China/Israel/India dont give NATO supplies v. Pakistan does give NATO supplies

[Shah-i-Kot]

Pakistan supported with NATO supply lines and airspace use, a US/NATO war in Afghanistan since 2001. China did not support the US/NATO war even though it too could have given NATO supplies since it borders Afghanistan.

Israel and India have not supported the US/NATO war in Afghanistan with NATO supplies. This is something that is quite suprising to say the least. One can say there is no border, but they did not even send their own forces as part of the "international" effort. Pakistan has used its military in the war in KP/FATA, and to protect the NATO supply lines to Afghanistan.

Israel did not even attend the Bonn Conference that gave a rubber stamp to a war in Afghanistan. Pakistan, Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, etc. attended the Bonn Conference.

In fact in almost no capacity has China or Israel supported the US/NATO war in Afghanistan. India has made financial investments that goes along with the US/NATO war objectives.

This is interesting to note.

[jankhan]

Yeah and it was neither india nor israel who handed over afia to america but it was holy pak army and isi who handed over their sister to america. All the anti islamic and shameless acts are done by pak army and isi.

[Kushan Prince]

Wait, Israel Americas most trusted ally doesn't support the war in afg?!?! I find this really hard to believe. Where are your sources for this? You sound like a jew lover and a supporter for them as i've seen in your previous posts.

[Shah-i-Kot]

I am pointing out the fact that while Pakistan supports/enables the US/NATO war with NATO supplies, China and Israel do not support the US/NATO war in any capacity.Neither militarily or financially.

India does vocally support the US/NATO war, and does train the ANA, but do not supply Indian forces or money to NATO.

[hamid954]

Israel has exported security equipment over the past five years to Pakistan and four Arab countries, Israeli newspaper Haaretz quoted a British government report as saying.

Pakistan is sister of Israel killing innocent people in Afghanistan and killing the innocent pashtuns, balochis and hazaras of Pakistan and trying to divide them through manufactured conflicts by ISI.

India is the only country that's helped Afghanistan in honesty.

[Da Bannu Mazdigar]

Pakistan should have not joined the war on terror.

the Peace deals with nek Muhammad WAZIR should have not be broken

[Loy Afghanistan]

Wait, Israel Americas most trusted ally doesn't support the war in afg?!?! I find this really hard to believe. Where are your sources for this? You sound like a jew lover and a supporter for them as i've seen in your previous posts.

Wroora. Israel and Pakistan was created at the same year by British lords excuse me, I mean dogs. Israel is to busy to kill Palestinians and THEY ARE NOT STUPID to send their children into a war when they have slaves to send.

So Israhell are busy killing Palestinians and Porkis busy killing Pashtuns, Baluchs, Kashmiris etc.

[randolph85]

Pakistan supported with NATO supply lines and airspace use, a US/NATO war in Afghanistan since 2001. China did not support the US/NATO war even though it too could have given NATO supplies since it borders Afghanistan.

Israel and India have not supported the US/NATO war in Afghanistan with NATO supplies. This is something that is quite suprising to say the least. One can say there is no border, but they did not even send their own forces as part of the "international" effort. Pakistan has used its military in the war in KP/FATA, and to protect the NATO supply lines to Afghanistan.

Israel did not even attend the Bonn Conference that gave a rubber stamp to a war in Afghanistan. Pakistan, Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, etc. attended the Bonn Conference.

In fact in almost no capacity has China or Israel supported the US/NATO war in Afghanistan. India has made financial investments that goes along with the US/NATO war objectives.

This is interesting to note.

america has had a long history with pakistan in relation to afghanistan, the country was the base of the mujahadin and the taliban(at least now), pakistans relationships with various groups was far more important than any other countries.

as far as geography goes, pakistan is the most important as far as supply and bases go. no other country could provide these kind of logistical supports. even with a roadblock or 2 every few months, this logical supply is invaluable to foreign forces. this is not to mention that pakistan is always willing to play ball as long as money is involved, even if they play a double game.

china has no historically political history with afghanistan, it supports the karzai regime far more than the taliban because they were afraid of the talibs supporting anti china elements operating in the country. india see's afghanistan as an asset but not the way that the pakis do, india being far stronger than pakistan it doesn't feel the need to obsess over afghanistan like pakistan does with its "strategic depth doctrine". again, geographically india serves no purpose to the war and politically it doesn't have the close history that pakistan has with various groups.

these countries who are not american allies may not want america in their backyard, like china or russia, but they far prefer a political afghanistan on american terms than a wildcard like the taliban back in power.

as for israel, why would you be surprised that israel was not at bonn? they had no place there, afghanistan is not in their backyard. israel didn't even retaliate when iraq fired scud missiles at it back in the gulf war because america didn't want to alienate their arab allies by bringing israel on board. wondering why israel is not involved in afghanistan is like asking why mexico isn't. there is simply no relation besides being close american allies.

[Shah-i-Kot]

[QUOTE]

america has had a long history with pakistan in relation to afghanistan, the country was the base of the mujahadin and the taliban(at least now), pakistans relationships with various groups was far more important than any other countries.

as far as geography goes, pakistan is the most important as far as supply and bases go. no other country could provide these kind of logistical supports. even with a roadblock or 2 every few months, this logical supply is invaluable to foreign forces. this is not to mention that pakistan is always willing to play ball as long as money is involved, even if they play a double game.

Agreed on these two points. Without the Pakistan NATO supply routes, the war is not possible. However, with regards to geography, both Iran and China could also have supplied NATO had they chosen to since they border Afghanistan, but they did not. Iran has a highly accessible water port similar to Karachi port.

china has no historically political history with afghanistan, it supports the karzai regime far more than the taliban because they were afraid of the talibs supporting anti china elements operating in the country.

This is not an accurate representation of China's policy toward the power dispensation in Afghanistan or in other part of the region. In keeping with its soft power projection, China will do business with whomever rules Afghanistan, whether it be the Karzai regime or the Taliban. This will provide you a background to China's policy.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/06/20/why_is_china_talking_to_the_taliban

In regards to China's strategic decisions. They have not been completely out of the loop. While they mainly keep their soft power projection policy intact, they have stepped out of it on several instances, especially in regards to Iraq and Afghanistan.

http://www.longwarjournal.org/threat-matrix/archives/2010/11/the_taliban_acquisition_of_ant.php

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1562148/Chinese-weapons-reaching-the-Taliban.html

Also, in regards to Syria, read this report.

http://complex.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/02/28/chinese_surface_to_air_missiles_are_being_used_by_syrian_rebels

and note this excerpt here.
"Interestingly, Chinese state TV did a report on this chopper being shotdown showing a rebel holding this very weapon -- that's a screengrab from the segment above. That's right, Chinese government TV is running a story about a Chinese-made surface-to-air missile being used by the rebel army. What's also interesting is that China has warned against external involvement in the Syrian conflict. "


China's policy toward foreign conflicts is not as unclear as it may seem. There is a Western reluctance to confront a major economic power about their actions.

these countries who are not american allies may not want america in their backyard, like china or russia, but they far prefer a political afghanistan on american terms than a wildcard like the taliban back in power.

This is true about Russia, but does not apply to China as I outlined above.

as for israel, why would you be surprised that israel was not at bonn? they had no place there, afghanistan is not in their backyard. israel didn't even retaliate when iraq fired scud missiles at it back in the gulf war because america didn't want to alienate their arab allies by bringing israel on board. wondering why israel is not involved in afghanistan is like asking why mexico isn't. there is simply no relation besides being close american allies.

Your reasoning does not explain it.

The point being made is that Israel does not support the US/NATO war in Afghanistan, but several Muslim nations do, and have sent their own troops there (Turkey, Egypt, UAE, Jordan to name just a few).

[Kushan Prince]

So this is your opinion then huh, well i guess you don't know that Isreal is america's lap dog and will do anything in their favour. Whatever America does, Isreal will agree with wether its killing innocent Palestinians or supporting the prolonged war in Afghanistan. Jews are happy that muslims are dying and your here telling me that isreal doesn't support the nato war.

Very laughable to say the least.

[randolph85]

This is not an accurate representation of China's policy toward the power dispensation in Afghanistan or in other part of the region. In keeping with its soft power projection, China will do business with whomever rules Afghanistan, whether it be the Karzai regime or the Taliban. This will provide you a background to China's policy.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article...to_the_taliban

In regards to China's strategic decisions. They have not been completely out of the loop. While they mainly keep their soft power projection policy intact, they have stepped out of it on several instances, especially in regards to Iraq and Afghanistan.

http://www.longwarjournal.org/threat...ion_of_ant.php

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...e-Taliban.html

Also, in regards to Syria, read this report.

http://complex.foreignpolicy.com/pos..._syrian_rebels

there is a difference between willing to do business with anyone and favoring one side against the other. just look at why china felt confortable with signing multi billion dollar mining contracts with the the karzai regime vs the only contact with the taliban regime being chinese diplomats meeting taliban officials over worries about anti china elements operating in afghanistan. china doesn't look at nations based on ideology, they look at nations based on economic risk. as for the links on chinese weapons, there simply haven't been enough choppers being shot down to see a trend based on chinese tactical support unlike the stringer missiles and the obvious american support in the 80s.

The point being made is that Israel does not support the US/NATO war in Afghanistan, but several Muslim nations do, and have sent their own troops there (Turkey, Egypt, UAE, Jordan to name just a few).

the thing is that these muslim nations troops are already a part of established international contingents. the war in afg happened but these nations didn't say hey let me join that! there were already agreements in place. its why pakistan is in african countries, does it make sense? no, but it is what it is. israel is not a part of any UN or NATO peacekeeping force anywhere in the world, as for the question of them supporting the war? of course they do, not that the taliban or afghanistan was ever any threat to them but from a zionist jew prescpective why wouldn't they support intervention morally?

their active participation would be as strange as mexico joining the war but even worse because it would alienate muslim allies, be a pr nightmare for the allies and the puppet govt, and based on geography and history they simply have nothing to offer in the war effort.

[Shah-i-Kot]

[QUOTE]

there is a difference between willing to do business with anyone and favoring one side against the other. just look at why china felt confortable with signing multi billion dollar mining contracts with the the karzai regime vs the only contact with the taliban regime being chinese diplomats meeting taliban officials over worries about anti china elements operating in afghanistan. china doesn't look at nations based on ideology, they look at nations based on economic risk.

If you read the articles that I sourced, you would see that between China and the Taliban insurgency, there is an understanding as the Taliban do not attack Chinese businesses or investments. The majority of Afghanistan is under the control of the Afghan insurgency, and Chinese investments in these areas have been kept intact. China does business with whomever is in power.

as for the links on chinese weapons, there simply haven't been enough choppers being shot down to see a trend based on chinese tactical support unlike the stringer missiles and the obvious american support in the 80s.

That is not accurate. Wikileaks confirms that US/NATO conduct cover ups when their choppers are shot down by the insurgents.

In regards to trends, several choppers have been shot down in Afghanistan by the Afghan insurgency this year and since as early as 2002- more so than chopper take downs in Iraq by the Iraqi insurgency. There is a trend, and it simply is brushed aside as "crashes" by both NATO, the Western press. It is simply bad publicity for an already unpopular war that the majority of Americans are opposed to.

The articles I sourced refer to the HN-7 antiaircraft. This is covered by the LongWarJournal.

The most recent NATO chopper which was shot down was in December. First, ISAF said there was no enemy activity in the area, and then a week later only after being forced for a proper explanation by the relatives of the US deceased did they retract, and then confirm that the NATO chopper was shot down by Afghan insurgents.

the thing is that these muslim nations troops are already a part of established international contingents. the war in afg happened but these nations didn't say hey let me join that!

Actually, it was their choice to join it. China did not join the "international coalition" and were also not more powerful than the US at that time.

there were already agreements in place. its why pakistan is in african countries, does it make sense?

Actually, there no agreements in place. Musharaf simply turned over after supposedly receiving a threat from **** Armitage that Pakistan will be put back into the stone age.

no, but it is what it is. israel is not a part of any UN or NATO peacekeeping force anywhere in the world, as for the question of them supporting the war? of course they do

Israel will only do what serves their own interest and security. They have no concern for the problems of the US/West.

, not that the taliban or afghanistan was ever any threat to them but from a zionist jew prescpective why wouldn't they support intervention morally?

Israel did not support the US war in Iraq because they said it would bring a Shiite theocracy to power (which it did). They preferred Saddam in power. Same with Afghanistan. There is no basis to the claim that Israel supports the war in Afghanistan other than to believe the cliched mantra that the Jews are behind all the ills of the Muslim world. They are at most indifferent to the war.

The Israeli lobby has almost total control of the US Senate/Congress whereas the Arab lobby has zero clout in the US Senate/Congress (no one cares about their concerns or votes). If Israel wanted to be a part of the US/NATO war in Afghanistan,they would have, and no Arab ally in the Middle East could have stopped them- not Saudi, UAE, Jordan, etc.

their active participation would be as strange as mexico joining the war but even worse because it would alienate muslim allies

So Israel's participation in a US war in Afghanistan would alienate the Muslim nations who are participating in a US war in Afghanistan? That implies that Muslim nations find US wars in the Middle East to be acceptable, but not Israeli ones. Again, as aforementioned, these Middle Eastern nations could do nothing if Israel chose to be a part of the US war strategy. Sure, they would complain, but at the end of the day they would fall in line because the US Senate/Congress answer to the Israeli AIPAC lobby over the petrodollar.

You are overestimating US concern for its Middle Eastern allies.

[Shah-i-Kot]

So this is your opinion then huh, well i guess you don't know that Isreal is america's lap dog and will do anything in their favour. Whatever America does, Isreal will agree with wether its killing innocent Palestinians or supporting the prolonged war in Afghanistan. Jews are happy that muslims are dying and your here telling me that isreal doesn't support the nato war.

Very laughable to say the least.

You are missing the point. I am pointing out that Pakistan is supporting a US/NATO war in neighboring Afghanistan openly with NATO supplies whereas the other nations I listed (China, Israel,etc) are not.

As for your other words, it is the other way around- the US and much of the West will do what is in Israel's favor so long as Jewish financial clout in these nations remains. This can be seen with the Iran sanctions.

Israel was created at the expense of the Palestinians due to Western penance for the Holocaust (which remember happened in Europe).

[randolph85]

If you read the articles that I sourced, you would see that between China and the Taliban insurgency, there is an understanding as the Taliban do not attack Chinese businesses or investments. The majority of Afghanistan is under the control of the Afghan insurgency, and Chinese investments in these areas have been kept intact. China will does business with whomever is in power.

thats not true as china as gone back on its commitments based on security issues.

That is not accurate. Wikileaks confirms that US/NATO conduct cover ups when their choppers are shot down by the insurgents.

In regards to trends, several choppers have been shot down in Afghanistan by the Afghan insurgency this year and since as early as 2002- more so than chopper take downs in Iraq by the Iraqi insurgency. There is a trend, and it simply is brushed aside as "crashes" by both NATO, the Western press, and obviously those Western Karzai regime officials who support the NATO war- and the supporting pro-war expatriates living in the West who wish to live in denial.

one chopper shot down every few months does not count as a trend considering the amount of foreign aircraft flying in the air every day not to mention take offs and landings in what is considered enemy territory.

Actually, it was their choice to join it. China did not join the "international coalition" and were also not more powerful than the US unlike today.

these nations already had commitments to the west, this was no new alliance based on the occupation of afg. china was never a part of this party and never needed to be considering that unlike these small nations, it didn't need to maintain the good favor of the US based in aid, alliance commitments or military protection.

Actually, there no agreements in place. Musharaf simply turned over after supposedly receiving a threat from **** Armitage that Pakistan will be put back into the stone age.

pakistan has been a part of UN peace keeping missions since the 60s or 70s. surely there are agreements in place for such an arrangement considering that paki troops have been involved in african nations under UN mandate since before we were alive.

Israel did no support the US war in Iraq because they said it would bring a Shiite theocracy to power (which it did). They preferred Saddam in power.

There is no basis at all to claim that Israel supports the war in Afghanistan other than to believe the cliched Zionist mantra that the Jews are behind all the ills of the Muslim world. They are at most indifferent to the war. Israeli interests are not the same as US/Western interests , and never will be. Israel sole interest is to prevent another Holocaust from happening. They could care less about Western strategic objectives. That is the reason they dont participate in US/Western wars.

If you have not realized yet, the Israeli lobby has almost total control of the US Senate/Congress whereas the Arab/Muslim lobby has zero clout in the US Senate/Congress (no one cares about their concerns or votes). If Israel wanted to be a part of the US/NATO war in Afghanistan,they would have, and no Arab/Muslim allies in the Middle East could have stopped them- not Saudi, UAE, Turkey, etc.

it was the aipac hawks sponsered by israel that lobbied the hardest for the iraq war thinking it would bring upon an a western friendly democracy that would spread through the entire middle east.

as for the rest of your comment, that was what i was saying. israel has no strategic relationship to afghanistan, therefore it doesn't care about it, i feel you are flip flopping here. i don't know.

I have heard this before, and it is the same old Zionist mantra? So Israel's participation in a US war in Afghanistan would alienate the Muslim nations who are participating in a US war in Afghanistan? That implies that Muslim nations find US wars in the Middle East to be acceptable, but not Israeli ones. Again, as aforementioned, these Middle Eastern nations could do nothing if Israel chose to be a part of the US war strategy. Sure, they would complain, but at the end of the day they would fall in line because the US Senate/Congress answer to the Israeli AIPAC lobby over the petrodollar.

you are assuming all people of muslim nations are smart and in tune with political reality. karzai was surrounded by white american kafir bodyguards for years and legitimate but misguided muslims supported him, they would of never supported him if he was supported by mossad. to us it sounds ridiculous but this is the reality of muslims today, the saudi regime could rationalize the american presence on their land enough to survive but if they were israeli troops? get outta here, it would never fly.

basically, many muslims are not very bright and will support an evil they can rationalize but not another evil which they can't rationalize. then again, this doesn't only go for the pro america types but the taliban who have relations with iran despite its anti sunni stance domestically and its support of assad and his secularists abroad.

[Da Bannu Mazdigar]

What other choices Pakistan had?

I mean Pakistan was ally of USA ever since 60's,hell USA even prepared to attack India in 1971 before Russia entered into the scene.

NOTE:I don't suppor the Supply to go through Pakistan be it for NATO and even the Afghanistan govt civilian supply since they already has Iran route now open.