The differences between America and Europe

[Saint Marcus]

I know. I'm trying to re-open it.

And I hereby credit you for trying first.

[Ned]

Below is a quote from the State Department site. It looks like we are allies, but instead of helping Pakistan, we cut off military assistance in their war against India in 1965. (WTF was Johnson doing?)

The United States and Pakistan established diplomatic relations in 1947. The U.S. agreement to provide economic and military assistance to Pakistan and the latter's partnership in the Baghdad Pact/CENTO and SEATO strengthened relations between the two nations. However, the U.S. suspension of military assistance during the 1965 Indo-Pakistan war generated a widespread feeling in Pakistan that the United States was not a reliable ally. Even though the United States suspended military assistance to both countries involved in the conflict, the suspension of aid affected Pakistan much more severely. Gradually, relations improved and arms sales were renewed in 1975. Then, in April 1979, the United States cut off economic assistance to Pakistan, except food assistance, as required under the Symington Amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, due to concerns about Pakistan's nuclear program.

The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in December 1979 highlighted the common interest of Pakistan and the United States in peace and stability in South Asia. In 1981, the United States and Pakistan agreed on a $3.2-billion military and economic assistance program aimed at helping Pakistan deal with the heightened threat to security in the region and its economic development needs.

Recognizing national security concerns and accepting Pakistan's assurances that it did not intend to construct a nuclear weapon, Congress waived restrictions (Symington Amendment) on military assistance to Pakistan. In March 1986, the two countries agreed on a second multi-year (FY 1988-93) $4-billion economic development and security assistance program. On October 1, 1990, however, the United States suspended all military assistance and new economic aid to Pakistan under the Pressler Amendment, which required that the President certify annually that Pakistan "does not possess a nuclear explosive device."

There have been several incidents of violence against American officials and U.S. mission employees in Pakistan. In November 1979, false rumors that the United States had participated in the seizure of the Grand Mosque in Mecca provoked a mob attack on the U.S. embassy in Islamabad. The government's delayed response enabled the mob to burn the embassy. Four people died, two of them U.S. nationals. The American Cultural Center in Lahore also was destroyed by fire. In 1989, there was an attack on the American Center in Islamabad, where six Pakistanis were killed in the crossfire with the police. In March of 1995, two American employees of the consulate in Karachi were killed and one wounded in an attack on the home-to-office shuttle. In November of 1997, four U.S. businessmen were brutally murdered while being driven to work in Karachi. In November 1999, the Embassy and the American Center were the targets of rocket attacks that wounded one local national security guard.

The decision by India to conduct nuclear tests in May 1998 and Pakistan's matching response set back U.S. relations in the region, which had seen renewed U.S. Government interest during the second Clinton Administration. A presidential visit scheduled for the first quarter of 1998 was postponed and, under the Glenn Amendment, sanctions restricted the provision of credits, military sales, economic assistance, and loans to the government. An intensive dialogue on nuclear nonproliferation and security issues between Deputy Secretary Talbott and Foreign Secretary Shamshad Ahmad was initiated, with discussions focusing on CTBT signature and ratification, FMCT negotiations, export controls, and a nuclear restraint regime. The October 1999 overthrow of the democratically elected Sharif government triggered an additional layer of sanctions under Section 508 of the Foreign Appropriations Act which include restrictions on foreign military financing and economic assistance. Presently, U.S. Government assistance to Pakistan is limited mainly to refugee and counter-narcotics assistance.

[Saint Marcus]

So sanctions in 1998, and more in 1999.

If there was an alliance on sept.10th, it was a pretty loose one.

[morb]

Originally posted by Ned


I guess we Americans learn from our mistakes. Afghanistan was one of them. After defeating the Soviets, we allowed the country to descend into tribal warfare rather than trying to build a nation based on democratic principles.

The proposal the we have on the table now on the ME is a road to peace and prosperity for the Palestinians. We guarantee them hope, democracy and a bright economic future if only thew will reach out an grasp the olive branch Bush has extended.

We offer the people of Iraq the same. I personally believe that we can effect the regime change easily. However, what we need afterwards are US (and European) forces on the ground while we reorganize the government along democratic lines.

In the final analysis, it looks like we are on the same page with at least some Europeans.

By confronting the monsters of the world, we can change it for the better. Appeasement is not the path to permanent peace.

you couldn't have "helped" russia in the way that you think. even though it was weak at the time, there was no way they were going to allow you to deploy troops on russian soil for the sole purpose of preventing "bratanstvo" or "prihvatization" from taking its course. more could have been done trying to councel the russian leadership at the time, but even then, I doubt they wouldn't let it go in one ear and out the other. At the time, everyone, especially the leadership were out to make a huge sum of money. but its not some backwater nation you know....

now other republics like georgia, etc in the caucus region and all the 'stans in central asia, that's a whole different deal. then again, russia would get upset that US was trying to reach into its sphere of influence. the 'stans badly need US support right now too btw. probably more so than 10 years ago.

[Ned]

Yeah, but Morb, the Russians did appear to have a functioning democracy. There was no need to send US troops to help. Yeltsin's enormous courage in standing on the tanks of the coup forces was a image for all time for those who value freedom.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Dalgetti
GePap:
you can't prove a negative. Prove to me that there is no animal called Gvazunda that has purple skin , 5 mouths , and 23 eyes.

I can't, nor will i try. The issue with God is that, since you can't disprove it, that leaves the way open for faith. Human beings like believing in things like God, and until its existance can be disproven (never), then we are going to have to deal with faith.

Yes, I've blindly put my faith in reason.

Have you ever questioned your commitment? And have there nevr been any momens that you had some spark or relegious sentiment? i find that hard to believe. You and i could both be wrong and some angel could come down tommorrow and tell us both, "you were wrong". Since again, we can never disprove this possibility, we must take it on faith that it won't happen and move on. So yes, i do believe is faith, just like those tha believe in relegion.

don't preach to me, please. I am tired of that.

I's my retorical style. besides, since you are many times wrong, it might do you some good!

[Roland]

Ned:

"There is a difference between Iraq and Pakistan. We are at war with one and allies of the other."

Interesting. So a terror-sponsoring dictatorship can have nukes etc just as long as it is an ally of the US.

Now, should Musharraf get overthrown and this so called "alliance" be dissolved, will you invade Pakistan ? Does the logic apply to others - if the EU allies with Iran is it ok when we say "let's just let'em have some nukes - allies, you know" ?

"On Iraq, the UN is on record that Saddam cannot have WoMD. It has imposed sanctions. They have not worked."

They have worked to some extent.

"The proposal the we have on the table now on the ME is a road to peace and prosperity for the Palestinians. We guarantee them hope, democracy and a bright economic future if only thew will reach out an grasp the olive branch Bush has extended."

That has to be one of the most bizarre statements I've ever read on poly, and that says something....

[Kropotkin]

Originally posted by Ned
Yeltsin's enormous courage in standing on the tanks of the coup forces was a image for all time for those who value freedom.

It was a IFV, not a tank.

[Saint Marcus]

"The proposal the we have on the table now on the ME is a road to peace and prosperity for the Palestinians. We guarantee them hope, democracy and a bright economic future if only thew will reach out an grasp the olive branch Bush has extended."

shouldn't that be: "if only the will roll over and play dead, and do whatever Israel and the USA tells them to do, then the US and Israel may be generous enough to give the Palestinians some land"?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Roland
Does the logic apply to others - if the EU allies with Iran is it ok when we say "let's just let'em have some nukes - allies, you know" ?

Iraq is the one your trying to give nukes to, not Iran.

[Az]

didn't I post on this thread , to answer GePap? ...hrrm. later I suppose.

[Roland]

Originally posted by DinoDoc


Iraq is the one your trying to give nukes to, not Iran.

Who ? Me ?

[Kropotkin]

Yes you Roland. After all you're the european jesus that have the guilts and sins of the entire continent on your shoulder. Didn't you get that fax?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Roland
Who ? Me ?

I didn't mean to insult you by lumping you with France. Can you forgive me?

[Roland]

So what is France doing ?