What's new

Ah memories! :D

Some are blind lovers and some are blind haters :p:D

which one is better? lol

I think very few Pakistani are blind patriot here.

Hi,

That is the ultimate STUPID post of the day----. Why would one need blind patriots---they are the worst enemies of the state---of its integrity---of its progress----.
 
Hi,

That is the ultimate STUPID post of the day----. Why would one need blind patriots---they are the worst enemies of the state---of its integrity---of its progress----.

You misunderstood it. It was in response of Vcheng post when he said that only blind patriot criticise his negative views about pakistan. If he consider them blind lover of their country then they consider him blind hater and off course both of them are not good for country. We need balance. I never said one should be a blind patriot but constant criticism is not good either.
 
i think the poster here is not so important to keep discussing him- "attention seeker"- close this thread-
The way I see it, and I believe the way Asim sees it, is not that this is a discussion necessarily just about the poster (though he is a large part of it) but about the distinction between criticizm of the ills/flaws of ones nation, and the kinds of policies/solutions one supports.

Whether accurate or not, Asim and I at least believe that VCheng supports over and covert US military and intelligence intervention in Pakistan, for reasons already mentioned.

Most of us would agree completely with everything VCheng said about the failing institutions, societal structure, grinding poverty etc. but most of us (Pakistanis that is) would still not support foreign military or intelligence intervention in Pakistan - that is where the difference (whether perceived accurately or not) lies.
 
Mr Cheng feels that Pakistan's institutions cannot resolve the country's crises by themselves, & further fuel them. But he fails to see that it was the US that created the monster (the Mujahideen) in the 80s, & then left it to Pakistan, Afghanistan to deal it by themselves. The US has only recently starting negotiating with the Taliban. Pakistan had already told them there was no military solution to this quagmire, the mess had already been created in the 80s. They didn't listen to Pakistan then, only continued their failing policies in Afghanistan. Even though they say they don't want to destabilize Pakistan, but all their actions in Afghanistan & Pakistan have destabilized Pakistan.
 
'Disagreement over what to do' it is, but there are some positions that are simply unacceptable, such as foreign military intervention, overt or covert, in Pakistan.

I have agreed with that the moment I understood you definition of the question.

Why give up so quickly? How long did it take to move from 'slavery to segregation to legal freedom and acceptance' in the US?

That process is till on going actually, and I am not really sure I understand your analogy here. I have said it before and I will say it again: Thinking that IK's rise to power will somehow improve the situation is simply unjustified, and will be borne out by the results. I do not say this becasue I have anything against IK personally. I say this becasue his rise to power will be the result of the same process that has ensured its survival for the last so many decades.

The problem is the lack of statements on your part taking a consistently clear position against drone strikes (if unsanctioned by the Pakistani authorities, secretly or otherwise), releasing Raymond Davis, limiting US intelligence and military personnel, Abbotabad raid and others like it etc.

It is not always necessary to express opposition to every injustice, because quite often it can be more effective to work silently. How do you think Indians and Israelis work for benefiting their homelands? We need to emulate their success by adopting their proven recipes for success, but to benefit Pakistan for a change.

The current situation hardly allows for constitutional processes to be applied. That said, the bombings, covert US military operations and threats to do so only make the process of normalization in FATA that much harder, and therefore Asim's point is correct that US actions and policies in FATA and Afghanistan are exacerbating the situation, not improving it.

Agreed. What is your point? My point was that it is not just FATA, the whole of the country is slowly falling prey to the same lawlessness that history shows us precedes outright civil war.

The FATA crowd will fight for what is theirs against a foreign foe - that is their right. The US has no moral or legal right to be doing anything in response so long as it continues Afghan occupation and military strikes in FATA.

Agreed. However, please note that international geopolitics do not go by concepts of morality or legality. There is no need to get angry at me for saying that, because by saying it, I do not condone it; I merely want it to be taken note of while formulating a cohesive strategy of responding in a way that might actually succeed.

And if Pakistanis want the Mullahs to rule Pakistan, that too is their choice and their right. Western paranoia and intolerance cannot be used as preemptive justification for attacking Pakistan to enable 'regime change' in such a situation.

Agreed. Pakistanis have every right to chose who governs them, and no matter who it is, there is no justification for engineering regime changes by anyone. Having said that, the system entrenched in Pakistan is no cause for any hope that the genuine aspirations of Pakistanis will ever be heeded to unless something drastic changes.

The perceived threat of a few hundred being killed in some potential terrorist attack is not justification for the deaths of hundreds of thousands, as we have seen the US do/cause in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Agreed. It is no justification, but it is the very real response of a nation that can be ruthless.

As clarified to VCheng, the discussion was in the context of Pakistan, and not a hypothetical discussion about military interventions in general.

I have accepted that before, and do it again now.
 
Cheng do you?

Please see my replies to AM. (I do not.)

Bro, he wouldn't admit it. But he declare publicly that he love EQUALLY both countries. That's enough answer for all of us to see this meaning.

Yes, he totally support US intelligence intervention against Pakistan in the past posts. That doesn't qualify of Think Tank membership.

Remind : http://www.defence.pk/forums/members-club/137477-yo-memories-d.html :D

I do not lie or mislead.

I have merely stated facts that all countries conduct similar operations, and US operations in Pakistan have a surprising degree of local participation.

Mr Cheng feels that Pakistan's institutions cannot resolve the country's crises by themselves,..................

I have good reasons to feel that. What is your argument for disproving that contention?
 
^^^^^^^^I get the feeling that Cheng is misunderstood guys. Cheng change your avatar to a think tank. I hold you in the same respect as any think tank. You are what you are not what others call you or tell you you are. Prove them wrong
 
I have good reasons to feel that. What is your argument for disproving that contention?

But you yourself have maintained that you do not have any solution for the current crises either. Considering the fact that whatever the US has done in Afghanistan has only worsened the conditions in that country, what makes you think they can make Pakistan better? All their actions in Afghanistan & Pakistan, inadvertently or otherwise, have destabilized Pakistan. Their policies have been proven to be contradictory & utter failures. So isn't it a matter of choosing the lesser evils?
 
Mr Cheng feels that Pakistan's institutions cannot resolve the country's crises by themselves, & further fuel them. But he fails to see that it was the US that created the monster (the Mujahideen) in the 80s, & then left it to Pakistan, Afghanistan to deal it by themselves. The US has only recently starting negotiating with the Taliban. Pakistan had already told them there was no military solution to this quagmire, the mess had already been created in the 80s. They didn't listen to Pakistan then, only continued their failing policies in Afghanistan. Even though they say they want to destabilize Pakistan, but all their actions in Afghanistan & Pakistan have destabilized Pakistan.

You can't honestly believe that. The CIA may have covertly funded the mujahideen, but they were hardly responsible for creating them. The the CIA just used the situation to benefit it's own nation, as it has always done...through the use of proxy wars. The Pakistanis played a far greater role in creating this monster. We not only acted as middle men between them and the CIA, we actively supported them for years because it was beneficial for us to have Pakistani influence in Afghanistan, no matter how many Afghans died because of it. Now that, that monster has turned on us, well it was all America's fault...if life was only that simple.
 
The way I see it, and I believe the way Asim sees it, is not that this is a discussion necessarily just about the poster (though he is a large part of it) but about the distinction between criticizm of the ills/flaws of ones nation, and the kinds of policies/solutions one supports.

Exactly.

Whether accurate or not, Asim and I at least believe that VCheng supports over and covert US military and intelligence intervention in Pakistan, for reasons already mentioned.

That is incorrect.

I merely note the reality of overt and covert operations, and the reasons behind them, logically and honestly.

Most of us would agree completely with everything VCheng said about the failing institutions, societal structure, grinding poverty etc. but most of us (Pakistanis that is) would still not support foreign military or intelligence intervention in Pakistan - that is where the difference (whether perceived accurately or not) lies.

I have already agreed that direct military intervention is not something I agree with. Intelligence intervention has always been, is, and always be a reality, not just form USA, but many countries. It would simply be unacceptably naive to say that such operations will cease. Everybody does that, including Pakistan.
 
But you yourself have maintained that you do not have any solution for the current crises either. Considering the fact that whatever the US has done in Afghanistan has only worsened the conditions in that country, what makes you think they can make Pakistan better? All their actions in Afghanistan & Pakistan, inadvertently or otherwise, have destabilized Pakistan. Their policies have been proven to be contradictory & utter failures. So isn't it a matter of choosing the lesser evils?

Bilalbhai you arnt that far from cheng. Go and check him out afce to face. lol
 
Bilalbhai you arnt that far from cheng. Go and check him out afce to face. lol

I'd love to meet him, I appreciate him for his (differing) views, I really do. I've really learnt a lot from him, he is an intelligent guy, a revered member. I appreciate his opinions, I really do. So I'd like to meet him someday.
 
As Long as fatman 17 is chairman of TT---it will sink----I am surprised how he has kept his place----that man has not posted a single original article of his own for the years he has been here----.

Even Vice chairman Araz---a very good person----hardly ever participates----so many other think tank members have no original posts --- why are they there----.

Webby----Asim,

You complain about how pakistan is run---how incompetent the politicians are----you want them fired---well how about this board-----the THINK TANK ---- you have created something that does nothing----has no leadership role from any single TT member---what are you guys thinking----.

You have only two people with real corporate experience NIAZ / PSHAMIM---but they retired a long time ago----who do you have here that has any management or coroprate experience abroad---in europe or in usa.

Is there any diversity in the TT anymore since I left----or brown nosing the chairman is the only way to go----. Secondly---why was the chairman re-elcted after 2 years---he served his 2 year term---why was a chance not given to someone else to lead----my men---you can't even lead this board---you can't even take the intiative to fix leadership issues on this forum----and you complain about fixing the nation. You had the oppurtunity to seek new ideas and you scre-wed it up again.

I would like to see one post---an original article----from either the Chairman or the Vice Chairman on this board.


Araz----you really disappointed me----by taking this position----you have done nothing to progress this board---was it a matter of ego to portray yourself as vice chairperson of this board----you feel good now for doing nothing----.

VCHENG-----if I was in there---you would have had my vote and I would have fought for you---.
Have not read the entire thread yet, so I do not know if this has already been responded to.

We entrusted the TT to come up with a set of guidelines and rules - they did.

The TT all have the right/option to suggest other members, enact changes through majority vote, elect new leadership etc.

The Admins and mods chose to deny ourselves voting rights in order to prevent allegations of the mod team becoming a powerful 'bloc' and affecting TT decisions.

Blaming one individual is patently unfair - no one stopped the TT members from campaigning to win support for new leadership and/or changes in the guidelines.

Giving up after just one attempt could be argued to be a failure/lack of patience and motivation on the part of those wanting to enact changes.
 

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom