[Kosh]

that someone called out Pakistan for supporting terrorists.

NEW DEHLI: British Prime Minister David Cameron was mired in a diplomatic row with Islamabad on Thursday, over comments made on a trade-driven trip to India about the “export of terror” from Pakistan.

Pakistan’s ambassador to Britain accused Cameron of “damaging the prospects of regional peace” with his remarks on Wednesday in the southern Indian IT hub of Bangalore.

Asked about regional security issues, the prime minister responded with a warning to India’s arch-rival against becoming a haven for militant groups.

“We cannot tolerate in any sense the idea that this country (Pakistan) is allowed to look both ways and is able, in any way, to promote the export of terror, whether to India or whether to Afghanistan or anywhere else in the world,” he said.

The comments were gleefully splashed on the front page of every major newspaper in India, which has long accused Pakistan of harbouring and abetting groups such as Lashkar-e-Taiba.

“We should be very, very clear with Pakistan that we want to see a strong, stable and democratic Pakistan,” Cameron said.

“It should be a relationship based on a very clear message: that it is not right to have any relationship with groups that are promoting terror.”

Yes, finally a western leader has the nerve to call them out on it.

[karajorma]

Given that the result was them cancelling an anti-terrorism summit, it was probably rather bad timing at the very least.

[Nuclear1]

Score for America, we still subsidize those guys!

Yay!  We directly and knowingly finance terrorism!

[Snail]

I am now convinced that David Cameron's foreign policy is based on pissing people off.

[Colonol Dekker]

Quite similar to his domestic policy.

[Androgeos Exeunt]

Given that the result was them cancelling an anti-terrorism summit, it was probably rather bad timing at the very least.

I'm not convinced that that would have had much effect if it was carried out.

I am now convinced that David Cameron's foreign policy is based on pissing people off.

Quite similar to his domestic policy.

That bad?

[Kosh]

I am now convinced that David Cameron's foreign policy is based on pissing people off.

So we should just pretend that Pakistan doesn't sponsor terrorists?

[Snail]

I am now convinced that David Cameron's foreign policy is based on pissing people off.

So we should just pretend that Pakistan doesn't sponsor terrorists?

Hey, I didn't say that. All I said is that I don't like David Cameron.

[SpardaSon21]

Well, if Cameron is pissing people off, at least he's being honest.  I'd rather have an offensive leader than a spineless one.

[Androgeos Exeunt]

Or a liar, perhaps?

[Flipside]

Someone needs to say it, it's obvious everyone suspects it, and whether it's truth or not, if Pakistan is not trusted by its allies then that needs to be addressed, not hidden under the carpet.

The only thing that annoys me about Cameron is the fact that, he's been a Thatcherite through and through, to the point where the Conservatives very nearly cancelled free school-milk for under 5's, first three cut targets for saving money are Education, Art and Health... That bought back some scary memories.

[Androgeos Exeunt]

I thought Thatcher did a lot of good for the UK.

[Kosh]

Someone needs to say it, it's obvious everyone suspects it, and whether it's truth or not, if Pakistan is not trusted by its allies then that needs to be addressed, not hidden under the carpet.

The only thing that annoys me about Cameron is the fact that, he's been a Thatcherite through and through, to the point where the Conservatives very nearly cancelled free school-milk for under 5's... That bought back some scary memories.

It's not much of a secret that the pakistani intelligence service (the ISI) has been training and equiping terrorists in the kashmir region as a means to asymmetricly push back against india. However it seems this strategy is starting to backfire with those militants starting to turn against the state, starting with the attack on sri lanka's cricket team last year. Now it seems every month there's at least one new bombing somewhere in pakistan. What's scary is pakistan's possesion of nuclear weapons.  

[Flipside]

I thought Thatcher did a lot of good for the UK.

She did a lot of good for certain sections of the UK, those above a certain wage or social level. Conservatives now would try and have you believe that Thatchers policies stopped us sinking even deeper into depression, but there's not any real evidence of that, all she really did is turn us into a nation that produces nothing tangible, a nation of sevices.

She might have loved Britain, but she despised the British, she was like a mixture of the worst aspects of Capitalism, money made right, and the 'great unwashed' existed only to help fund the higher 'classes', that's why it all ended it riots.

If anything, Thatcher created the huge social divide that exists in the UK these days, and is the source of far more problems than she fixed.

Edit: It should be noted that the move towards Devolution in Scotland was given a huge boost thanks to Thatcher using them as some kind of experimentation lab.

To quote Frankie Boyle on hearing that 4 million was being put aside for her funeral when she dies :
"For 4 million pounds you could buy everyone in Scotland a shovel and they'd dig a hole so deep you could hand her over to Satan personally". - It kinds of depend where in the UK you lived

[Kosh]

She did a lot of good for certain sections of the UK, those above a certain wage or social level. Conservatives now would try and have you believe that Thatchers policies stopped us sinking even deeper into depression, but there's not any real evidence of that, all she really did is turn us into a nation that produces nothing tangible, a nation of sevices.

To be fair kaynesianism by that point was failing, not just in the uk but also in the us and latin america.

[Flipside]

Agreed, Labour was failing horribly by that point, seems to be a standard rule that 8 years is about maximum for any Political group to be in power before the facade starts crumbling and the rot sets in. But Thatcher is always made out (by the Conservatives) as one woman on a mission to fight corruption in Government that had formed over years of ineffective Labour Governance, but in truth, she was on a mission to help her rich and influential friends get as much of a leg-up as possible.

Some of the cuts made sense, coal was costing more to mine than to sell, others made none, British Steel was, at the time, considered some of the finest in the world, and she cut the industries head off, because importing lower-quality steel was cheaper, so while the quality of goods dropped, her buddies had more money in their pockets, and the UK lost one of its last Primary Industries. British Rail has just been a catalogue of ****-ups since privatisation, I wouldn't be surprised if the Taxpayer is actually paying more to subsidise the private companies running the Rail system than they used to pay the Government to actually run it, and yet those companies make, and keep massive profits.

Thatcher dealt with behind-the scenes corruption purely by moving it to centre stage and calling it policy.

[Kosh]

Yeah, although it wasn't just about privitisation, a big part of what helped was deregulation. Overregulation more often then not strangles the economy in the long run with unneccesary beuracracy (I heard the government was also responsible for such things as determining how much the plumber could charge), and that's what was happening.

Actually I can cite a classic example of overregulation from the us. It used to be the airline industry was heavily regulated with prices set by the government (which made it very expensive to travel by air). Since the airlines couldn't compete on price, on their trans atlantic flights they started competing by offering bigger and better meals, so the agency responsible for regulation stepped in and started regulating the size of the sandwitches.

[MP-Ryan]

Score for America, we still subsidize those guys!

Yay!  We directly and knowingly finance terrorism!

Want to know the best part?  The US government (via Langley) has known since at least 1993 that elements Pakistan's intelligence agency, the ISI, has been financing and supporting Islamic terrorism, and furthermore that their political masters are at a minimum complacently aware of it, with some directly supporting it.

Yet Pakistan is our 'ally' in Afghanistan.  With allies like Pakistan, who the hell needs the Taliban?

Those Wikileaks documents weren't a revelation to anyone familiar with the geopolitical history of the area - Pakistan's support of the Taliban has been the worst kept secret in recent history.

In short, good for Cameron; it's about time one of the political leaders said what their intelligence agencies are telling them.

[Kosh]

And lets not forget that until 9/11 the ISI actually did directly support the taliban, not surprising since pakistan was one of the few countries that actually recognized it (along with our good friend saudi arabia, another sponser of islamic extremism and terrorism).

[Nuclear1]

**** it.  The second we get ethanol, hydrogen, electricity etc. working in this country, I vote for some serious regime changing in Saudi Arabia.

Same thing for Pakistan too, once we get around its nukes.