It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Pakistan to stand by Iran in case of US aggression

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 18 2005 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Foreign Minister Khursheed Kasuri has said Pakistan strictly opposes any expected US attack on Iran, and will stand by Iran if this extreme step is taken by Washington.

Iranian foreign minister’s statement during his recent visit to Pakistan provides testimony to our policy towards Tehran. Pakistan aspires to resolve the Iranian nuclear issue according to the principles of the IAEA, he added.

Kasuri told newsmen here on Saturday neglecting defence would be a suicide in the present scenario and Pakistan would acquire latest technology and defence equipment at all costs to maintain a balance of power in the region.

Continued....


The enemy of my neighbor is my own enemy, or something like that.

In defiance of American Imperialistic intentions the Foreign Minister of Pakistan stands up for peace.

Were Iran asking for anything more than what they are entitled to as IAEA NNPT signatories Iran might not have had so many allies.




posted on Dec, 18 2005 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArchAngel
In defiance of American Imperialistic intentions the Foreign Minister of Pakistan stands up for peace.


Umm, for there to be American Imperialistic intentions towards Iran, there needs to be proof that the US intends to imperialistically invade Iran.


As for Pakistan standing with Iran if ever that alleged US invasion occrus, time will only tell. Actions speak louder than words.....







seekerof



posted on Dec, 18 2005 @ 04:52 PM
link   
I guess we just need to toss some more money into the hat....


Pakistan is no friend of our's, let make no mistake about it. Their "friendship" is bought and paid for with our hard earned taxes.

Maybe this is some kinda "psych" operation, to push the Iranian Mullahs into thinking they have some supporters in the region....but would America gain from that?.

Hell I heard there was an assasination attempt on the Iranian President today....heres the link.

www.cbc.ca...

Maximu§

[edit on 043131p://000 by LA_Maximus]



posted on Dec, 18 2005 @ 05:23 PM
link   



Kasuri told newsmen here on Saturday neglecting defence would be a suicide in the present scenario and Pakistan would acquire latest technology and defence equipment at all costs to maintain a balance of power in the region.


I hope the idots who are giving Pakistan weaponry, like the F-16 Falcons, pay close attention to those comments and cut off military aid to them.

Look at how much freakin money the US government is giving to these bastards:


www.state.gov...

Since 9/11 and the resumption of an assistance relationship, the United States has provided a multi-billion dollar, multi-faceted assistance package to Pakistan. In this fiscal year 2004, the year ending at the end of September, the U.S. Government has provided nearly $400 million dollars in grant assistance to Pakistan. This includes $200 million in Economic Support Funds that has eased Pakistan's debt burden, $75 million in social and economic development assistance, $75 million in foreign military finance to help support Pakistan's military and security preparedness, and $31 million to enhance the effectiveness of Pakistan's efforts in border security, law enforcement development, and counter-narcotics.

As you are all well aware, President Bush has made a commitment to Pakistan to seek a further $3 billion in aid over five years -- or $600 million per year -- beginning in fiscal year 2005. We expect half this amount - $300 million a year - will be for economic and development assistance, while an equal amount will go towards security and military aid. For the first of these five years, President Bush requested an additional $100 million for a total of approximately $700 million in 2005. This request, subject to Congressional approval, includes:

* $150 million for various USAID development programs, and,
* approximately $50 million to enhance border security, law enforcement development, counter-narcotics, and non-proliferation.
* $300 million in military and security aid
* $2 million for military education and training


I would cut them off completely if they continue to take a hard stand like that.



posted on Dec, 18 2005 @ 05:36 PM
link   
Let's see if they are willing to walk the walk when the time comes.

It's easy to say that when you aren't staring at the USAF over your nation.



posted on Dec, 18 2005 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by AceOfBase
I hope the idots who are giving Pakistan weaponry, like the F-16 Falcons, pay close attention to those comments and cut off military aid to them.

I would cut them off completely if they continue to take a hard stand like that.

The US should have cut off such programs a long time ago to Pakistan.
If not for their continued needed contributions to countering Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, perhaps more consideration of such would have taken place.
Not sure on this entirely, but I have my suspicions and doubts concerning Pakistan.




seekerof

[edit on 18-12-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Dec, 18 2005 @ 05:48 PM
link   
Indeed Seeker, I would be more worried about racical Sunni Islam in Pakistan, which is barely contained, than the more Nationalist (rather than Religious) Shia undertone we get from Iran.

Pakistan is one country were you most definately do not want Democracy. Many of those people are heavily entrenched in radical Sunni/Wahabi Islam and are far more dangerous than anyone out of Iran would be.

If they were allowed to elect their National Government (rather than just the provincial ones), you would very quickly see a radical Wahabist state, equipped with Nuclear weapons, which would pose a much more significant and immediated threat than the rather more moderate Iraniians ever would.

EDIT: They can elect their Parliament, whose power is limited, but the Executive power lies with the un-elected (and moderate) President Mussharef. Where we see elections, large swathes of the Parliament are dominated by religious parties who want to insitute Sharia law across the country, just like the Taliban did.

Problem is, Mussharef barely contains this radicalism in his country and in some regions, the central government has very little power.

Allow radicalism to take root in the corridors of power and the US would again be facing a monster of it's own making, made even worse by the fact they have been given money AND high-tech weaponry by the US>

[edit on 18/12/05 by stumason]



posted on Dec, 18 2005 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
Indeed Seeker, I would be more worried about racical Sunni Islam in Pakistan, which is barely contained, than the more Nationalist (rather than Religious) Shia undertone we get from Iran.

You mention something very interesting here, stumason.
In the incident of the alleged assassination attempt of the Iranian president--a couple of his body guards getting wasted--was it not the Sunni Baluchis that made such an attempt?

The Sunni Baluchis situation may be more tilted towards the numerous years of religious and racial discrimination and persecution under Iran’s Shiite clergy-dominated government than them being radical, but interesting nonetheless when considering what you have mentioned.






seekerof

[edit on 18-12-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Dec, 18 2005 @ 06:07 PM
link   
I'm actually pretty surprised at this news. In fact, I find it hard to believe that if push ever comes to shove that Pakistan would side with Iran in any armed conflict against the US. For starters, Pakistan's ISI basically created the Taliban, while Iran heavily funded the Northern Alliance to take out the Taliban and gain control of neighboring Afghanistan. I also remember reading somewhere that in the unlikely event that Saudi Arabia is attacked by a nuclear-powered Iran, Pakistan has agreed to provide SA with nuclear weapons. Not to mention the tribal and language differences between Iran and Pakistan.

And most importantly lets not forget how much Pakistan stands to lose by turning on its most powerful ally, the US. Mushareff(sp) knows that his tight grip on power depends on US backing.

But that's just my two cents...



posted on Dec, 18 2005 @ 06:08 PM
link   
CIA releasing statement telling public iran has bomb.... check
Ally joining forces with nuclear armed iran.... check
Emergency meetings for 'real' president in various middle easter countries.....check

any body want a drumroll for xmas?



posted on Dec, 18 2005 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
CIA releasing statement telling public iran has bomb.... check

Last I checked, here, the CIA has not released any type of report publically as you are asserting that they have Agit8dChop. The only thing that they have continually asserted was that Iran is working towards such capabilities or may have such capabilities. Furthermore, the UN 'nuclear watchdog', the IAEA, has indicated such on this Iranian matter, by saying that Iran has been lying for nearly 18 years concerning their peaceful intent "covert" nuclear program.

Care to link your source for the assertion so that it can be indeed correctly be labeled as "check"?





seekerof

[edit on 18-12-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Dec, 18 2005 @ 06:31 PM
link   

If they were allowed to elect their National Government (rather than just the provincial ones), you would very quickly see a radical Wahabist state, equipped with Nuclear weapons, which would pose a much more significant and immediated threat than the rather more moderate Iraniians ever would.



Without some Anti-US rhetoric from the dictators office the people might think him to be the puppet that he is.

It might be more dangerous for us if the Pak gov towed the line on everything.

In the end, when an attack on Iran occurs, I don't think Pak will employ their military forces to protect Iran.

Supporting partisan resistance is likely, but not outright war.



posted on Dec, 18 2005 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArchAngel
Without some Anti-US rhetoric from the dictators office the people might think him to be the puppet that he is.

It might be more dangerous for us if the Pak gov towed the line on everything.


I would hardly call him a puppet of the US when he wouldn't even let US forces cross the border into Pakistan to capture Taliban fighters.



posted on Dec, 18 2005 @ 06:56 PM
link   

I would hardly call him a puppet of the US when he wouldn't even let US forces cross the border into Pakistan to capture Taliban fighters.


When do we ever 'capture' fighters?

We tend to blast the place, and mop up after.

He could not allow us to employ our methods inside their nation without severe backlash.

He did allow US bases to be set up inside Pak and gave us overflight rights.



posted on Dec, 18 2005 @ 07:27 PM
link   
He has to say something to keep the majority in his country who oppose the US happy, however if the **** hits the fan I expect he will do nothing. Without US support Musharraf knows that he wont last long. Also he did not publicly give US troops authorization to cross into Pakistan. However, what Musharraf says behind closed doors is the real question.



posted on Dec, 18 2005 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArchAngel
When do we ever 'capture' fighters?

We tend to blast the place, and mop up after.

Uh yeah and thats not generalising.



posted on Dec, 18 2005 @ 09:29 PM
link   


However, what Musharraf says behind closed doors is the real question.


Probably something along the lines of, "Whatever you want, Mr. Bush. Just don't let these crazy Islamofascists overthrow me!"



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join