Pakistani Officials like Mr Rehman Malik entertaining Ms Hillary Cliniton and visiting different cities in Pakistan. He is praying with Ms Hillary Clinton at tomb of religious person in Islamabad, Pakistan, in that period of time when Pakistan is having most difficult times in fighting war on terror and our people are dieing each day due to war on terror; at-least he should be aware protect people of Pakistan is his main duty for which he is hired in government of Pakistan and not for US officials.
Ms Hillary Clinton in Lahore, Grand Mosque which is praying place for Muslims and Non-Muslims are not allowed as its worship place but Pakistan offical with a religious person showing different places of the city.
If Pakistan; have to change and progress then we should be sincere to our people and beloved country and also respect our religious places by not taking non muslims to reglious places as their amusement parks. We are having suicide bombing and war bloodshed in pakistan. Our government should be thinking to protect people and give support and money to people who lost their lives. Not entertaining people who bring bloodshed to our beloved country Pakistan.
The history repeat itself again; Whenever their is unfortunate event the US diplomats running to Pakistan to check; Whats'up! Are things going as planned. There were flying over here when government is changing and When Mr Zardari or Mr Nawaz are sending their messages But this time Mr Rehman Malik need the attention so first he send message to India that Do not support finanical Aid to terrorist operating in Pakistan while Indian rejected his small statement on other hand US send their first Kerry-Lugar Bill which seeking control over Pakistan however first it was rejected but accept by government internally but due to national support it was rejected but again they send a secound photo copy with some more additional options; and now to make it possible by all means; Ms Hillary Clinton visit pakistan to show support with power; money
and all kind of support US will give to help Pakistan in war on terror. But we must look into history how british people enter indian subcontinent and take over to rule it. Well, we cant compare same thing done in Pakistan but this is 21st Century so rules will be different so US can get what it wants. If we consider; US is helping all over the world and then what its interset? why spending billions of dollars into other countries to get what? i am sure no one from US is so humble to give away billions of dollars. US is support india in nuclear and science technology; Afganistan, fight for Osama bin laden, but no news of him except some audio releases once six months to be in picture; China is strong opposition of US as China technology and power is comparable with US. In middle east, Finanical Hub for west plus arabian sea is an exercise area for war ships. While Iran which is not far from Pakistan; US interset in nuclear technology. So in all this situation
Where is Pakistan standing and what international media of US, India and Middle East pictures Pakistan in the world. Its a great importance to all of us in Pakistan.
The first Britons to arrive in India were traders from the British East India Company. They came by sea at the beginning of the 17th century and their goal was not conquest but profit. Initially they restricted themselves to
business, doing deals with the Mughal emperors and local rulers. Gradually, though, the relationship changed. In time British factories were established and when faced with disputes they began to apply British rather than local law. As the profits grew, the traders became increasingly involved in local politics. Matters came to a head in 1757, when armed men fighting for the British East India Company under Robert Clive clashed with the chief (nawab) of Bengal, Siraj-ud-daula. That Clive won the encounter should have been of little surprise. Many of the nawab’s soldiers had been bribed to throw away their weapons
In the historical context of US-Pakistan relations, it is obvious that the mutual relations between the two countries are based on convergence of common interests from time to time. When the US required U2 surveillance flight facilities and an intelligence base against the Soviets (1959-1968), backdoor diplomacy with the Chinese (1970-72), covert operations against the Red Army in Afghanistan (1980-88) and recently the war against terrorism (2001 - ??), it has extended its best hand forward in terms of military and economic aid as well as support for unelected military dictators. On the other hand, Pakistan during this time has had modest success in growing its economy with economic aid from the US and from the World Bank and IMF. Pakistan has performed better in achieving its goal of a nuclear balance with India with its extensive missile and nuclear programs. However, time will tell how long the present cooperation between the USA and Pakistan lasts and how much can the Pakistanis get in reward for their cooperation with US war against Osama Bin Ladin and his Al-Qaida organization.
US President Barack Obama has signed a $680 billion defence appropriations bill with one provision giving
commanders the ability to pay Taliban members to switch sides, but some experts feel the programme may buy only temporary loyalty. The payments to Taliban would be made under a Taliban reintegration provision under the Commander's Emergency Response Programme (CERP), which is now receiving $1.3 billion in the bill pay for military operations in the 2010 fiscal year, signed by Obama on Wednesday. CERP funding is also intended for humanitarian relief and reconstruction projects at commanders' discretion. The buyout idea, according to Senator Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, is to separate local Taliban from their leaders, replicating a programme used to neutralise the insurgency against Americans in Iraq. "Afghan leaders and our military say that local Taliban fighters are motivated largely by the need for a job or loyalty to the local leader who pays them and not by ideology or religious zeal," Levin said in a Senate floor peech Sep 11. "They believe an effort to attract these fighters to the government's side could succeed, if they are offered security for themselves and their families, and if there is no penalty for previous activity against us."