Anza_A fair argument to my point would be that for GWOT anyway, Pakistan has killed off a lot of bad guys for us. A lot. And with good ground forward air controllers ( GFACs ) A JDAM carrying jet like the F-16 is really very very handy for ops. Big time.
Well, yeah, sort of. The Pakistanis have reluctantly participated but not to the degree one would like to see. Internally, I do not believe the population is supportive of anti-terrorist initiatives…Musharraf only for the most part to keep the U.S. happy.
F-16s in just about any shape are a qualitative jump in their inventory as it is. And, after the eery similarities between the -16 and the JH-17, I’m not sure we can trust Pakistan with much without it finding it’s way into China’s hands.
Additionally, the U.S. is (rightly in my opinion) moving further toward India as our primary partner in the region…….democratic, facing the same issue with islamic terrorism, and anti-China. Providing their arch-enemy with nuclear capable airplanes isn’t good for future plans.
usa funded the lavi program in israel—which was supposed to be super-f16–its whole production line was sold to the chinese—not to mention the technicians that camped outside chengdu “as cultural ataches” to help the chinese in its j-10. That where the chinese got the f16 technology—but ofcourse no one in the usa can say a word about the zionists–instead lump all the blame on pakistan.
as for india and all that —i am not going to denigrate india—if usa wants india in place of pakistan—-they can have india- No skin off any pakistanis nose.
Anza_Anzaaa, Mods banned you for a reason. Dont give them another one.
If you are banned stay out. Using alternate ID’s is again a crime. 😉
Mods he owns up, what more do you need?
i never used any alternative ID. I always use Anza id–but it has to be emblesshed for obvious reasons.
raid i noticed that you never put up a single intelligent argument in the previous thread–and your showing no signs of doing so in this one either …..i will ignore all you postings from now on.
Anza_Now where in all this document do you find sub standard technology being sold to Pakistan? The legal bindings were there during the Afghan war aswell. The report only proves reservations of the US Administration going with the deal. I am sure they would do this incase of every sensitive deal.
So your trying to get back in the game by sensation topics and with no information what so ever to back it??? Sorry to bust your bubble mate but you just lost all respect.
you do understand what the word sub-standard actually means—if not use a dictionary. Once you have used that… then go back and google and find more details of the panel proceedings ( i only quoted one report and some of the proceedings — i assume people can do this on their own) and they will tell you that pakistan f16 willnot be getting the standard block50—anything that falls bellow the standard version is entitled to be called sub-standard by defination of the meaning of the bloody word itself “sub-standard”.
Come off it sensitive deal—what is sensitive about selling a plane that is out dated and being phased out ( it was once a stellar plane in its hayday). But forget being outdated it is matched/outclassed by technology in the region already ( sukhois) so what is the sensitivity.
Anza_The credibility of your post went down the drain when you failed to quote any source of ur information. Giving you another chance to prove what you say. Give a source of your information as so far it seems your just copying material without credible sources to back it.
July 5, 2006 (by Lieven Dewitte) – Last week U.S. Congress was notified of a possible Foreign Military Sale to Pakistan F-16 aircraft as well as associated equipment and services. Here is a detailed list of this potential sale along with some of the controversies it might create.
For details go to thisSource Link
what you need source for? plans included in the sale offer? or you need a signed affidavit from the CIA saying we are using the excuse for protecting outdated f16 technology to spy on pakistan’s nukes ( locations/modes of deployment).
Proceedings of the senate panel were widely reported. US plans to monitor and permission required were outlined in the testimony of Assistant Secretary of State John Hillen to the panel. Try to introduce yourself to the googling concept.
On this occassion i’ll do it for u:
Lawmakers Scold Administration Over F-16 Sale to Pakistan
At Thursday’s hearing on the sale of 36 F-16 aircraft to Pakistan, Assistant Secretary of State John Hillen endured tongue-lashings from several members of the House International Relations Committee (HIRC), who objected to the manner in which his bureau has managed the $5.1 billion arms package. Of particular concern was the administration’s unilateral decision to waive the customary 20-day pre-notification for major arms sales, which many members viewed as a deliberate attempt to circumvent the committee’s authority. The decision – and the confrontation it provoked – could have far-reaching consequences, not only for Congressional oversight of arms sales but also several key State Department initiatives.
Committee Chairman Henry Hyde (R-IL) set the stage by calling the administration’s decision to waive the pre-notification a “deliberate and wholly inappropriate maneuver to diminish Congress’ lawful oversight of arms sales.” He vowed to “take all appropriate actions to prevent the reoccurrence of the flouting of the Arms Export Control Act.” Rep. Tom Lantos (D-CA), the ranking Democrat on the committee, was equally resolute. “[T]his outrage will not stand,” he declared during his opening statement, “our oversight of arms sales will not be compromised.”
Under the Arms Export Control Act, the Departments of State and Defense are required to notify Congress 30 days in advance (15 days for NATO countries, Australia, New Zealand and Japan) of arms sales that exceed certain dollar value thresholds. To ensure that Congress and the administration are in agreement when the formal (public) notification is submitted, a 20-day pre-notification period was established. The pre-notification period helps to prevent embarrassing public confrontations over arms sales, which reflect poorly on the administration and alienate recipient governments. The State Department decided to forego pre-notification after its third unsuccessful attempt to receive a waiver from the HIRC.
Dr. Hillen defended the administration’s handling of the sale, asserting that the level of cooperation with Congress had been “unprecedented.” According to the assistant secretary, the State Department has provided several briefings to HIRC members, shared highly sensitive executive branch documents with them, and invited them on trips to Pakistan. Waiving the 20-day pre-notification period, asserted Dr. Hillen, allows the two countries to sign an agreement this calendar year, allowing Pakistan to avoid price increases.
He also defended the arms package itself. The weapons, claimed Dr. Hillen, would give the US “access and influence” to the Pakistani government, allowing it to “shape the choices of a country at the crossroads.” It would also strengthen Pakistan’s ability to fight the War on Terrorism, improve interoperability between the US and Pakistani militaries, and satisfy Pakistan’s “legitimate self-defense needs.” He concluded by assuring the committee that the pre-notification waiver was “not intended to be a pattern.”
Rather than placating committee members, Dr. Hillen’s statement seemed to aggravate them, particularly Rep. Lantos. In a tense exchange with the assistant secretary, the ranking Democrat berated him for refusing to admit that the pre-notification waiver was “a colossal mistake,” and complained bitterly about the State Department’s inability to answer even basic questions during briefings and about long delays in responding to the committee’s concerns. Other members also railed against the sale, calling attention to Pakistan’s poor human rights record, the military coup that brought President Musharraf to power, the danger of diversion of sensitive US military technology to China, and the Pakistani government’s refusal to give US investigators access to AQ Khan, who led a nuclear proliferation ring that delivered blueprints and hardware for nuclear weapons to North Korea, Iran and Libya.
The hearing was significant for several reasons. First, Dr. Hillen revealed details of the plan for safeguarding defense trade technology exported to Pakistan – information that is rarely made public. The plan requires
· site surveys and end-use monitoring, including annual inventories of all equipment related to the F-16s, by US officials;
· dedicated facilities for storage of spare parts and maintenance;
· strict limitations on access to the planes;
· complete segregation of the F-16s from third country-origin aircraft;
· express permission from the US government before Pakistan can fly the planes outside of its own airspace;
· full compliance with the security plan before the planes, weapons and equipment can be delivered.
Secondly, the hearing – and the legislation that has (and will) follow – is a dramatic counter-example of the passivity and abrogation of oversight responsibility that critics of Congress assert has plagued the body during the Bush Administration. In fact, HIRC has provided many such counter-examples over the past few years. In 2004, Rep. Hyde teamed up with Duncan Hunter, chair of the House Armed Services Committee, to kill two key Bush Administration initiatives aimed at relaxing controls on arms exports to key allies. In May of that year, they published a scathing report on the Bush Administration’s proposal to exempt the UK and Australia from licensing requirements for commercial arms exports. The report, and the threat of public hearings similar to the one on Thursday, prompted the administration to abandon the proposal. Similarly, the committee’s tenacious opposition to National Security Presidential Directive 19 – a secretive plan to revise US defense trade controls launched by the Bush Administration in 2002 – led to its demise last year.
Reps Hyde and Lantos have already introduced a bill (H.R. 5847) aimed at “reinforce[ing] longstanding oversight practices,” and more legislation is on the way. Rep. Ackerman has pledged to introduce a resolution of disapproval that, if passed by veto-proof majorities in both chambers, would block most of the sale. The chances of passing such a resolution in less than a week are slim to none, however. More modest but also more realistic is a resolution planned by Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) that would nullify the sales notifications submitted in late June, which would force the administration to resubmit the notification and (presumably) honor the 20-day pre-notification requirement.
Anza_Hey Anza why did you not use your last thread for the news????
Trying to gain sympathy or wot?
i was away for few days, when i came back it was locked by the mods. so couldnot use it – not to mention my nic which is banned ( old anza nics).
Anza_Well Anza the credibility of your claim had gone down the drain when you fail to quote any source for your post. Giving you a second chance to prove your point. Please come with a valid source to back your claim. So far it seems your copying material rather then producing facts. Thanks
what you need source for? plans included in the sale offer? or you need a signed affidavit from the CIA saying we are using the excuse for protecting outdated f16 technology to spy on pakistan’s nukes ( locations/modes of deployment).
Proceedings of the senate panel were widely reported. US plans to monitor and permission required were outlined in the testimony of Assistant Secretary of State John Hillen to the panel. Try to introduce yourself to the googling concept.
On this occassion i’ll do it for u:
Lawmakers Scold Administration Over F-16 Sale to Pakistan
At Thursday’s hearing on the sale of 36 F-16 aircraft to Pakistan, Assistant Secretary of State John Hillen endured tongue-lashings from several members of the House International Relations Committee (HIRC), who objected to the manner in which his bureau has managed the $5.1 billion arms package. Of particular concern was the administration’s unilateral decision to waive the customary 20-day pre-notification for major arms sales, which many members viewed as a deliberate attempt to circumvent the committee’s authority. The decision – and the confrontation it provoked – could have far-reaching consequences, not only for Congressional oversight of arms sales but also several key State Department initiatives.
Committee Chairman Henry Hyde (R-IL) set the stage by calling the administration’s decision to waive the pre-notification a “deliberate and wholly inappropriate maneuver to diminish Congress’ lawful oversight of arms sales.” He vowed to “take all appropriate actions to prevent the reoccurrence of the flouting of the Arms Export Control Act.” Rep. Tom Lantos (D-CA), the ranking Democrat on the committee, was equally resolute. “[T]his outrage will not stand,” he declared during his opening statement, “our oversight of arms sales will not be compromised.”
Under the Arms Export Control Act, the Departments of State and Defense are required to notify Congress 30 days in advance (15 days for NATO countries, Australia, New Zealand and Japan) of arms sales that exceed certain dollar value thresholds. To ensure that Congress and the administration are in agreement when the formal (public) notification is submitted, a 20-day pre-notification period was established. The pre-notification period helps to prevent embarrassing public confrontations over arms sales, which reflect poorly on the administration and alienate recipient governments. The State Department decided to forego pre-notification after its third unsuccessful attempt to receive a waiver from the HIRC.
Dr. Hillen defended the administration’s handling of the sale, asserting that the level of cooperation with Congress had been “unprecedented.” According to the assistant secretary, the State Department has provided several briefings to HIRC members, shared highly sensitive executive branch documents with them, and invited them on trips to Pakistan. Waiving the 20-day pre-notification period, asserted Dr. Hillen, allows the two countries to sign an agreement this calendar year, allowing Pakistan to avoid price increases.
He also defended the arms package itself. The weapons, claimed Dr. Hillen, would give the US “access and influence” to the Pakistani government, allowing it to “shape the choices of a country at the crossroads.” It would also strengthen Pakistan’s ability to fight the War on Terrorism, improve interoperability between the US and Pakistani militaries, and satisfy Pakistan’s “legitimate self-defense needs.” He concluded by assuring the committee that the pre-notification waiver was “not intended to be a pattern.”
Rather than placating committee members, Dr. Hillen’s statement seemed to aggravate them, particularly Rep. Lantos. In a tense exchange with the assistant secretary, the ranking Democrat berated him for refusing to admit that the pre-notification waiver was “a colossal mistake,” and complained bitterly about the State Department’s inability to answer even basic questions during briefings and about long delays in responding to the committee’s concerns. Other members also railed against the sale, calling attention to Pakistan’s poor human rights record, the military coup that brought President Musharraf to power, the danger of diversion of sensitive US military technology to China, and the Pakistani government’s refusal to give US investigators access to AQ Khan, who led a nuclear proliferation ring that delivered blueprints and hardware for nuclear weapons to North Korea, Iran and Libya.
The hearing was significant for several reasons. First, Dr. Hillen revealed details of the plan for safeguarding defense trade technology exported to Pakistan – information that is rarely made public. The plan requires
· site surveys and end-use monitoring, including annual inventories of all equipment related to the F-16s, by US officials;
· dedicated facilities for storage of spare parts and maintenance;
· strict limitations on access to the planes;
· complete segregation of the F-16s from third country-origin aircraft;
· express permission from the US government before Pakistan can fly the planes outside of its own airspace;
· full compliance with the security plan before the planes, weapons and equipment can be delivered.
Secondly, the hearing – and the legislation that has (and will) follow – is a dramatic counter-example of the passivity and abrogation of oversight responsibility that critics of Congress assert has plagued the body during the Bush Administration. In fact, HIRC has provided many such counter-examples over the past few years. In 2004, Rep. Hyde teamed up with Duncan Hunter, chair of the House Armed Services Committee, to kill two key Bush Administration initiatives aimed at relaxing controls on arms exports to key allies. In May of that year, they published a scathing report on the Bush Administration’s proposal to exempt the UK and Australia from licensing requirements for commercial arms exports. The report, and the threat of public hearings similar to the one on Thursday, prompted the administration to abandon the proposal. Similarly, the committee’s tenacious opposition to National Security Presidential Directive 19 – a secretive plan to revise US defense trade controls launched by the Bush Administration in 2002 – led to its demise last year.
Reps Hyde and Lantos have already introduced a bill (H.R. 5847) aimed at “reinforce[ing] longstanding oversight practices,” and more legislation is on the way. Rep. Ackerman has pledged to introduce a resolution of disapproval that, if passed by veto-proof majorities in both chambers, would block most of the sale. The chances of passing such a resolution in less than a week are slim to none, however. More modest but also more realistic is a resolution planned by Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) that would nullify the sales notifications submitted in late June, which would force the administration to resubmit the notification and (presumably) honor the 20-day pre-notification requirement.
Anza_i didnot personally write you a letter, if you didnot like what i said or the way i said it—you culd have kept calm and moved on instead of churning out bitterness.
Anza_Well no strings attached means that Pakistan can use its F-16’s in an offensive manner and retrofit them with a nuclear capability. Quite clearly that does change the balance of power if you have 96 nuclear capable aircraft as opposed to none.
Balance has two sides. India already has around 400 ( IAF is 900 aircraft in total to pakistan’s 300) nuclear capable aircraft not to mention missiles. IF pakistan wants to keep the option open for its f16 it doesnot upset any balance–wbt is heavily tilted in india’s favour and would not be effected with pakistan’s 18 f16 having nuke capability or not.
Anza_[QUOTE=Dubya][I]The USA does not want to upset the balance of power in the region. It’s trying to maintain peace. So Pakistan gets the F-16 but they are not capable of peeving the Indians off.[/I]
strings free, standard version of the f16 doesnot in anyway upset the balance of power, since usa’s own assessment has the indian sukhois about the same or slightly ahead of standard version of f16.
Anza_hizbollah should be made to apologize to israel for damaging her state of the art ship with the lastest defence gadgets.
Before the serbs knocked out of the sky,American fighter plane, they were not supposed to see and now this? where will this rudish behaviour end. Clearly this trend is getting out of hand.
Anza_It’s good for a laugh anyway. “Selling” F-16s to Pakistan is just a dumb idea. One really completely dumb idea is in the package it included JDAMs. That really is a bad decision. A fair argument to my point would be that for GWOT anyway, Pakistan has killed off a lot of bad guys for us. A lot. And with good ground forward air controllers ( GFACs ) A JDAM carrying jet like the F-16 is really very very handy for ops. Big time.
All in all though I don’t know why we ( U.S. ) are there. Afghanistan is useless dirt not worth dieing for. I don’t see any value it provides to our defense, considering 911 happened partly because we have bad Visa control. And other home security screw ups.
GWOT is not Pakistan’s making or doing or in anyway in pakistan’s national interest —it is almost like a favour pakistan is doing to the usa—if the usa doesnot review the humiliating and shameful f16 offer then pakistan should review it GWOT cooperation.
-No strings attached to the f16s ( if we must buy them and pay full price ).
-Why beat about the bush ( excuse the pun ) f16 are required by pakistan for defense/offence against india –almost the same way pakistan is needed in GWOT–pakistan is not attaching strings and neither should usa to its help to pak.
Anza_The USA does this to most of its export customers. As for using “outside of Pakistan’s airspace” this is fair enough as the system is meant to be a defensive one.
I donot know if it was you or some other yankee that told me something similar before ;;;;;; Please get this in your head ( donot take this as being rude )
If you do a bit of research you would know that pakistan is singled out from other customers ===everyone else gets the normal standard version of the F16s and they can use them however they want them too.
A hint : why did Belgium refuse to sell old f16s to pakistan? belgium is non nuke state.
in case you never make it to the answer here it is : belgium had standard version f16s ( all nuke capable ) and on india stating they can be used to drop nukes on them belgium dropped the plan to sell the old f16s to pakistan and instead scrapped them to the junkyard.
Anza_Its official – Pak F16s are to be sub-standard and threat to the national security of Pakistan ! Anybody who has read the going ons of the US Senate House International Relations Committee knows now that the F16s pakistan will be getting are sub-standard ( as I called them substandard junk etc etc before ). All the malarky about limitations on the design of the F16s sold to pakistan I already repeated before in my previous thread of “Sale of F16s hits snag in the congress” and was repeated in the proceedings of the committee. But that the newly acquired F16s would be a threat to pakistan’s national security came as a surprise even to me. The sale includes the following plans:
· site surveys and end-use monitoring, including annual inventories of all equipment related to the F-16s, by US officials;
· dedicated facilities for storage of spare parts and maintenance;
· strict limitations on access to the planes;
· complete segregation of the F-16s from third country-origin aircraft;
· express permission from the US government before Pakistan can fly the planes outside of its own airspace;
· full compliance with the security plan before the planes, weapons and equipment can be delivered.
I hope after reading the above redgriffin, AA sherrif etc would start to look for a suitable “chulo” to dive in together and not surface ( as in sharam se chulo bar pani mein dhoob maro ). Those of whose first langauge is not urdu I will translate ( not that it effect you in any way )- the pakistani saying I quoted in italics refers to drowning oneself out of shame. Redgriffen you were chiding me about not knowing jack (First of all to Anza, yes I can and do tolerate oppossing views. What I don’t tolerate is somebody shooting himself(and his community in general) in the foot by going on and on about something he does not know even jack about. ) I bet you never knew pakistan had to ask for america’s permission to use f16 outside of pakistan airspace – if the two brains cells in your head donot understand the significance of it –let me explain —Pakistan has to ask treacherous america’s permission in using f16 against india ( it would take them out of pakistan’s airspace).
Btw the first three conditions pose the greater threat to Pakistan’s national security since it would allow western agencies to spy on pakistan’s nukes i.e. designs, numbers etc. and more importantly their locations etc. ( site surveys and end user monitoring are words which would come to haunt pakistan).
Personally I cannot phanthom any sincere pakistani agreeing to this rubbish after all pakistan is paying for the planes and not leasing them, specially when the technology they are seeking to protect is out dated.
The old saying “Too good to be true” proves its wisdom on US offer of f16s to pakistan. US proves instead it is still the old-pre-911 treacherous, unreliable ally ( with allies like these who needs enemies ) of pakistan.
Edit/Delete Message
Sign In
