Miliband condemns Pakistan comments

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by tomm90, Aug 2, 2010.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Winston Churchill once stated: 'In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies.' How many subscribers to rum ration believe David Cameron was telling the truth about Pakistan on his recent visit to India, and if so, was he wise to do so regards concern for British service personnel at present stationed in Afghanistan?

    Miliband condemns Pakistan comments
  2. There is nothing new in what was said, it has been said for years and openly by all nations.
    Milliband is just a nobhead and trying to make political gain out of what I'm sure he said in government many times.

    Pakistan and Iran - the 2 shit nations of this world.
  3. Of course Cameron was right to say it and as for whether his comments will have an adverse effect on our military personnel in Afghanistan - why should it?

    For far too loing politicians have been covering up or turning a blind eye to wrongdoing - Afghanistan corruption and nepotism, Pakistani terrorist training camps etc and focusing on nonsense like Iraqi WMD and the 45 minute threat to the UK!!!!!

    Who give a stuff about being polite and gentle in the hope that despots and criminals will respond to reason - tell it like it is and if it doesn't change do something about it (like pull our troops OUT of Afghanistan and stop sending AID to Pakistan!) - simples!
  4. Feck em long past the time for pulling our troops out of Afghanistan and stopping aid to Pakistan. Aid to Pakistan could restart after they close down the Jihad training caps.
    Troops and money could be invested in securing our own borders and of course on anti terrorism,
  5. Good on Cameron I say.
    The Pakistanis simply say what they think the rest of the world what to hear.
    I wouldn't trust them an inch. :evil:

    On the subject of financial aid, why should a nuclear state get money from us? Or is it another one of the benefits this country fritters away so freely!
  6. His choice of venue was not wise, had he stood up in the House of Commons it would have been totally acceptable, as we have see from his previous gaffs he does appear to have a tendency to engage gob before brain. Having said that the border areas are tribal and it is blatantly obvious to all that some Pakistani Pashtuns are up to their necks in it.

    As for Miliband, no time for the man or for that matter any of the potential leaders.
  7. Sorry Fink, can't agree with you this time - the media is dressing it up as a gaffe but I think that both the timing and, indeed, the venue were spot on.

    India has been concerned over Pakistani terrorist threats for some considerable time. UK have seen examples close to home with direct links back to Pakistan. PM was in India to forge closer ties which would be to the benefit of UK plc - why not take the heaven-sent opportunity to show solidarity with India over this particularly worrying series of developments (brought into sharp focus by the WikiLeaks revelations)?

    The reason Milliband is having a go is because the Liebour government never had the balls to do anything similar - they were too busy doing shady deals in the background and planning wars that should never have seen the light of day!
  8. I think that it was a gaff of sorts as Millipede will be saying sweet things about the Pakistani regime to curry favour with the resident (aka voting) Pakistani population in the UK.
  9. broadside, I take your points onboard but Pakistan is also supposed to be our ally and taking into account the hostility that exists between them and India (another grim legacy of the Great British Empire) I still think it was a poor choice of venue in which to make such a statement, as it could be seen as showing partiality.
  10. Fink - your point also noted but I think, on this occasion, we shall have toi agree to disagree.

    An ally who continues to allow terrorist training camps that are attended by zealots who subsequently export terror to other countries (including UK) is not the sort of ally we really need (IMHO)
  11. I have to agree with you fink not the best of places
  12. For what it's worth, my twopenneth goes with broadside, spot on. Also, any country that possesses nuclear weapons shouldn't get aid of any sort.
    As for Milliband..... he's a yesterday man from a yesterday administration... in other words... who gives a f**k.
  13. Fink

    Why is the animosity between these two countries UK's responsibility? India was granted it's independance as a whole country, after a Civil War Pakistan (The majority Muslim part of India), was formed. So I really don't see that this is a British problem.

    As to the time and place, I think Dave got it spot on, let's pick one side to be on and get off the fence for once.
  14. broadside, as you say we will have to agree that we both disagree. :)

    alacrity174, It was not a civil war I think you need to check your facts as to just who agreed to the partition and on whose behalf he was acting.

    I am sure you will all be delighted to hear that the government or we the taxpayer to be correct have gifted 10 million to help with the floods in Pakistan a country that most of us believes exports terror.
  15. Fink
    OK so "officially" it wasn't a Civil War, in the same way The Falklands was just a conflict I suppose. Yes I am aware that Mountbatten basically decided who got what, but the lines were drawn just about where the religious populations were located, so not far off in my opinion. Also don't forget the Francem Denmark, Portugal and the Dutch all had Colonies in what was known as India, so it cannot be all Britains fault. After a quick 20 second internet search I came up with the following, not the best I'll admit but what I can do at work. As you can see the violent bit really kicked off after the British gave up control.

    On 3 June 1947, Viscount Louis Mountbatten, the last British Governor-General of India, announced the partitioning of the British Indian Empire into India and Pakistan. On 14 August 1947, Pakistan was declared a separate nation from them. At midnight, on 15 August 1947, India became an independent nation. Violent clashes between Hindus and Muslims followed. Prime Minister Nehru and Deputy Prime Minister Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel invited Mountbatten to continue as Governor General of India. He was replaced in June 1948 by Chakravarti Rajagopalachari. Patel took on the responsibility of unifying 565 princely states, steering efforts by his “iron fist in a velvet glove†policies, exemplified by the use of military force to integrate Junagadh and Hyderabad state (Operation Polo) into India.

    The Constituent Assembly completed the work of drafting the constitution on 26 November 1949; on 26 January 1950 the Republic of India was officially proclaimed. The Constituent Assembly elected Dr. Rajendra Prasad as the first President of India, taking over from Governor General Rajgopalachari. Subsequently, a free and sovereign India absorbed three other territories: Goa (from Portuguese control in 1961), Pondicherry (which the French ceded in 1953–1954) and Sikkim which was absorbed in 1975. In 1952, India held its first general elections, with a voter turnout exceeding 62%.
  16. Milliband is just staying in the papers - the Labour leadership thing can't be that far away now.

    I for one am glad we have a PM who will say what needs to be said instead of worrying about offending people.
  17. The News is saying that they are very angry with the UK - not too fcuking angry that they refused the £10m just given to them though.
  18. I am afraid these days the UK continues to proffer it's hand in order to feed etc those that continually bite it ...
    Will we ever feckin learn? 8)
  19. I am actually not concerned with the emergency humanitarian relief (which I believe is actually £16 million, not £10 million - standing by to be corrected) because that is what responsible nations should do to help anyone in distress.

    My concern regarding aid is the payment of routine annual handouts by DFID and other Government departments and assorted Agencies which are not being directed to where they should be and, as pointed out elsewhere in this thread, if a country is rich enough to be able to afford a nuclear deterrent they do not need international aid to fund social programmes!
  20. They have brought the floods on themselves by felling trees I for one do not feel inclined to give them a penny of my hard earned taxes, not when our pensioners receive such a derisory pittance and let us not forget that these are the race of people who come out on our streets shouting abuse at our returning soldiers. If they need aid then they are the people who should be digging deep into their Shalwar Qameez's.

Share This Page