Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

‘We must do something about Pakistan'

GRAEME SMITH

From Saturday's Globe and Mail

Latest comment posted at 9:49 PM EDT 02/09/06

As suspicions about Pakistan's role in the Afghan war grow, the West seeks reassurance from Islamabad ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. sean smith from Georgetown, Canada writes: I can just hear former arms lobbyist O'Connor saying after we invade Pakistan: 'Kashmir, we have to do something about Kashmir'. Meanwhile, his ex-paymasters in the arms industries keep raking it in. At least they won't be able to use the lie about 'restoring democracy' since General Musharraf is their kind of dictator. Empires were built and destroyed on the same type of arrogance we're seeing from these warmongers.
  2. Craig Cooper from Toronto, writes: Pakistan created the Taliban (not the CIA, for all you anti-American freaks), so none of this is any surprise. India is the only democracy in the entire region.
  3. John Hanna from Taipei, Taiwan writes: What are ya' gonna do? With riots in Baluchistan, it is apparent that Pakistan is another weak link in the Bush's house of cards in the Islamic world.
  4. Hasan Bilgrami from Mississauga, Canada writes: The fact that Pakistan has done more than anyotehr country in the world throws more light on what Pakistan has done rather than ccomments of some God forsaken Afghan leader. The problem is, there is no writ of Government in Afghanistan and whatever is the Government, it os not owned by the most of the people. What explains the the consistent rise in Opium production in Afghanistan which is now producing 90% of the world output? The west needs to engage each and every stake holder in Afghanistan for a political solution. Otherwise with a President who relies on American army for his own security, we have no choice but to blame others. By the way, how about putting some blamce on Iran as well?
  5. lenny jones from Bangkok, Thailand writes: An Islamic nation with nukes and an unelected leader. Maybe it's the similarity to wackoland in those last 2 points that makes Pakistan so appealing to the chimp. Strange how the potential for mayhem to be caused by Pakistan is greater than the desert wastelands invaded and attacked by the U.S. yet there has been barely a mention of them by the mindless mainstream over the past number of years. There not one of the scary 'foreign' places we're supposed to be scared of so WE'RE NOT. (Cue sound of swarms of Con apes dutifully responding to instructions that they must be frightened NOW: OOOO- OOOOO- EEEEE-EEEEE- AHHHH-OOOO- OOOO-AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!)
  6. Silent Majority from London, Canada writes: Mr. O'Connor should have taken Jack Layton with him...........and left him there. The Taliban would have killed themselves............laughing.
  7. Firozali A. Mulla from Dar-Es-Sallaam, Tanzania writes: I agree. But what? They have the Afghanisatn border and Iran near by. Nusharaf does not care. He is waiting for the re-election. The idea sound sound great. The practice will cost a harvest of ten seasons
  8. Patrick L. Bishop from Calgary, Canada writes: Does the defense minister understand the notion of sovereignty? And, of Pakistan's sovereign rights?
  9. b g from Canada writes: So who is behind the Taliban in Afghanistan? Pakistani Taliban? Pakistan's secret service? Pakistan's madrassas? Pakistan's JUI? Perhaps a little of all of the above? Does it make any sense then to pour Canadian lives and taxpayer money into Afghanistan, while at the same time the US sells arms to Pakistan and gives them access to more nuclear technology? And I seem to remember some news last year that Pakistan had sold nuclear centrifuges to Iran, that Pakistan's chief scientist sold nuclear technology to certain 'rogue states'. Did the US in effect reward this by permitting Pakistan even more nuclear technology? Is the idea to not let WMD's get into the wrong hands, in which case none of this makes much sense, or is it for the US to sell more arms to any willing buyer, or for the US to have a strategic military foothold in the area? And if General Musharraf's coalition is requiring more JUI support, is this suggestive of yet another potential 'blowback' where US-intervention creates bigger problems down the line, like with Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein? Given all the unanswered questions, Jack Layton's call to withdraw the troops seems wise.
  10. E E from Petite Amertume, Canada writes: Is there any part of the Pakistani frontier that isn't a permeable membrane for armed insurgents and their supporters? Maybe we ought to start to referring to Pakistan in the plural and concede that there isn't one unitary state. Maybe see Pakistan as a quasi-failed state. I have to wonder if the recent events in Balochistan have anything to do with attempts to make things more difficult for the Taliban to operate from Pakistan. The Pakistani security forces killed a rebel tribal chief in rather spectacular fashion. This may just be about undermining challenges to the central government and nothing more, but I am curious. There seems to be an attempt to fight certain kinds of extremism inside Pakistan, but there's no question in my mind that Pakistan is playing a double or even triple game where Afghanistan is concerned. They've done it to the Americans for nearly 30 years and they're giving us the same treatment now. How can Canada look across a table at Commonwealth meetings and smile unreservedly at our counterparts from Pakistan? We've put a lot of Canadian men and women in harm's way in Afghanistan and I think it's reasonable to expect that neighbouring countries like Pakistan are doing everything they can (from inside their borders, at the very least) to help us. I do not get the impression that Pakistan is doing that. Canada treats Pakistan rather well in terms of foreign relations, commercial relations, immigration, etc. Maybe the time has come to reassess our relationship with this country.
  11. Ordinary Kanuk from Kingston, Ont, Canada writes: First we had the NDP leader suggesting to negociate with the Talibans, now the Minister of Defense wants to cross the border and fight the Talibans on Parkistan soil??? As an ordinary citizen I am concerned...about the state of leadership in Canada. Are all our elected representatives smoking something? O'Connor I hope will remember that before invading Pakistan his government will have to allow a debate in the Parliament of Canada on the whole issue.
  12. Scot Loucks from Pickering, writes: Pakistan is dangerous. Osama is somewhere in the mountains there, they have shared nuclear technology with Iran, they are supporting the Taliban, and they are supposed to be our Allies? This world is getting very scary.
  13. B Johnson from Hfx, Canada writes: Yes. Let's bomb the beegeezes out of Pakistan too. Don't forget to pack your cluster bombs, chemical weapons (white phospherous) and mini nukes. While we're at it, let's get Syria, Iran, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the EAU. Then who do we go after? The Russians? The French? Our own people when we run out of targets? Jack Layton's comments are making more and more sense to me amidst all this war mongering madness.
  14. mujtaba khan from chicago, United States writes: This article quotes a lot of word of mouth sources and information which is not proven in any judicial system. Why is that while there is so much material availible that there are basically no trials and convictions of those arrested. Most of the readers in west do not follow up on a lot of stories which get media attention one week and then totally disappear the following. Pakistan should stay away from other countries' problem because it tries to do good but is always blamed by others. Pakistan gave refuge to approximately 3.5 million Afghans when their country was invaded and then tried to establish a government when they were going through civil war. It does not mean that there were no strategic advanteges for Pakistan but what did it gain from all this, an unthankful response. Smilarily now Pakistan is trying to help west in its fight but the more it does the less it is appriciated and the more is asked. I think Pakistan should just stay out of all this.
  15. john stockton from Canada, Canada writes: So what does this article have to do with the title? There was no mention of Canadian troops in Pakistan or O'Connor wanting to put troops there.....
  16. Clive Gingell from Ottawa, Canada writes: Pakistan, even with Musharraf, is a major problem, there are many, many terror supporters within the country, some, I suspect, in positions of authority/influence. Most of the 'home grown' British terrorists are of Pakistani origin, and madrassas, generating more fanatics, flourish freely in Pakistan. However, Pakistan without Musharraf would be an global disaster. In the not-impossible event of an Islamist coup Pakistan's nukes would be freely available to terrorists everywhere. Fortunately for the West, under such circumstances, India would be forced to intervene.
  17. Robert Billyard from Mission, Canada writes: O'Connor is finally starting to get the message why this war is unwinnable. Taking the war into Pakistan is going to require a huge further deployment and also is a very dangerous escalation and could destabilize Pakistan as there is much anti-Western sentiment there. Fools continue to rush in where angels fear to tread. O'Connor and Company had better start being more honest with Canadians- the quagmire only deepens.
  18. subhashis nag from Toronto, Canada writes: Despite Musharraf's pronouncements of being an ally in the war on terror, Pakistan is now the biggest source and smallest suppressor or Jihadi terror.Terror strikes across the world have often been attributed to Islamic terrorists aided and abetted by Pakistan.The recent detection of the trans-Atlantic bomb plot should fool no-one.It is very easy to plan a terror act and then hand over the suspects to foreign governments and then claim to be a terror cracker.The problem with the west is that for decades it has been ignoring Pakistan's role in nurturing Islamic terror.The west turned a blind eye so long as the terror was directed against India and often went out of its way to draw parallels between Muslim terrorists and freedom seekers.Now that Islamic hatred is striking at the white men, the west has taken note.Problem is that terror is so deeply ingrained in Pakistan, it will be impossible for the west to exorcise it.Jihadists are indoctrinated from a very early age to slaughter non-believers in pursuit of a place in paradise.In Pakistan, boys as young as six start getting indoctrinated at madressas.The terror infrastructure is huge and no government can dare to dismantle it.The government also sees little incentive in breaking terror except for the occassional arrests to please the west.Pakistan knows that the western forces will be Afghanistan shortly and therefater it will play its ususal game. Meanwhile its ruthless acts of violence continues aginst India.The west, as usual, will turn a blind eye to atrocities against India.Given this blow hot, blow cold attitude against Islamic terror, I doubt whether any western power can do anything to destroy Pakistan based terror.
  19. Dan Wurster from Abu Dhabi, writes: Has no one read any history books? The entire area between Afghanistan and Pakistan used to be the same area. The line on the map separating the two countries was drawn by the British, as many lines on maps have been over the past few hundred years. Its as if someone came into Ontario and drew a line between Toronto and Kitchener and said that the area to the south was Ont land and the area to the north was Tario land. Just drawing the line doesn't change relationships, especially long-standing tribal relationships. The people in many of those border areas don't consider themselves either Pakistani or Afgahinstani people. They are tribal members first. And when you have no electricity, no schools, no road, then the only thing you have left are your tribal allegiances. What we need to be doing about Pakistan is giving these people some hope. Not threatening them.
  20. jc pomerleau from Montreal, Canada writes: According to a journalist and film maker (Kandahar), Nesfer Pazuna, a women who walk (in a burka) the place in, Kandahar is lost because the population are fed up with the corrupt pro WEST gouvernement and they prefered the talibans to rule and discipline the gouvenement. She was told that about 80% of the population support the taliban and that allthough they find the Canadian kind of sympathic they say that the will lost and dye for nothing. Yes Pakistan is the safe heven for the taliban every one know that, specialy the US whom have create the talibans (freedom fighters)in the first place with back up of the wahabites to fight the russians communists invasion. The conclusion of Mss Nesfer Pazura in an interview in La Presse (Montreal) is that Canadians stand no chance to make a differrence in Afghanistan because it was baddly manage from the start by Us who did nt have a clear strategy to win the suport of the population.
  21. Judah Nanneti from Toronto, Canada writes: Pakistan has been playing a major role in terrorism with lot of financial support (specially Saudi Arabia in order to spread islam financed schools and mosques and most of the funding received was diviated towards training camps with or without the knowledge of Saudi kingdom) from lot of muslim nations. Pakistan will never acknowledge the problem because of political problems within its borders. Most of the world's wanted terrorists are being sheltered in Pakistan and Pakistani government knows it and their (terrorists) where abouts are known to Pakistani intelligence. Pakistan can catch/kill these terrorists if it wants to in short time but it won't because of various reasons. First reason is flow of funds from west and second is political instability. Pakistani leaders are pretending to fight terrorism and some times killing/handing one of the low key figures to make the world leaders happy. Fact is Pakistan has to do lot more to prove to the world that it is playing a major role eliminating terrorism. Judah
  22. anu bose from ottawa, Canada writes: I am so glad to read the quotes from Ahmed Rashid in the article. His works should be rquired reading for NGOs, politicians, government officials, ambassadors, army officers es. politicians.
  23. Jo Geoghegan from Hearts Delight, Canada writes: And the stark reality is that it's Pakistan that has the nuclear weapon, not Iran! Now if or, as is more likely, when the Islamofacists take over government in Pakistan..............
  24. Judah Nanneti from Toronto, Canada writes: If Pakistan agrees to allow western forces in its trobled areas then it would take about a week to eliminate all the terrorists. Judah
  25. dallas mcquarrie from Regina, Canada writes: With allies like Pakistan, who needs enemies? We ought not to forget that the U.S. as well as Pakistan did much to arm, support and help the Taliban seize power back in the old days when they were 'on our side' in Afghanistan. By now everyone who isn't asleep at the wheel also knows who first gave Saddam Hussein the assistance and weaponry that despot needed to seize power. It is always amazing to me how tyrants and dictators are 'good guys' when they ally themselves with the west, and 'bad guys' when they don't. The 'axis of evil' in the world that George Bush talks about runs straight through Pakistan. The problems that the U.S. has been encountering in attempting to maintain is hegemony in the Middle East are largely of its own making. If we want democracy to flourish in the Middle East, it behooves the West to support democratic movements there - not arm whack jobs like the Taliban and Saddam's Bath Party to the teeth one day because they're our allies and go to war with them the next because they've stopped being our friends. The despicable acts of tyrants in countries from Latin America to the Middle East, and all points in between, remain despicable whether those tyrants are western allies or not. A tree is known by its fruits. So long as the West, led by the U.S., is willing to tolerate dictators elsewhere, but only as long as they serve our geo-political interests, the West can have no credibility in its ringing calls for democracy. Governments who align themselves with dictators can hardly proclaim themselves the champions of democracry anymore than hookers can effectively campaign for chastity.
  26. Peter Parker from Kingston, Canada writes: As the Taliban insurgency grows in southern Afghanistan, so do suspicions about Pakistan's role in the war. Afghans tend to blame their old nemesis for everything wrong in their country, but their accusations about the Taliban finding money, shelter, weapons and fighters on the other side of the border are getting more specific these days....................This point should provide clarity as to who we're fighting-it's not Afghans. In fact Afghanistan's president recently pleaded with NATO to send more troops in order to help secure his country. As Canadians we can cut and run as Jack Layton suggests. We can quit NATO as former NDP leader Ed Broadbent once suggested. We can play the pretend game by suggesting we have a lot of influence in the world - joke. Or we can pull together,get through the remainder of our committment and then get the hell out of there.
  27. Gerry Dunnhaupt from Toronto, Canada writes: 'O'Connor wants Canadian troops in Pakistan' -- is that so? Shouldn't the question be: do the Pakistanis want Canadian troops in Pakistan? How would we like it when we have another bout of political unrest in Canada, if the Pakistanis were to send in their troops?
  28. Paul Jay from Ottawa, Canada writes: Yes! It's time to take the war against the insurgents to their safe havens in Cambodia, er, um, I mean Pakistan. Canada can only win this war if we cut the guerillas supply lines through Laos, er, I mean Pakistan. When Canada achieves these goals we will triumph in Vietnam. Sorry, did I say Vietnam? I meant Afghanistan.
  29. Paul Jay from Ottawa, Canada writes: Oh goody, just in case we haven't completely destroyed our reputation in the Muslim world by being boot-lickers for the U.S. and Israel, now lets send our troops to occupy Pakistan.
  30. John MacDonald from Toronto, Canada writes: Pakistan was and still is Bin Laden territory. In almost all stories about terrorists they flew to Pakistan for training or meetings with support people. The former mujahedeen warrior is correct. Bin Laden should not be allowed to operate from Pakistan.
  31. Mahmoud Parsa from Tehran, Canada writes: Poof, after a while I could fing some new fliter breaker softwares again ! Happy to read the news paper again !I was so starving, I;, gonna let myself out ! Why would anybody do anything about Pakistan? Their current regime has a pretty good relationship with US.Even when Pakistanies 100% supported Taliban during the war agaist North Afhan( persian Afghans) and massacred them, it was ok for US. They already have Nukes and are not even in NPT (Just like Israel)but thats no problem either because at the present time their dictatorship(like most Arab countries in the Region) has a pretty good relationship with US.They were even have been admired when they executed 12 Iranian embassadors in north Afhaghanistan as spies!I dont agree with the whole US attitudes but helping Iran get rid of Saddam without another war and hopefully decresing the influence of extremism in Pakistani people (Dont look at Parviz mosharaf which I believe is a wise man but 70-80% of Pakies are real Muslims which (with no offence) means real Extemists!)Iran is seekin for a Nuclear bomb not being scared of being attacked with a democratic and wise contry like Israel, Iran wants the bomb just in case somday Paki extrimists gain power in Pakistan and try to get rid of the worst infidels who surprisingly are niether Jews nor christian but Shia's and even worst followers of Zarathustra in Persia!!
  32. margo reid from winnipeg, Canada writes: Rashid is correct, which is the key reason why Canada must restrain itself from providing nuclear technology to countries who may soon use it against Canada as the current conflict escalates.
  33. Michael Richardson from Montreal, Canada writes: Does anyone remember the history of the Roman Empire and the general reasons for its decline. As it expanded into regions where control was harder to establish, due to the diminishing ability to quickly communicate and transport goods and military units to and from Rome, it became increasingly vulnerable to defeat by unorganized Barbarian tribes (Vandals, Goths, Visigoths, Gauls, etc.). Eventually Rome ended up throwing far too many of its resources into far flung areas which were both of limited value and consequence. Eventually this exhausted most of its resources and left it's main cities strained and almost literally abandoned. I prefer the strategy of the English. Establish and hold on important commercial, industrial and transportation centers, and then promote trade and the creation of wealth amongst local merchants and governments. Use these allies and trade avenues to exert further cultural and socio-political influence on the surrounding countryside. Use history, please do not think that wandering into the mountains of northern Pakistan and southern Afghanistan is going to somehow convert poeple from orthodox Islamic beliefs with some great epiphany on the advantages of Western values of democracy and freedom, while your holding a gun in their face and dropping bombs on their heads. Hold the major cities and highways in and the country and ensure their safety first. Leave the countryside to determine it's own fate. Make the lives of those in the cities better by investing in infrastructure such as hospitals, schools, universities, roads and places to play. Build trade ties with Canada, the US and other Western nations by investing and producing things in Afghan cities with Afghan labour. Build relationships with local leaders and businessman based on your integrity in commerce, trade and humanitrianism. Finally, do not expect the Afghans to change radically, as they have a vastly different culture, and will never bow down to yours as superior.
  34. Sparrow Hawk from Toronto, Canada writes: I still stand by my convictions, as I have written in my previous posts, that Pakistan (with it's nuclear arsenal) is more dangerous than Iran. It only takes one election to put a man, similar to Saddam Hussein, in power in Pakistan. There are a lot of groups within the country who would like the U.S. out of the Middle East at any cost.
  35. S W from ontario, Canada writes: You CANNOT calm, colonize, straighten out or conquer a land that patently does NOT want it that way. It would have to be a VERY small land, an island, and some kind of Medieval genocide would be needed also. These ways are and should remain in the past. So what is left??? The citizens HAVE TO be aiding in the war exercise. They can't just want it, or be styled in the media or in noble thoughts as needing a change for the better. This IS the big difference between this new war lunacy and the WW2, Germany wanted Hilter and the Nazi's out. Shortly after the troops showed up the war WAS over, there wasn't this resurgent stuff. The populace aided the Allies thousands of times and in those small ways that civilans can: shorting marauding troops of food. Prostitues were known to wreck the boot laces of the troops that abused them. I don't see any support for this war and this possible Pakistan add-on in the news. The diplomats shouldn't be the real or sole head of the movement, the populace should be. UN missionary reports of atrocities or what have they, are NOT enough. The civilian populace has to aid and be seen to aid. And what are the politicians going to do if they find that Pakistan was housing Bin Laden, perhaps all along? 'sorry, that was our radical faction!'. Other countries, Britian, US and Canada wouldn't get away with that. They'd be expected to root them out! But, this 'sit back' IS the real disaster. There are thousands in any of these countries that are not dealing with recent dead and bombed out homes. Aren't these potential supporters part of these HORDS feared by the US? Which way is it???
  36. Doug Dyson from Toronto, Canada writes: Changing the scope of the mission.
  37. chris jenkins from Rock of the Westies, Canada writes: As a Muslim nation, Pakistan will be, despite any attempts to mask the fact for the timebeing, an enemy of all non-Muslim countries. War is coming folks: good thing you Lefties and your families are going to be protected by all those hated right-wingers.
  38. harry carnie from Telkwa, British Columbia, Canada writes: Why bother?...nothing was done about Saudi Arabia`s involvement in 9/11
  39. Ron MacGillivray from Flatbush, Alberta, writes: One of the things complicating this affair is that Afghanistan is one of those artificial countries that was created by the Europeans where different ethnic groups who normally had very little to do with each other were thrown into the same boat and told to row. The Pushtans now found themselves as part of two countries. If the Taliban/Pushtans appear to be crossing into Afghanistan from Pakistan it is because they do not recognize this border. One other point. We keep thinkng that the President of Pakistan has nothing to do all day but sit by the phone waiting for orders from George or Steve. The truth is he's probably so busy trying to save his own political skin that our demands are #12 on his priority list.
  40. Yvonne Wackernagel from Woodville.Ontario, Canada writes: Since before the last election the U.S. Government, even the Democrats have known that Bin laden is in China, that he walked with 50 guerilla mujaheddin East towards Cachemira and from there crossed the Zaskar mountains to China, where he lives with 5 million Muslims, received excellent medical care, and keeps his agreement for relatively quiet existence whilst the Muslims who live there are allowed to continue their trafficking of humans and drugs. Over the years, tens of thousands of troops of the Popular Liberation Armee had been sent to the region with the intent to squash the insurgents: now they have peace as long as Bin Laden gets to live happily ever after. Do you think Beijing will negotiate with Washington? Gordon Thomas, a journalist with contacts in the most important intelligence services wrote this in El Mundo on the 13th day of Odtober 2004. Check it out, and stop listening to the American lies about them not being able to find Bin Laden.
  41. W M from Canada writes: While it makes sense to keep pushing the Musharraff (sp?) to crack down, it's not clear that he has the ability to do so in a meaningful way at this point, even if he has the will. If he can't, our only other option is to a) continue to defeat the Taliban wherever we engage them, in order to drive home the message that military resistance is (relatively) futile; and b) do everything possible to bring the largest possible majority of the Afghan population on board (that means doing everything possible to accelerate an improvement in their everyday lives and to avoid casualties to locals, which could alienate them from our troops, if not their cause). If we can continue to build support among Pashtun Afghans, eventually that will start to affect the desire of average Pashtun's in Pakistan to engage in the fight. In fact, one measure that might be worth considering is create teams of envoys that include Afghan Pashtuns, Pakastani government representatives and NATO representatives to visit villages and towns in neighbouring Pakistan to try to persuade them that the best thing they can do for their Afghan cousins is to stop the fighting and allow them to rebuild. As it's unlikely that we can cause the JUI leadership to change its views in the near term, we need to rely on strategies that will make it harder for them to recruit foot soldiers.
  42. Sylvain Racine from Montreal, Canada writes: Today on www.cyberpresse.ca, there is a thruthfull article saying 'Canadians are not going to win the war. And will die for no reason.' This is the translation of a quote said by Nelofer Pazira, a Canado-Afghan film director and journalist who has jut came back from Afghanistan. She says that 95% of the Afghans back the talibans. They have pity of Canadians soldiers because they will al die. A sure thing is that she also think that it is important to get troops in Pakistan, otherwise there is no hope to win the war. Mainly, through the interview she had withCyberpresse's André Noel, we understand that Canada has absolutely nothing to do in Afghanistan. She has seen there before Canada took over the US Army and after and thinks that the situation has never been as worse as it is now. So, take note of this article and when soldiers will fall like leaves in automn, read it and hate your politicians and people around you who voted for them.
  43. Alec Owen from Canada writes: Thank you. Now the whole thing is very clear. This is a pig's breakfast. Do our esteemed leaders realize that? Let's go now rather than be accused of being forced out later. This really isn't our fight.
  44. Zando Lee from Vancouver, Canada writes: ...Oh Gordie...take it from me...asking Pakistan help control the Taleban is like asking Evil Knevil to park your new car!!!....as for Generalisimo Musharif, the poor guy is doing all the appeasing he could to stave off being blown to bits by powerful elements within his own country....face it Gordie!!! the only safe place for our boys and girls is back here in Canada.....bring them home now!!!!
  45. Mean Machine from Salmon Arm, Canada writes: I dont think its in Pakistan's interest to see a thriving Afghanistan after all don't they hold afghan territory known in Pakistan as the northern territories.
  46. Gill P from BC, Canada writes: There are tribal groups in Wijiristan and Baluchistan who do not recognise the Musharaff government. Human rights abuses of people in these areas are well documented. Add to this these comments from todays New York times on the subject of the 50% increase in opium production... 'One province in the north, Badakhshan, where there is no problem of an insurgency, also had a significant increase in poppy cultivation. Mr. Costa attributed that mostly to the lack of government control and the presence of powerful warlords and corrupt local officials. A substantial drought also played a part, because no alternative crop could survive even though the poppies did. While the government had improved its performance at eradication of the poppy crop, it had failed to do enough to apprehend traffickers and corrupt officials, he said.' This leaves me wondering who exactly are the Taleban people that NATO is bombing, warlords, corrupt officials, poor farmers? All of the above? That Canada is in this mess and wishes to expand into Pakistan seems to me unwise.
  47. Paul Aparycki from St. jean sur Richelieu, Canada writes: Decisions, decisions . . . now, do we invade Pakistan first? or Iran? . . . Syria can't be far down the list, and how long before Georgie and Stevie decide, ah, what the hell . . . let's go to Saudi Arabia . . . then on to further east . . . we can do Indonesia, Brunei . . . they are all oil-rich AND Muslim . . . but wait, we will have to bring back conscription . . . ooooohhhh! the plan is brilliant . . . we will all be over there somewhere slaughtering anyone who isn't Christian or Jewish and there will be no one left here in Canada . . . the terrorists will have no one left to attack here!!!!! PROBLEM SOLVED!!!!
  48. M PETERSON from Canada writes: Jo Geoghegan from Hearts Delight, Canada writes: 'And the stark reality is that it's Pakistan that has the nuclear weapon, not Iran! Now if or, as is more likely, when the Islamofacists take over government in Pakistan..............' What about the possibility that the Christofascists and the Zionazis take over the governments of the nuclear-capable United States and Israel? Perhaps you fail to mention this possibility because you believe it has already happened..............
  49. F Siddique from Saskatoon, Canada writes: To all the blind sheep that just regurgitate everything they hear from neocons and right wing media... Why the heck would The taliban cooperate with the government of Pakistan? If you may remember, the government of Pakistan propped the Taliban up, which later governed Afghanistan. Then at the behest of the USA, Pakistan betrayed the Taliban by allowing the USA to use its airspace and bases to bombard and attack the Taliban. For over three years, the government of Pakistan has been fighting a bloody guerrilla war in the tirbal areas (Waziristan, Balochistan) trying to establish the writ of law, which even the Brits were never able to do. Why on earth would the Taliban and the government of Pakistan be helping each other otu after such mutual treachery?
  50. F Siddique from Saskatoon, Canada writes: Stop blaming everything on Pakistan. Pakistan allowed the USA to use its airspace, bases and infrastructure to attack the Taliban in Afghanistan. Pakistan continually reels in and delivers more 'Al Qaeda' terrorists and leaders than anyone else. Pakistan's army is engaged ina bloody battle to control tribal militants on its Afghan border. Just ebcause some second generation Brits of Pakistani ancestry are accused of a bomb plot, doesn't mean that it is related to the people of government of Pakistan. That's just like saying that all Irish/Scottish should be blamed for the terror of Timothy McVeigh.
  51. john cotter from Vancouver Island, Canada writes: There should be no sympathy for this 'problem'. The dictator of Pakistan is called a 'president' by the West. He is there because the West WANTS him there. Too bad that most of the world is run by dictators. . . . but . . . there you are. Just don't bother pretending that the West all of a sudden 'has concerns'. Only right-wingers are stupid enough to believe THAT.
  52. Ken Woodwords from Ottawa, Canada writes: Go ahead Mr. O'Connor help Pakistan in Nuclear Technology (Sep1 G&M article 'Pakistan wants nuclear bargain') in return to allow Canadian troops chase Taliban in Pakistani territory. Are you out of your mind? What happened to all the rhetoric that we must prevent terrorists to acquire the dirty bomb? Pakistan is a hornet’s nest for Islamic fundamentalism with nuclear technology. Musharraf is hanging there with oppressive military force. It won't take long that we will see his demise and an Islamic government take his place. Do you remember how Taliban came into power? But no problem for conservative minds when the time comes we will send our young men and women to die to protect us from dirty bomb. How soon did you forget the Pakistani scientist who sold cheap nuclear technology to Iran and other countries? Oh I forgot we need jobs in Canada in the nuclear sector too.
  53. M Phillips from Canada writes: India will take care of Pakistan if the Pakastani decide to elect a strict fundamentalist government. India will not tolerate such a group existing on its borders with access to nuclear technology. I agree with those posters concerning how Islamic governments would behave against secular states. Islam is a problem that we need to deal with.
  54. Alec Owen from Canada writes: I guess our friend Mr Layton is an optimist whereas there are loads of pessimists around and also a load of people who for their own private reasons wish this whole dog's breakfast to continue. In actual fact the Taliban is also fed up and have been making peace overtures. Layton who is more clued in than most of the people who reads the G&M knows this. The Lord said 'Let there be light'. He might have added in Tory (aka Liberal) heads.
  55. Robert Rose from Mont-Royal, Canada writes: Does anybody have a clue how far that will take us, with our tiny ill- equipped army? Some poor frog of ours is obviously trying to become as big as an ox! 'Drea-eaea-eaeam... dream, dream, dream...'
  56. J Scully from Kincardine, Canada writes: When will this end? When every nation is waving the red white and blue?
  57. admore inches from Canada writes: Pakistan is just as effective in battling terror as the US and Saudi Arabia are. Some of our so called "friends" in the war on terror are just as dirty and corrupt as the US.
  58. Saleem Farooqi from Toronto, writes: If Pakistan can be accused of creating Taliban, which is grossly exaggerated, India MUST be accounted for creating LTTE terrorists in Sri Lanka which are a cause of civil war in that tiny country for years. India is still training and supplying arms to LTTE, a declared terrorist group. The whole West including Canada has the criminal record of supplying nuclear technology and fuel to India that started nuclear arms race in South Asia by exploding a nuclear device back in 1974 and later in 1998. Now the US has entered into a pact to provide highly advanced nuclear technology to India, who is also a non-signatory to NPT. While Iran’s arms are being twisted despite that country being a signatory to the NPT! Good example of West’s moral standards here? As for Canada and Pakistan, Canada refused fuel supply for a small 137 MW civil nuclear reactor in Karachi right after it was set up. Later in 1978, France, under immense US pressure, backed down from a signed deal with Pakistan to supply a nuclear reactor under UN safeguards. But Pakistan managed to acquire nuclear technology on its own and this is indigestible for the West and its allies including India and Israel. As regards transfer of nuclear technology, who supplied that technology to Russia, Israel and India? It has been the entire West including US, Canada and Europe. According to reports that did appear in the US press, India is confirmed having supplied technology to Iran and Iraq. What action has been taken against India? In the first place who the hell gives the right to the West to stop nations from acquiring nuclear technology? And who has used the nuclear bombs against humans? The only effective way left for Muslim nations to contain the imperialist designs of the US and its Western allies including Europe, Israel and India is to go nuclear. A nuclear Iran and one nuclear country in the Arab and South American region is badly needed to provide the much needed balance.

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to top