cybercoma Posted February 17, 2012 Report Posted February 17, 2012 ISLAMABAD: Pakistan, Iran and Afghanistan on Friday pledged to strengthen cooperation to eradicate extremism, terrorism and militancy from the region.Read more: http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2012%5C02%5C18%5Cstory_18-2-2012_pg1_1 What does this mean for the future of the region? Is this new co-operation a result of the vacuum left by the reduced role in Afghanistan, as well as sanctions against Iran and challenges to Pakistan's sovereignty? Or is this giong to be nothing more than business as usual? Quote
WWWTT Posted February 18, 2012 Report Posted February 18, 2012 Excellent thread pick Cyber! Did you notice that in the picture of the three leaders the backdrop is in English? I predicted before that the anti Iran talk is being fueled by the republicans in the US,and this would be expected in a run up to the 2012 elections there. And it seems that this volatile course of dialauge is starting to cool off since the world economies are still fragile and high price of oil is the last thing we need now! Just another sign Barack Obama will not be moving in 2013,and Iran will become more friendly. WWWTT Quote Maple Leaf Web is now worth $720.00! Down over $1,500 in less than one year! Total fail of the moderation on this site! That reminds me, never ask Greg to be a business partner! NEVER!
olpfan1 Posted February 18, 2012 Report Posted February 18, 2012 lol, all 3 governments have their own go to terrorist "freedom fighters" groups This is just lip service, it won't be reality Quote
cybercoma Posted February 19, 2012 Author Report Posted February 19, 2012 It's interesting how the New York Times report on this has an entirely different tone: ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — Tensions between Pakistan and Afghanistan over potential Taliban peace talks spilled into the open on Friday, with Pakistan’s foreign minister saying it was “preposterous” for Afghanistan to demand that her country deliver the insurgent leadership to the negotiating table. Read More: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/18/world/asia/meeting-in-pakistan-reveals-tensions-over-afghan-peace-talks-with-taliban.html Quote
jbg Posted February 19, 2012 Report Posted February 19, 2012 What does this mean for the future of the region? Is this new co-operation a result of the vacuum left by the reduced role in Afghanistan, as well as sanctions against Iran and challenges to Pakistan's sovereignty? Or is this giong to be nothing more than business as usual? It's interesting how the New York Times report on this has an entirely different tone: This definitely is good for peace on earth. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
Sa'adoni Posted February 19, 2012 Report Posted February 19, 2012 (edited) What does this mean for the future of the region? Is this new co-operation a result of the vacuum left by the reduced role in Afghanistan, as well as sanctions against Iran and challenges to Pakistan's sovereignty? Or is this giong to be nothing more than business as usual? \ Love it or hate they have their own religion and laws. Drugs are illegal here, alchohol, a drug, is illegal there. Women can't show their private parts in public here, women can't show their private parts there. People are subsistence slaves here, people slave for subsistence there. I don't see all this negativity being lumped on Kingdoms like Saudi Arabia - who is probably more strict than Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan combined. In more ways than you know they are just the NA of 50-100 years ago. If it wasn't for WWI we would basically have the same values, your great grandfathers or grandfathers would likely be the same as they are. This partnership can only be good for peace in the region sans a nato offensive on Iran. I think though it is getting late in the game and Iran will need to be the one to attack for any attack on them in the next 3 years unless Romney wins. Do you realize how stupid the US looks to have prevented the USSR from communizing them now they spend a trillion dollars to have them unite with Iran and Pakistan? Well it is all for the best. Edited February 19, 2012 by Sa'adoni Quote
DogOnPorch Posted February 19, 2012 Report Posted February 19, 2012 In more ways than you know they are just the NA of 50-100 years ago. If it wasn't for WWI we would basically have the same values, your great grandfathers or grandfathers would likely be the same as they are. Ummmm...not a chance. The West had already invented toilet paper. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
GostHacked Posted February 19, 2012 Report Posted February 19, 2012 Ummmm...not a chance. The West had already invented toilet paper. Just in time for you to sh!t up another thread. Quote
DogOnPorch Posted February 19, 2012 Report Posted February 19, 2012 Just in time for you to sh!t up another thread. You're right. Toilet paper was more an invention of your time. In 1962 and before, Canadians were using leaves and twigs. Painful. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
jbg Posted February 20, 2012 Report Posted February 20, 2012 You're right. Toilet paper was more an invention of your time. In 1962 and before, Canadians were using leaves and twigs. Painful. Has Canada legalized toilet paper as of yet? Pakistan's Parliament was debating the matter yesterday. It was an issue in their last election. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
Argus Posted February 20, 2012 Report Posted February 20, 2012 Love it or hate they have their own religion and laws. Drugs are illegal here, alchohol, a drug, is illegal there. Women can't show their private parts in public here, women can't show their private parts there. People are subsistence slaves here, people slave for subsistence there. I don't see all this negativity being lumped on Kingdoms like Saudi Arabia - who is probably more strict than Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan combined. In more ways than you know they are just the NA of 50-100 years ago. If it wasn't for WWI we would basically have the same values, your great grandfathers or grandfathers would likely be the same as they are. I'm sorry, but I don't recall a time in recent Western history where the kind of contempt for individual liberty, not to mention individual lives was as extensive as in much of the Muslim world. Cultural values? You might find the following enlightening. I like how if you're only 12, you need to get your guardian's permission to work in a state run brothel in Iran. “In order to elevate the spiritual atmosphere, create proper psychological conditions and tranquility of mind, the Province of the Quds’eh-Razavi of Khorassan has created centres for temporary marriage (just next door to the shrine) for those brothers who are on pilgrimage to the shrine of our eighth Imam, Imam Reza, and who are far away from their spouses. “To that end, we call on all our sisters who are virgins, who are between the ages of 12 and 35 to co-operate with us. Each of our sisters who signs up will be bound by a two year contract with the province of the Quds’eh-Razavi of Khorassan…. “Attention: For sisters who are below 14 years of age, a written consent from their fathers or male guardian is required.” David Frum Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted February 20, 2012 Report Posted February 20, 2012 This might be an interesting place to add this little item from today's Post. Most ordinary Pakistanis loathe America — indeed, not only America, but the whole of the non-Muslim world — and are only too happy to support jihad against the NATO forces next door in Afghanistan. Pakistani support for the Taliban is not just a cynical expression of foreign-policy realpolitik, in other words, but a true expression of grass-roots Pakistani public opinion. Pakistanis hate Americans, Westerners, non-Muslims It's an excellent explanation of how people become religious fanatics, by our standards, in the way they're brought up, and what they're taught in schools. "In Pakistani textbooks, the line between mosque and state is virtually non-existent. Students learn that international boundaries – say, between Pakistan and Afghanistan – don’t count for much: “In all the textbooks analyzed, the student is presented a world where concepts such as nation, constitution, legality, standing armies, or multi-lateral organizations – except where they are prescribed by Islamic doctrine of sharia law – do not exist.” Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.