NATO Supplies Allow or,,,,,,,,,,?

NATO Supplies

A lot of noise is being made on the issue of NATO supplies via Pakistan which are halted since Nov 2011 as our trigger happy American cowboys tried to lasso in the Pakistan Armed forces. They have been hell bent to de-fame the Pak Army on one count or another.

Let us first examine why Afghanistan was attacked?

To bring to justice the perpetrators of 9/11 or Osama Bin Laden and try him in the International Court of Law. Who authorized this attack? The illustrious United Nations Security Council on 20^th December 2001 by Resolution 1386 ¹ he was found alive but not arrested instead was killed and his body buried at sea. All this was carried out while the President of America and his elite team of killers were watching this live on their TV screens. Who sanctioned this barbaric act NATO or ISAF?

After this episode our Pak Army soldiers were killed in a cold blood obsession to kill Muslims. Not the government but the people of Pakistan anger forced the inept government to stop the NATO supplies. The Americans never anticipated such a reaction from Pakistan. Since then, some leading anchor persons of the Pakistani media are harping a story that Pakistan should not make all those countries that are fighting this war as our foes. Now one wonders what and whose WAR is this?

 In order to find out the meaning of WAR, I searched the internet to get answers and found many answers and a very interesting article which sheds a lot of light on the present day world scenario and is attached with this study as food for thought for the readers to benefit. Readers will be traumatized after reading. NWO

Definition of World War:

A war in which the major nations of the world are involved

War is as old as human societies. Tribes of hunter gatherers engaged in skirmishes over territory and resources. The earliest city states and empire in Mesopotamia became the first to employ standing armies. Organization and structure has since been central to warfare, as illustrated by the success of highly disciplined troops of the Roman Empire.

Causes of World War I occurring from 1914 to 1918

On June 28, 1914, Franz Ferdinand, Archduke of Austria and heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, was assassinated in Sarajevo by Gavrilo Princip, a Bosnian Serb student. Though World War I was triggered by this assassination, the war's origins lie much farther back, in the complex web of alliances and counterbalances that developed between the various European powers over the course of the nineteenth century, following the final 1815 defeat of Napoleon Bonaparte at Waterloo. Napoleon's rise to power was, in turn, a direct consequence of the 1789 French Revolution, which overthrew the French monarchy.

1. World War II
   A war that took place in Europe, Africa, and Asia between 1939 and 1945

2.      The main causes of World War II were nationalistic tensions, unresolved issues, and resentments resulting from the World War I and the interwar period in Europe, plus the effects of the Great Depression in the 1930s.

3.      The culmination of events that led to the outbreak of war are generally understood to be the 1939 invasion of Poland by Germany and Soviet Russia and the 1937 invasion of the Republic of China by the Empire of Japan.

In 1919, Lloyd George of England, Orlando of Italy, Clemenceau of France and Woodrow Wilson from the US met to discuss how Germany was to be made to pay for the damage world war one had caused.  

Woodrow Wilson wanted a treaty based on his 14-point plan which he believed would bring peace to Europe.
Georges Clemenceau wanted revenge. He wanted to be sure that Germany could never start another war again.
Lloyd George personally agreed with Wilson but knew that the British public agreed with Clemenceau. He tried to find a compromise between Wilson and Clemenceau.

Germany had been expecting a treaty based on Wilson's 14 points and were not happy with the terms of the Treaty of Versailles. However, they had no choice but to sign the document.

The main terms of the Treaty of Versailles were:

1.      War Guilt Clause - Germany should accept the blame for starting World War One

2.      Reparations - Germany had to pay £6,600 million for the damage caused by the war

3.      Disarmament - Germany was only allowed to have a small army and six naval ships. No tanks, no air force and no submarines were allowed. The Rhineland area was to be de-militarized.

4.      Territorial Clauses - Land was taken away from Germany and given to other countries. Anschluss (union with Austria) was forbidden.

2. War engaged in by all or most of the principal nations of the world; especially capitalized both Ws: either of two such wars of the first half of the 20th century

What was the benefits and loss to the mankind?

^{Human Loss:}

	World War I	World War II
Deaths	15 to 20 M	60 M
Injured	9 to 15 M	20 M
Conscripts	65 M	90 M
Battlefield Size	3 M km²	17 M km²

Benefits:

The outcome of the World Wars had a profound effect on the course of world history. The old European empire’s collapsed or were dismantled, as a direct result of the wars’ crushing costs and in some cases the defeat of imperial powers. The United States was firmly established as the dominant global power, along with its ideological foe, the Soviet Union, in close competition

Now this so called war in our neighboring country Afghanistan could be he British vendetta for the humiliation they received at the hands of Afghans in the early eighteen century.

1839-1842

• First Anglo-Afghan War
• After some resistance, Amir Dost Mohammad Khan surrenders to the British and is deported to India.
• Shah Shuja is installed as a "puppet king" by the British. (1839-1842)
• April 1842--Shah Shuja killed by Afghans.
• Afghans passionately continue their struggle against the British.
• Akbar Khan--Afghan hero--victorious against the British.
• In January 1842, out of 16,500 soldiers (and 12,000 dependents) only one survivor, of mixed British-Indian garrison, reaches the fort in Jalalabad, on a stumbling pony.

The History Repeating it self again

Britain 'risking defeat in Afghanistan

• Mark Townsend and Peter Beaumont
• The Observer, Sunday 22 October 2006

Field Marshal Sir Peter Inge, the former head of Britain's armed forces, has broken ranks to launch an attack on the current military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, warning that British forces risk defeat in Afghanistan. In one of the strongest interventions in the conduct of the War on Terror, Inge also charged a lack of any 'clear strategy' guiding British operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.

I tried to digest what our leading intellectuals are twittering about this War and found out the following very interesting picture which a lone person is trying to present, but our greencoma government and the elite are not registering or grasping the real picture: See the following table and decide yourself, whose War is it?

		NATO/ISAF FORCES IN AFGHANISTAN
International Security Assistance Force						From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) & EPAC is a NATO-led security mission in Afghanistan
established by the United Nations Security Council on 20 December 2001 by Resolution 1386[1
as envisaged by the Bonn Agreement.[2] It is engaged in the War in Afghanistan (2001–present
	Country	Troop	% weight		Country	Troop	% weight			Country		Troop	% weight
		Strength	from Total			Strength	from Total					Strength	from Total
1	Albania	290	0.220	16	Lithuania	245	0.186	31		Azerbaijan		94	0.071
2	Belgium	522	0.396	17	Luxembourg	10	0.008	32		Bosnia		59	0.045
3	Bulgaria	605	0.459	18	Netherlands	274	0.208	33		Georgia		800	0.606
4	Canada	508	0.385	19	Norway	525	0.398	34		Macedonia		177	0.134
5	Croatia	32	0.024	20	Poland	2457	1.862	35		Montenego		39	0.030
6	Czech Republic	527	0.399	21	Portugal	133	0.101	36		Sweden		500	0.379
7	Denmark	692	0.524	22	Romania	1843	1.397	37		Ukraine		23	0.017
8	Estonia	153	0.116	23	Slovakia	344	0.261	38		Australia		1550	1.175
9	France	3308	2.507	24	Slovenia	89	0.067	39		Bahrain		95	0.072
10	Germany	4900	3.714	25	Spain	1481	1.122	40		Malaysia		46	0.035
11	Greece	122	0.092	26	Turkey	1327	1.006	41		El Salvador		25	0.019
12	Hungary	337	0.255	27	U.K	9500	7.200	42		Mongolia		113	0.086
13	Iceland	13	0.010	28	USA	93780	71.078	43		New Zealand		153	0.116
14	Italy	3816	2.892	29	Armenia	126	0.095	44		Singapore		39	0.030
15	Latvia	175	0.133	30	Austria	3	0.002	45		Tonga		55	0.042
								46		UAE		35	0.027
	Total	16,000	12.127		Total	112,137	84.991			Total		3,803	2.882
										Grand Total		131,940	100

Out of 196 countries only 46 are involved and some have a token representation just to appease the King Kong.  You still not have figured out whose war is this? It is purely American and British war. Do you see Russia, China or Saudi Arabia in this coalition, though many other countries have withdrawn but these three countries never participated in this fiasco. Why?

Total fatalities of coalition partners.  See the following table:

Coalition Military Fatalities by Year NATO

Year	US	UK	Other	Total
2001	12	0	0	12
2002	49	3	18	70
2003	48	0	10	58
2004	52	1	7	60
2005	99	1	31	131
2006	98	39	54	191
2007	117	42	73	232
2008	155	51	89	295
2009	317	108	96	521
2010	499	103	109	711
2011	418	46	102	566
2012	110	20	30	160
Total	1974	414	619	3007

Fatalities in Terrorist Violence in Pakistan 2003-2012

	Civilians	Security Force Personnel	Terrorists/Insurgents	Total
2003	140	24	25	189
2004	435	184	244	863
2005	430	81	137	648
2006	608	325	538	1471
2007	1522	597	1479	3598
2008	2155	654	3906	6715
2009	2324	991	8389	11704
2010	1796	469	5170	7435
2011	2738	765	2800	6303
2012	943	345	1061	2349
Total*	13091	4435	23749	41275

                                                                          

The Pakistani fatalities are far greater then the 46 countries put together, please bear in mind that in our civilian fatalities innocent women and children have been killed. Yet we are been told to do more? And the NATO wants its supplies restored.

The lone voice of the person has the following distinctiveness or similarity
‎1. Got his Education from England
2. Was included in University's Hall of Fame
3. Suffered severely in starting of his career
4. Married a non Muslim lady, marriage failed, wife went to London
5. Children custody to mother as per judge's decision
6. Failure in start of his political career
7. Won only 1 seat after a decade of struggle
8. His party won hearts of people after Jalsa at Lahore
9. All parties stood against his party


U think its Imran Khan's story.. NO ! its Quaid-e-Azams story !!! History is repeating itself... think again ! VOTE WISELY

Guess who is this person??
 I have presented some facts the rest is up to the nation to decide. It is better to starve then to be a slave and every now and then get reprimanded for no fault.

NATO supplies should not be opened at any cost by opening the supply route means more deaths for our countrymen nor will we allow our territory to be made into testing grounds for the new military hardware, you designed it so test it on your own home ground. Do not make our people into guinea pigs. Nor make us fools, This message is for all.

BY Asad Rehman