The design process isn't that expensive, and now you're changing the entire argument. You forgot to mention that Pakistan was hoping to pay for all of this using Chinese investments that they hoped would top $40 billion dollars, don't tell me to read the article when all you do is nitpick.
a MoU is not a treaty, it is simply a declaration of intent and is not legally binding. Beijing had every right to present it's views and downscale as it saw fit.
Looking through the comment, yeah, it pretty much is mostly Indians. Out side of maybe 3 Pakistanis, everyone else is Indian.For your edit, take a closer look. It isn't just Indians that say China is looking out for its self interest. It isn't "almost," it's quite more than that. Even 2jungibaaz agreed
And this proves what? Deals occur and can collapse at any time. Pakistan and China has hundreds of projects that they're working on, with most of them on track. You've posted a few exceptions, not the rule itself.
Don't forget 100 of billions of dollars of trade between india and china.
What is even funnier is how they(indians) all came running to this thread lol. First page is flooded with them. Seriously, these people have no life at all. Spending every minute here hoping to find something negative about Pakistan and rushing in to comment. Hilarious.
It's common sense. Design documentation does not require massive labor, nor a large material cost. The designing process is simply to see if a certain design is viable, so a proof of concept is the most that occurs, thus the low cost. Logical thinking.
It is not a loss, as Pakistan didn't have it in the first place. This is not what the term "loss" means.
It hasn't withdrawn, how many times do I have to tell you this. You even quoted the damn source that you posted that proved it was not withdrawing. Downsizing does not equate to withdrawing. Why is this concept so hard for you to understand?
What, pray tell, did you mean? What was it in reply to? I'm not bringing anything new to this discussion, don't make shit up because you have no way to counter my argument.
A few does not equate to a lot. Out of the 24 people that agreed with your original post, I count 19 of them as Indians, with 2 people who's background I do not know, and at least 3 people who're Pakistani. The rest of your posts, I've skimmed over as many as I could find, and it's the same people (mainly Indians) who agreed with your original post, agreeing with your other ones. You're clearly a self-loathing Pakistani, that much is clear.
That's the point. The entire project was rushed and the technical and financial aspects haven't been fully thought through. And when the details became clear and that the plans on the table isn't financially and technically viable China pulled out saving both China and Pakistan from a white elephant. I'll leave it in the middle rather it is China or Pakistan that is to blame for this situation, probably both.
The relationship between Pakistan and China has been mutually beneficial and has been ongoing for more than 50 years. So a few collapsed deal means nothing.
I think Pakistan would've pursued it despite the financial implication, if they raised any. There is a lot of money to be made while doing the project too. Hint: Look at Islamabad airport. It was started by Musharraf, and it has been delayed at least 3 times. It'd probably complete by 2017/2018, when there will be a new gov't. So a simple airport in the middle of nowhere takes concludes after 4 gov'ts change.
System won't collapse. They'll take in more loans.
Do you know what is our current production (if we're able to run everything at capacity).
