Can I suggest a less biased article than the one from Pakistan Daily? It is slightly old but presents more reality and healthy discussion.
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/discussions/roundtables/whats-the-problem-with-pakistan
As regards alleged India’s involvement in Pakistani affairs, one can only quote the following people from this article:-
1) Aqil Shah ~ “it doesn’t make sense for India to back groups that could instantly turn their guns on New Delhi, as many of the Pakistani Taliban promised to do in the wake of the recent Mumbai attacks. The trouble with Pakistan is that the specter of the unremitting “enemy” serves the parochial interests of the military.” and
2) Stephen Cohen ~ “Most of them see things through an India-tinted lens, and have always feared that the United States might choose India over Pakistan” and
3) Sumit Ganguly ~ “it would be a marvel if the Indians were that competent with covert operations. Their flat-footedness in these matters simply does not convince me that they constitute a viable threat in the FATA, even if they would want to be one.”

Posted by: Wafa | Jun 3 2009 12:49 utc | 4

re: U.S.-Iranian Engagement: The View from Tehran
… I find their statements/conclusions absurd, almost in entirety. For example, in intro to their bullet points they say:

Crisis Group found remarkable consistency of views regarding how the regime contemplates renewed dialogue, what it fears and how far it believes an improved relationship can go. To relate these is to neither endorse nor dismiss them; rather, they should be taken into account as the Obama administration embarks on one of its most important Middle Eastern undertakings – and one of its most daunting. The most notable conclusions are:

Hold on… “neither endorse nor dismiss them”. C’mon, they hold that there’s no baseline facts here?
First bullet point:

Tehran’s most oft-repeated demand also is its most abstract and thus the most readily (albeit misguidedly) dismissed: that the U.S. change the way it sees and treats Iran, its regional role and aspirations. It is central to the thinking of a leadership convinced that Washington has variously sought to topple, weaken or contain it.

Where to start w/that one… sheesh. From CIA Mossadeq coup, related from CIA’s own FOIA docs, we did topple them… for oil. Which led to Khomeni, which led to Islamic fanatacism, etc etc.
Then W’s inclusion of Iran in “axis of evil”, continuous neo-con threats of invasion/coups/funding “opposition groups”/Billy Kristol’s ongoing “bomb their nuke facilities”, not to mention entire dismissal by BushCo of Iran’s very cooperative post 9-11 activities aprehending some of the worst, providing intelligence, etc etc.
This is a bullshit article AFAIC.

Posted by: jdmckay | Jun 3 2009 14:11 utc | 6

The way I see it, the US is trying to gain more power by invading and occupying resource-rich and geo-politically important countries, such as Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. China, OTOH, is trying to do this by teaming up with Russia to make business deals with resource-rich and geo-politically important countries, such as Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. I, for one, believe that America’s strategy to use its military might to gain control over the oil, gas, and mineral corridor from the ‘Stans to Iran is destined for failure, causing the US, including Israel, to lose a great deal of their power in the world. So, as the US continues to waste a lot of blood, limb, and especially treasure hunting down ragtag terrorists deep in the heart of Taliban country, China, along with Russia, (and soon Iran) will be laughing all the way to the bank!
Hopefully the US (and Israel) will soon wake up to the fact that you’ll get much further in the world using diplomacy than you will using war. They also need to wake up to the fact that having the mightiest military around isn’t worth a hill of beans, if your economy is stuck deep in a ditch. And contrary to what some will tell you, no amount of bombs and bullets will get your economy back up and running again.

Posted by: Cynthia | Jun 3 2009 16:46 utc | 8

@Cyntia and @wafa – there are several “Talibans” – some are native Afghans fighting the occupation in Afghanistan – most of Mullah Omar’s original Taliban (even though Omar is based somewhere around Quetta). Some are based in Pakistan but fight in Afghanistan – the Haqqani network. Some are based in Pakistan and fight against Pakistan – Mullah Massoud.
Very different groups and very different motives/payers to direct them. India is doing a hell lot in Afghanistan and it is not pure benevolence that lets them invest so much effort. I think Pakistan is rightly concerned about Indian support for the Talibs that fight its state.
(Besides that Taliban aligned fighters from Pakistan fighting against the state like in Swat have also other motives – justice, money, general neglect from the state etc.)

Posted by: b | Jun 3 2009 18:11 utc | 10

O’geddon,
You’ve caused me to lose my taste for chocolate. And believe you me, that’s quite a feat.;~)

Posted by: Cynthia | Jun 3 2009 20:57 utc | 12

hehe. re Chinese company buying Hummer, the average Hummer buyer is a racist xenophobe rethug so this should be entertaining to watch.
I’m going out on a limb and predicting sales to continue to crater.

Posted by: ran | Jun 4 2009 1:53 utc | 14

The Big Collapse Could Be Very Near

Posted by: a | Jun 4 2009 4:29 utc | 16

Sorry, the simultaneous English translation was on Press TV so some of you may have witnessed the amazing event, probably unprecedented since the democratic premiership of Dr. Mossadegh (which the U.S. quickly and unceremoniously brought to an end).

Posted by: Parviz | Jun 4 2009 5:06 utc | 18

ran@15
You haven’t read the sources for that article. It’s only the US military, and their imaginings. It is well known that many in the US military don’t want to leave, and can’t really believe that the US govt has agreed to do so. Odierno too, for example.
However, Maliki is completely determined that the agreement be stuck to. And the US can’t stay without attempting to overthrow the current political settlement, and implying a full military occupation into the indefinite future.
I’ve been telling people on MoA this for very nearly a year now – it was in July last year – and I still get commenters telling me how silly and naive I am. Nevertheless the SOFA was signed, and it has been stuck to so far – with continuous rebellions from the military and other warmongers.
You should not confuse such rebellions with US policy.

Posted by: alex_no | Jun 4 2009 5:38 utc | 20

@Parviz – that must have been a hot debate: After debate, Leader warns against rival defamation

The Leader of the Islamic Revolution warns presidential hopefuls against resorting to defamation strategies to ‘prove’ themselves for the presidential post.
Addressing crowds at the mausoleum of Imam Khomeini, the late Founder of the Islamic Republic, Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei raised the issue of character assassination in relation to the June 12 presidential election.
“It is not decent for a [presidential] hopeful to resort to slandering another candidate in a speech or a debate to prove himself,” the Leader said on Thursday, after two presidential candidates held a controversial debate late on Wednesday.
Ayatollah Khamenei also called upon the masses to go to the polls in large numbers to thwart efforts aimed at portraying Iran’s elections as undemocratic, adding that all should work toward the protection of the Islamic Revolution.
The Leader noted that Iran enjoys a democratic electoral system, which puts the votes of the Iranian nation first.

Now how to interpret that? Who was slandering more? From what I read Ahmedinejad. Khamenei intervening in that must be hard to swallow for him.

Posted by: b | Jun 4 2009 15:23 utc | 22