and their Pakistani counterparts have suppressed news about Pakistan's terror apparatus from American media.

For example:

On October 1, 2001, the FBI uncovered evidence that Lt. General Mahmood Ahmed, the Director of the Pakistani Intelligence Service (the ISI) authorized the wiring of $100,000 to Florida to Mohammed Atta (supposed hijack ringleader of the 911 attack) through Omar Saeed Sheikh (an alleged ISI agent.) Were you aware of this?

Why did only a single US press outlet, the Wall Street Journal website, mention this connection in the editorial section (James Taranto writing) on October 10, 2001, saying it was an "internet only" story - when in fact it was a major story reported at great length in the main line Indian press?

Ahmed, the paymaster for the hijackers, was actually in Washington on 9/11, and had a series of pre-9/11 top-level meetings in the White House, the Pentagon, the national security council, and with George Tenet, then head of the CIA, and Marc Grossman, the under-secretary of state for political affairs. When Ahmed was exposed by the Wall Street Journal as having sent the money to the hijackers, he was forced to "retire" by President Pervez Musharraf. Why hasn't the US demanded that he be questioned and tried in court?

Then there is Sibel Edmonds. She is a 33-year-old Turkish-American former FBI translator of intelligence, fluent in Farsi, the language spoken mainly in Iran and Afghanistan, who had top-secret security clearance. She tried to blow the whistle on the cover-up of intelligence that names some of the culprits who orchestrated the 9/11 attacks, but is now under two gagging orders that forbid her from testifying in court or mentioning the names of the people or the countries involved. She has been quoted as saying: "My translations of the 9/11 intercepts included money laundering, detailed and date-specific information involving the complicity of Pakistani ISI in 9/11 terrorist acts."

Senator Bob Graham, chairman of the Senate select committee on intelligence, has said: "I think there is very compelling evidence that at least some of the terrorists were assisted, not just in financing ... by a sovereign foreign government." In that context, Horst Ehmke, former coordinator of the West German secret services, observed: "Terrorists could not have carried out such an operation with four hijacked planes without the support of a secret service." Which foreign government and/or secret service do you think they were implicating? Switzerland's?

Then there is the murder of Daniel Pearl who was very close to finding the ISI-Al Q'aeda-Pakistan nexus.

One could go on and on and on.

If this is inflammatory to someone, so be it. Those are the facts. As to "lack of credibility" -- it depends upon one's personal bias. I have no idea why some DUers are so pro-Pakistan and turn a blind eye to the facts. I can only speculate.