• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

What's going on in Pakistan?

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Is there time left for hugs?

The Kardari government gave the Taliban an inch by signing away Swat so now they’ve decided to take a mile in Buner. The wages of appeasement:

There are fears that the Taliban, who have already been handed control of the Swat valley, could now take Islamabad and topple the government.

Militants are believed to be just 60 miles away - and edging closer by the day…

Many in Buner are now too frightened to speak to reporters.

However, one judge said that the militants had entered the district in ‘large numbers’ and started setting up checkpoints at main roads and strategic positions…

Rasul Bakhsh Rais, professor of political science at Lahore University of Management Sciences, said the Taliban may have concluded from the Swat deal that authorities will cave in to violent demands for Islamic law elsewhere.

‘They have natural allies in the religious political parties in other parts of the country,’ he said.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1172651/Pakistan-mortal-threat-world-says-Clinton-Taliban-surge-Islamabad.html
 

Tam

Well-known member
Clinton Raises Alarms About Eroding Security in Pakistan
In back-to-back days of testimony on Capitol Hill, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton raises concern that government-backed law enforcement is losing the northwest region of Pakistan.

FOXNews.com
Thursday

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is raising alarms that the Pakistani government is losing control of its country and ceding ground to Taliban extremists, as she presses lawmakers to approve fresh funding for the region.

In back-to-back days of testimony on Capitol Hill, Clinton raised concern that government-backed law enforcement was losing the northwest region of the country.

"We have to try to strengthen civilian law enforcement" in those tribal areas, she told a House appropriations subcommittee Thursday, after calling the nuclear state a "mortal threat" to the security of the world a day before. "(The administration is) deeply concerned by the increasing insurgency that is destabilizing Pakistan."

Clinton had harsh words Wednesday for the country that is supposed to be the United States' key ally in the war against the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

"I think that the Pakistani government is basically abdicating to the Taliban and to the extremists. But look at why this is happening," she told the House Foreign Affairs Committee. "If you talk to people in Pakistan, especially in the ungoverned territories, which are increasing in number, they don't believe the state has a judiciary system that works."

The comments came after Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari approved Islamic Sharia law in the northwestern Swat valley, which has been overtaken by Taliban forces.

President Obama has invited Zardari and Afghan President Hamid Karzai to the White House in early May, and Clinton made clear that the U.S. government expects Zardari in particular to take a much harder line against extremists.

"It's corrupt, it doesn't extend its power into the countryside," she said of the Pakistani government. "So the government of Pakistan, however it is constituted, which is, of course, their business, not ours, must begin to deliver government services."

Clinton encountered skepticism Thursday from some committee members who expressed doubt about succeeding in Pakistan. Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., told her he worries that the administration's policy agenda -- domestic and foreign -- could be "devoured" by the Pakistan-Afghanistan problem.

"I have absolutely no confidence in the ability of the existing Pakistan government to do one blessed thing," Obey said.

Rep. Nita Lowey, D-N.Y., the committee chairwoman, expressed similar concerns.

"The escalating terrorist violence in Pakistan and that government's inability and unwillingness to confront the extremist threat undermine any progress we have made in Afghanistan and complicates future efforts there," Lowey said. "I fear that we are losing the window of international consensus and commitment to help the region gain a strong foothold on its long climb out of conflict."

Obey asked whether a year was a reasonable time for determining whether the Pakistani government was showing enough initiative and resolve to merit continued U.S. financial and political support. Clinton said she could not put a timetable on how long it might take to get results, but said the administration intends to provide Congress with benchmarks for measuring progress.

"We want to see progress on these measurements, and we want to see the progress beginning and continuing, and not stopping and starting," she said.

One measure of progress in Pakistan, Clinton said, is the extent to which the Pakistani military is shifting its troops from the Indian border to the Afghan border, where the Taliban threat has been expanding.

Clinton was appearing before the appropriations panel that is reviewing the administration's request for $7.1 billion in additional funds for the State Department this budget year. Of that total, $497 million would be for State Department support of Pakistan and $980 million would be for Afghanistan. About $482 million would be for Iraq.

Clinton said that local job creation is a key purpose of the extra funds requested for State Department work in Afghanistan.

She told the panel that a main goal is to improve security at the local level in Afghanistan by putting more people to work. And she said the administration believes that many in the Taliban insurgency who are fighting against U.S. and Afghan forces are motivated more by money than ideology.

Clinton defended President Barack Obama's effort to engage diplomatically with Iran, calling it a reasonable alternative to what she called a failed Bush administration policy.

"We tried the policy of total isolation for eight years," she said in a rising voice, "and it did not deter Iran one bit. The nuclear program has continued unabated. They weren't supporting Hamas before. They are supporting Hamas now."

Clinton said it remains unclear whether international pressure on Iran will compel it to change course.

"Sanctions are a tool for us to leverage pressure on the Iranian regime to change behavior that we obviously consider serious threats," she said. "And so we are talking with our partners about additional sanctions as part of an incentives-disincentives approach to Iran. It's a difficult balancing act."

The Associated Press contributed to this report.
 

Broke Cowboy

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
They seem to be falling fast.

How are things in Israel, people getting nervous BC?

Seems like they are saying put up or shut up right now too?

Yes and they are nervous about what is happening in America - because much of what happens here - happens with the assistance of the U.S.

Remember, this is a Jewish Democratic State - which means anyone can run for election - a lot of citizens who are not Jews have run and won - ie: Arabs.

Absoultely no other democracies over here.


BC
 

MoGal

Well-known member
Well, Obama rides to the rescue with $$$$ and only asks for congress to make a little change:

This is a 2 page article so here's the link: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1239710798021&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull




Senior Israeli officials said Monday they were "concerned" at the prospect that the US may approve funding for a Palestinian Authority government that includes Hamas.
US President Barack Obama.

US President Barack Obama.
Photo: AP
SLIDESHOW: Israel & Region | World

The concern arose after it became known that the Obama administration had asked Congress for minor changes in US law that would allow the continued provision of funds to the PA even if Hamas officials became part of a Palestinian unity government.

The Jerusalem Post has learned from a highly placed source that Israeli officials are very troubled by the possibility of US funds going to a government that includes Hamas.

"Israel would be very concerned about any international funding that reaches Hamas," a senior government official said on condition of anonymity.
RELATED

* Analysis: Netanyahu bids to change 'diskette'

Israel believes that a Fatah-Hamas unity government would be harmful first and foremost to the PA's current leadership. Officials also believe that Egypt, which is hosting unity talks between the two Palestinian factions, is making a mistake in trying to achieve a unity government. Such a government won't bring the Fatah-controlled PA to Gaza, but rather Hamas rule to the West Bank, officials say.

The Post reported Sunday that some congressional supporters of Israel were dismayed by the move, quoting Rep. Mark Steven Kirk (R-Illinois) as telling US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at a House hearing last week that it was akin to agreeing to support a government that "only has a few Nazis in it."

"You're going to lose this battle," Kirk warned the administration in a conversation with the Post Monday. He noted that key Democrats on the House of Representatives Appropriations Committee were also concerned about the changes the administration would like to see.

The Obama administration requested the changes this month as part of an $83.4 billion emergency spending bill that also includes funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bill would provide $840 million for the PA and for rebuilding Gaza post-Operation Cast Lead, but the administration is trying to work out how to deliver the aid to Gaza in light of federal restrictions on dealing with Hamas.

US officials claimed that the new proposal didn't constitute recognition of Hamas or aiding to the group. Under law, any US aid would require that the PA government recognize Israel, renounce violence and agree to abide by past Israeli-Palestinian agreements.

Even if Hamas doesn't meet those criteria, the Obama administration wants to be able to provide aid to a Palestinian unity government, if one is established, as long as the government as a whole - including its Hamas-backed ministers - does.

Last week, speaking to the Appropriations Committee, Clinton indicated that the US would not necessarily cut funding to the Palestinians even if Hamas joined a unity government and failed to meet the three conditions, noting that the US continued to provide funds to Lebanon, whose government included Hizbullah.

"We are doing that because we think, on balance, it is in the interest of the United States," she said.

Clinton said that the US did not want to "bind our hands" in the event that a Hamas-Fatah unity agreement was reached, as long as "the government that they are part of agrees to our principles."

Capitol Hill sources are predicting a tough fight over the provision. In the end, they say, Congress could likely adopt vague language that would provide the administration more wiggle-room in dealing with the Palestinians, but not go as far as the current proposal.

Nita Lowey (D-New York), who chairs the foreign operations appropriations subcommittee, questioned Clinton about the authority she was seeking. Lowey just oversaw the passage of legislation - the 2009 budget - which stipulates that Hamas as a whole would have to embrace the Quartet principles before aid could go to a government it joined. The new formulation, which is part of the 2009 supplemental budget request, would weaken that requirement. [/b]
 
Top