Will the world help Pakistan? (Update: No!)

...

"The world" isn't concerned with anything unless the blame can be put on the U.S. or Israel.

Seems like it.

But Pakistanis are human beings too. And they didn't start it, the Taliban did.

I'm surprised the US hasn't been blamed for this yet, at least not to my knowledge. It's only a matter of time though.

As long as Obama is President no civilian deaths in any conflict the US are involved in will be your fault.

...

obama was saying that we must root out taliban from pakistan, and that since the pakistany government is not cooprerating, we should just do it anyways and if needed invade pakistan ourselfs to root out the taliban.. Go rewatch the third debate.

So from promises of going to war with pakistan just to root out the taliban within its borders, to not aiding them against such an invasion is a really large and far reaching step. Damn that guy is such a failure as a president.

PS. to be frank, i consider it another broken promise by obama. A quite major one at that. I was hoping he will not start a war with pakistan to root out the taliban, but now the taliban are out in the open trying to take over the country and he isn't assisting them.

I hope "the World" (aka the US, UK, and Australia), are prepared to do something if a nuclear Pakistan falls to the Taliban and Al Quada.

don't worry, they have prepared a firm statement and a story that somehow blames this on bush.

oh who am i kidding, they will celebrate it as a great move towards "equality" and demand / declare further disarmaments of the western powers.

I just think it's interesting to observe the different reactions of the world.

When Gaza starts a war with Israel and Israel fires back, the world is upset and sends billion of dollars to rebuild Gaza.

But when Pakistan starts a war with the Taliban and the Taliban overruns Pakistan, the world is silent.

Nobody cares about Pakistan. They are not Arabs. The world only cares about Arabs. Why?

because all cultures are equal, therefore the failure of islam can only come about through their explotation, through the bigotry of others, and through their oppression.

Their failures and evil is positive proof that they are being oppressed and exploited.

To liberals that is, which are most of the western world. The rest of the world... well, if someone came and started preaching about veganism, would you try to explain basic biology to them or would you just roll your eyes and keep quiet?

Then you have the minority in the western world of intelligent and responsible people who care... and they are labeled potential terrorists by their governments (any gun owner in britain, any republican in the USA accord to napoliatano, the head of the department of homeland security) and are not exactly seen as the voice of the people.

We care leuki, and we are the ONLY ones who cares.

It's funny because the left used to be all about some cultures being better than others.

In the old days your left-winger was convinced that 1. some societies are better than others, 2. socialism is a better society, and 3. all societies should become socialist. That MEANT something back then.

Interesting you rush to racism as the cause, but I don't think that's the reason. If you declare Pakistan a failed state, you basically say India is right. Remember both governments hate each other and both are nuclear armed. It's not a matter of an alleged bully state (as Israel is sometimes perceived) but two massive brawlers, one of whom is dying quickly and might just reach for the red button in its death throes.

In addition Pakistan was encouraged to harbour terrorists in its northern reaches in the 1980s, for various geopolitical reasons that no doubt seemed completely valid at the time. Now that it's coming back to bite the non-communist world I'd say there's a fair bit of embarrassment about talking about it at all.

In summary, it doesn't get as much press because a) Pakistan is a serious nuclear war risk and b ) everyone knows who's a contributory factor here and no one wants to admit any amount of responsibility by speaking out about the problems there.

Why is this specifically Australia's problem? The US and the UK are major causes of the current Pakistan situation, so I can understand them having a major role to play, but I don't see why Australia has any responsibility. We're over there because our larger, more powerful allies are incapable of thinking further than the next election and our government sees slavish obedience to US foreign policy as a must for ensuring Australian sovereignty.

Caring is doing, taltamir. What have you done for Pakistan's forgotten millions recently?

EDIT: Can I just say how annoying it is that b ) is a smiley? What does this actually add to anything?

I am not declaring Pakistan a failed state. I am merely declaring it a forgotten state.

And India has nothing to do with this.

Gaza harboured terrorists too. But that doesn't stop the world from crying and paying when something happens to the poor people there.

I'm also not sure if the Mujahedeen were strictly "terrorists". They did fight the Russian military after all. I don't know enough about that conflict to judge strategies.

Not suggesting Australia play if it doesn't want too, but it will have to continue on living in the same general neighborhood. I guess Bali is a distant memory there today. Isolationism is great until trouble knocks on your door. Maybe if you don't upset them, they will let you live in piece. Funny how we (US, UK, and Aus.) all look alike to the extremists.

the pakistani military--specifically their isi intelligence agency--provided training, support, arms & supplies to the afghan taliban for years in order to destabilize afghanistan.  unfortunately for everyone but the taliban, the isi apparently neglected to consider pushtun tribal allegiance on its side of the border.

if the us hadn't abandoned afghanistan after using it as our proxy to defeat the ussr and had instead helped rebuild and normalize the place afterwards, the taliban likely be nothing more today than another bunch of backwoods religious nuts.  by the same token, if we hadn't deserted somalia after the cold war, there would prolly be no pirates of east africa.

finally, if we hadn't been distracted and drained by our adventure in iraq, we mighta finished what we were doing in afghanistan 8 years ago, there'd likely be one less failed state in the region in which al quaeda could find refuge.

the essential homeland security question should never be "how long since we were last attacked?" but "how many fewer or more places are there to provide a harbor for those who want to attack us?"

how bout them uighurs? they're possibly not islamic terrorists because they're fighting the chinese military?  or the chechnyans?  not terrorists cuz they fighting the russians?

how about the group who blew up the king david hotel? not terrorists because???

King David hotel was a military base at the time.

(Not that I excuse the attack. But it's not the same as attacking a school or a hospital or other civilian structure.)

True.

I agree. However, there were always the "end the war" crowd who wanted the US to retreat.

See what I mean?

On the other hand the current Iraq works and the Al-Qaeda base that used to be there is gone.

The US can stay or run away, but it cannot listen to the "anti-war" crowd AND keep the barbarians under control.

So quickly people forget the Mumbai bombings, carried out - according to the evidence at hand - by Pakistani terrorists (possibly even ISI trained/supported). If you think the conversion to Islamic fundamentalism of a major bordering power isn't an extremely important issue to the Indians, you should think again. If Pakistan isn't fixed, the relationship with India will continue to deteriorate, and Pakistani-sourced terrorism within Indian borders will eventually be responded to with excessive force - much like if a nuclear Mexico started blowing up movie stars in California and oil ranchers in Texas.

We don't all look alike - Australians, Canadians, the Irish and New Zealanders can travel freely in places where Americans and Brits would be beaten on site. Where the accent doesn't work, 'kangaroo' does. (except I'm guessing in Afghanistan these days, where our SAS has apparently revived Project Phoenix). But that's by the by. Australians will fight beside Americans because of ANZUS, and I'm not going to do anything about that. Still, it's more India's problem than Australia's.

What are you talking about? This isn't about India. I was solely writing about the situation in Pakistan. I don't think the majority of the Pakistani population supported the terror attacks in Mumbai  and the attack of the Taliban is not in retaliation for that attack.

Pakistan won't be fixed if we allow the Taliban to take over.

They still do, they just pretend that socialism isn't an aspect of society, but merely a .... i don't know what they pretend that it is.

who uses the term geopolitical? really? That is like a lithmus test for BS.

Yes, I, a college student living in poverty (legally speaking, heh, poverty in the USA is pretty rich living lemme tell you) in a country where politically affiliating with the republican country means you are a potential terrorist to the ones in power (see napoliatano and barak obama) will use the awesome might at my disposal to aid pakistan...

This is why I have abandoned the failed concepts of humility and rejecting power. the sad thing is that for generations men in my family have done great things and have had powerful connections. And we are raised to beleive humility is good and power corrupts and thus must be avoided. It is amazing how every ounce of wealth was donated, every ounce of power rejected...

Anyways, I am musing, I plan on accumulating as much power as possible and never refusing a promotion, rank increase, or a higher powered position, but until I actually am in a position to do something, I can only talk.

Update...

Are there many protesters worried about the civilian victims of Pakistan's military action against the terrorists?

Why not?