Pakistanis eye US presidential candidates
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan - A Pakistani wish list for the next U.S. president might read something like this: an end to cross-border strikes on militants, more aid for the country's battered economy and greater support for its elected government.
But few people here expect to be satisfied whoever enters the White House — a sign of the difficulties ahead for the U.S. in winning public sympathy at a critical time in the war on terrorism.
Pakistanis, many of whom speak English well, have been treated to considerable coverage of the U.S. race via local newspapers and television channels. Few, however, are seeing substantive differences between Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain.
"Maybe Obama appears harsher, but McCain is sugarcoating the same bitter pill," said Anwar Mahmood, a small business owner among many ordinary Pakistanis, analysts and politicians interviewed by Associated Press reporters across the country.
Dealing with nuclear-armed Pakistan and the spillover of the Afghanistan war into its territory is one of the biggest foreign policy challenges awaiting the next president.
With the Taliban resurgent in Afghanistan, the U.S. is pushing Pakistan to eliminate militant bases on its side of the border and has carried out a surge of missile strikes against suspected al-Qaida and Taliban targets.
Pakistan is battling rising terrorist violence of its own, underscored by last month's bombing of the Marriott Hotel in Islamabad that killed 54 people.
The Muslim nation of 170 million is hit by soaring inflation, food costs and deficits, while the government — less than seven months old — is still struggling to establish its authority.
Obama has openly supported U.S. strikes in the lawless and rugged border region, and has questioned whether Pakistan has done enough to fight militants despite receiving more than $10 billion in U.S. aid since 2001.
McCain says engaging Pakistanis is vital to defeating extremists, and that cross-border strikes shouldn't be discussed "out loud."
His vice presidential candidate, Sarah Palin, raised eyebrows when she appeared to endorse Obama's more hawkish tone on Pakistan. McCain was forced to defend the remark, saying it was not meant to be taken as a policy statement.
"I don't see much difference in essence in their approaches, so I don't see any change in the policy, whoever comes to power," said Khalid Mahmood, a longtime Pakistani diplomat...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081005/ap_on_re_as/as_pakistan_us_election
Between MOSSAD agents roaming Pakistan, stirring up trouble and India agents, roaming Pakistan, stirring up trouble, it will be difficult to keep an eye on the next bloodless coup d'état in the US on November 4.
Pakistan is being used as the fall guy for the US desire to run an oil and natural gas pipeline from the Caspian Basin, thru Afghanistan to Pak ports on the Indian Ocean.
And being set up by various US and Israeli fronts to cause all sorts of havoc in Pakistan, thereby giving the Pentagon the lame excuse it needs to invade, but only to secure the nukes.
Right.
There is no such thing! There is not even a US wish list for the next US president! The only which list that matters is the one published by the newspaper Hareetz!
The US unprovoked attacks on Pakistani soil - as we remember that Pakistan is a staunch ally in the "war on terror" - is just to disturb the fragile political situation in the country to prepare for fragmentation of the society, necessary to set in motion a genocide performed and financed by the Pakistanis themselves. Iraq may serve as the model in this case, so do not claim that the money has been totally wasted!
If we are to believe what we hear it is even higher up on the Zionist agenda to destroy Pakistan than Iran!
According to Rabbi Rosen:
"Amalekites will remain as long as there are Jews. In every age Amalekites will surface from other races to attack the Jews, and thus the war against them must be global."
Maybe Iran will be first, but the next thing to do for the industrious "G-d's Children" is obviously Pakistan, and under cover of the media attention that will attract Israel will of course attack Lebanon again to make up for its humiliation.
"Pakistan is battling rising terrorist violence of its own, underscored by last month's bombing of the Marriott Hotel in Islamabad that killed 54 people".
I would suggest Pakistan not assume responsibility for this as car bombs do not result in craters. In the same manner Indonesia should not take the blame that "homegrown terrorists" did the Mariott Hotel bombing in Jakarta, (I sense that there are some people out there who seriously dislike Mariott, maybe because of its Mormon roots?)
The Bali bomb also came with a crater, possibly because of serious Australian reluctance to do the bidding of the US and its masters in Iraq at the eve of the unprovoked attack on that country.
Lebanon has had its craters as well, linked to the departure of people, who did not allow themselves to take orders from the south.
You are certainly right about the nukes, which of course Israel fears. As to the oil and gas transit issue; one would expect that stability not chaos would be wanted for new pipelines and port facilities. One finds no correlation between US policy re:Pakistan and specific energy projects other than a failed attempt at deterring the "peace" pipelne frm Iran. The Chinese promoted "energy transit corridor" does not necessarily represent a US specific interest, it is backed by the Gulf Arabs, the World Bank, and of course China.
Yet again, another phony "war for oil" mantra has come forward to redirect our attention from WARS FOR ISRAEL.