MastanKhan
PDF VETERAN
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2005
- Messages
- 21,269
- Reaction score
- 166
- Country
- Location
Hi,
Thank you very much for your post------. Thank you for shining the light under the light pole----.
Iran: A "Role Model" For Pakistan To Get Self-Reliance in Defence
- Thread starter Highway_Cop
- Start date
Hi,
Thank you very much for your post------. Thank you for shining the light under the light pole----.
The SC
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2012
- Messages
- 32,233
- Reaction score
- 21
- Country
- Location
Why you are not talking about the illegal sanctions Mr?
And opening up to western investments like Dubai(Dob'h=Hayena=stupid in arabic) is opening up to the western mentality which is devious in every aspect; from corruption to sexual behavior.
If A country choose to live an honest life unlike the majority of government choosing the corrupt and dishonest ways, than it is a paraya state.
Honesty sir, has many rewards in the long run, since every thief is destined to be caught and since God knows every thought and deed people intend or do.
If you were a genuine Muslim you wouldn't have felt anything going down your throat forcibly, the thing is, Islam does not have the same taste as whisky.
I have not seen that ultimate Goal in any other place than Iran Sir, I am referring to the last elections, so it is very bad to lie at your age.
niaz
PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 5,164
- Reaction score
- 211
- Country
- Location
A bunch of students lay siege to US Embassy and despite orders from the President Bani Sadr & Foreign Minister Qutub Zadeh, refused to quit and you call sanctions illegal!
Where is the international law of diplomatic immunity? Are you aware that at the time of Hudabia, there was a rumour that Hazrat Osman (RA), sent as spokesman to the Mecca, was killed? Holy Prophet (PBUH) and the Muslims were ready to attack Mecca.
Chengez Khan attacked Iran and destroyed the whole country killing about third of the population because the Khwarizmi Shan killed his envoys! Suppose Indians do the same to Pakistani High Commission staff in New Delhi. You live in Canada and give sanction to imprisonment of the diplomatic staff?
Iran is bursting to seem with oil and gas reserves, why does she need nuclear power if not to develop nuclear bomb? Only country that attacked Iran was Iraq, another Muslim country. Now Iraq is no longer a threat. Pakistan has India as a nuclear neighbour thus there is some justification. Why does Iran need nuclear bomb?
You have forgotten the hanging Judge Ayatollah Khalkhali who sent thousands to the gallows after a summary trial. Both the Bani Sadr and Qutub Zadeh were also killed for having differing view to the Khomeini even though they were the ones who were responsible for getting Khomeini into Iran.
I have posted what I noticed myself, however you accuse me of lying! Naturally everyone has right to his/her opinion, it makes no difference whether you agree with my views or not. What matters is what is good for the people of Iran
In my opinion, pursuing policies which hurt ordinary man on the street is suicidal; but that is what Mullah Regime in any country does. They follow the dogma blindly regardless of the consequences. Rulers don’t suffer, only the common man suffers.
Most of the people like Iran only because they are saying no to the US. I admire this myself but is this stance helping Iranian people in any way? I have seen the consequences of the wrong policies adopted by the post revolution regimes and also because Iran is very friendly with India; as a Pakistani I am against making Iran my role model.
I like Irani people and their language, I just dont like any regime run by the theocracy. In Iran a non elected council of guardians controls an elected parliament!! And you want to make Iran role model for Pakistan! But who cares for the truth. Despite living in Canada you appear to be very impressed by the Iran. You are welcome to make Iran your role model and go live there.
Sir I agree with a lot of what you have said in you informative post. However in my opinion Israel and west are in no position to dictate who can and can not have nuclear power. Most Muslim countries including Pakistan have leaders who are either bribed or who have been bullied into submission to make their own countries interests subordinate to west and Israel's interest. Surely this status quo is unaccptable.
Iran was one of the first countries to recognise Pakistan. Prior to 1979 our relations were better. But Pakistani leaders themselves under the influence of Saudis have not extended a hand of friendship to Iranians since the Mullah's took over.
No leaders are perfect but who should we Muslims look at to speak for us at the injustices of America and Israel etc which our leaders seem to accept
The Bomb: Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan
Published: January 22, 2012
Once upon a time Iran was Pakistan’s close ally — probably its closest one. In 1947, Iran was the first to recognise the newly independent Pakistan. In the 1965 war with India, Pakistani fighter jets flew to Iranian bases in Zahedan and Mehrabad for protection and refuelling. Both countries were members of the US-led Seato and Cento defence pacts, Iran opened wide its universities to Pakistani students, and the Shah of Iran was considered Pakistan’s great friend and benefactor. Sometime around 1960, thousands of flag-waving school children lined the streets of Karachi to greet him. I was one of them.
The friendship has soured, replaced by low-level hostility and suspicion. In 1979, Ayatollah Khomenei’s Islamic revolution, and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, set major realignments in motion. As Iran exited the US orbit, Pakistan joined the Americans to fight the Soviets. With Saudi money, they together created and armed the hyper-religious Pashtun mujahideen. Iran too supported the mujahideen — but those of the Tajik Northern Alliance. But as religion assumed centrality in matters of state in both Pakistan and Iran, doctrinal rifts widened.
These rifts are likely to widen as the US prepares for its withdrawal from Afghanistan. Iranians cannot forget that in 1996, following the Soviet pullout from Afghanistan, the Taliban took over Kabul and began a selective killing of Shias. This was followed by a massacre of more than 5,000 Shias in Bamiyan province. Iran soon amassed 300,000 troops at the Afghan border and threatened to attack the Pakistan-supported Taliban government. Today, Iran accuses Pakistan of harbouring terrorist anti-Iran groups like Jundullah on its soil and freely allowing Lashkar-e-Jhangvi and its associates to ravage Pakistan’s Shia minority. Symptomatic of the grassroot-level change, Farsi is no longer taught in Pakistani schools.
On the other hand, Saudi Arabia’s footprint in Pakistan has grown steadily since the early 1970s. Pakistani leaders, political and military, frequently travel to the Kingdom to pay homage or seek refuge. The dependency on Saudi money grew. After India had tested its Bomb in May 1998 and Pakistan was mulling over the appropriate response, the Kingdom’s grant of 50,000 barrels of free oil a day helped Pakistan decide in favour of a tit-for-tat response and cushioned the impact of sanctions subsequently imposed by the US and Europe. The Saudi defence minister, Prince Sultan, was a VIP guest at Kahuta, where he toured its nuclear and missile facilities just before the tests. Years earlier Benazir Bhutto, the then serving prime minister, had been denied entry.
The quid pro quo for the Kingdom’s oil largesse has been soldiers, airmen, and military expertise. Saudi officers are trained at Pakistan’s national defence colleges. The Pakistan Air Force, with a high degree of professional training, helped create the Royal Saudi Air Force and Pakistani pilots flew combat missions against South Yemen in the 1970s. Saudi Arabia is said to have purchased ballistic missiles produced in Pakistan.
So what happens if Iran goes nuclear, and Saudi Arabia wants to follow?
For all its wealth, Saudi Arabia does not have the technical and scientific base to create a nuclear infrastructure. Too weak to defend itself and too rich to be left alone, the country has always been surrounded by those who eye its wealth. It has many universities staffed by highly paid expatriates and tens of thousands of Saudi students have been sent to universities overseas. But because of an ideological attitude unsuited to the acquisition of modern scientific skills, there has been little success in producing a significant number of accomplished Saudi engineers and scientists.
Perforce, Saudi Arabia will turn to Pakistan for nuclear help. This does not mean outright transfer of nuclear weapons by Pakistan to Saudi Arabia. One cannot put credence on rumours that the Saudis have purchased nuclear warheads stocked at Kamra air force base, to be flown out at the opportune time. Surely, this would certainly lead to extreme reaction from the US and Europe, with no support offered by China or Russia. Moreover, even if a few weapons were smuggled out, Saudi Arabia could not claim to have them. Thus they could not serve as a nuclear deterrent.
Instead, the Kingdom’s route to nuclear weapons is likely to be circuitous, beginning with the acquisition of nuclear reactors for electricity generation. The spent fuel from reactors can be processed for plutonium. Like Iran, it will have to find creative ways by which to skirt around the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty – which forbids reprocessing spent fuel. But it doubtless takes heart from the fact that the US forgave India for its nuclear testing in 1998, and eventually ended rewarding it with a nuclear deal. Saudi Arabia had unwillingly signed on to the NPT in 1988. Its position then was that it would be happy to sign up but only if Israel did the same. That, of course, never happened. But Saudi Arabia had no option but to follow the US diktat.
The Kingdom’s first steps towards making nuclear weapons are being contemplated. In June 2011, it said that 16 nuclear reactors were to be built over the next 20 years at a cost of more than $300 billion, each reactor costing around $7 billion. Arrangements are being made to offer the project for international bidding and the winning company should “satisfy the Kingdom’s needs for modern technology”. To create, run and maintain the resulting nuclear infrastructure will require importing large numbers of technical workers. Some will be brought over from western countries, as well as Russia and former Soviet Union countries.
But Saudi Arabia will likely find engineering and scientific skills from Pakistan particularly desirable. Since many are Sunni Muslims, the Pakistanis would presumably be sympathetic with the Kingdom’s larger goals. Having been in the business of producing nuclear weapons for nearly 30 years under difficult circumstances, they would also be familiar with supplier chains for hard-to-get items needed in a weapons programme. And because salaries in Saudi Arabia far exceed those in Pakistan, many qualified people could well ask for leave from their parent institutions at the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission, Kahuta Research Laboratories, and National Development Complex.
Good sense dictates that Iran stops its pursuit of the Bomb. But whether it does or not, Pakistan should stay out of the Iran-Saudi nuclear rivalry. Over and above all this, Israel and the United States must stop threatening to bomb Iran.
Published in The Express Tribune, January 23rd, 2012
Published: January 22, 2012
Once upon a time Iran was Pakistan’s close ally — probably its closest one. In 1947, Iran was the first to recognise the newly independent Pakistan. In the 1965 war with India, Pakistani fighter jets flew to Iranian bases in Zahedan and Mehrabad for protection and refuelling. Both countries were members of the US-led Seato and Cento defence pacts, Iran opened wide its universities to Pakistani students, and the Shah of Iran was considered Pakistan’s great friend and benefactor. Sometime around 1960, thousands of flag-waving school children lined the streets of Karachi to greet him. I was one of them.
The friendship has soured, replaced by low-level hostility and suspicion. In 1979, Ayatollah Khomenei’s Islamic revolution, and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, set major realignments in motion. As Iran exited the US orbit, Pakistan joined the Americans to fight the Soviets. With Saudi money, they together created and armed the hyper-religious Pashtun mujahideen. Iran too supported the mujahideen — but those of the Tajik Northern Alliance. But as religion assumed centrality in matters of state in both Pakistan and Iran, doctrinal rifts widened.
These rifts are likely to widen as the US prepares for its withdrawal from Afghanistan. Iranians cannot forget that in 1996, following the Soviet pullout from Afghanistan, the Taliban took over Kabul and began a selective killing of Shias. This was followed by a massacre of more than 5,000 Shias in Bamiyan province. Iran soon amassed 300,000 troops at the Afghan border and threatened to attack the Pakistan-supported Taliban government. Today, Iran accuses Pakistan of harbouring terrorist anti-Iran groups like Jundullah on its soil and freely allowing Lashkar-e-Jhangvi and its associates to ravage Pakistan’s Shia minority. Symptomatic of the grassroot-level change, Farsi is no longer taught in Pakistani schools.
On the other hand, Saudi Arabia’s footprint in Pakistan has grown steadily since the early 1970s. Pakistani leaders, political and military, frequently travel to the Kingdom to pay homage or seek refuge. The dependency on Saudi money grew. After India had tested its Bomb in May 1998 and Pakistan was mulling over the appropriate response, the Kingdom’s grant of 50,000 barrels of free oil a day helped Pakistan decide in favour of a tit-for-tat response and cushioned the impact of sanctions subsequently imposed by the US and Europe. The Saudi defence minister, Prince Sultan, was a VIP guest at Kahuta, where he toured its nuclear and missile facilities just before the tests. Years earlier Benazir Bhutto, the then serving prime minister, had been denied entry.
The quid pro quo for the Kingdom’s oil largesse has been soldiers, airmen, and military expertise. Saudi officers are trained at Pakistan’s national defence colleges. The Pakistan Air Force, with a high degree of professional training, helped create the Royal Saudi Air Force and Pakistani pilots flew combat missions against South Yemen in the 1970s. Saudi Arabia is said to have purchased ballistic missiles produced in Pakistan.
So what happens if Iran goes nuclear, and Saudi Arabia wants to follow?
For all its wealth, Saudi Arabia does not have the technical and scientific base to create a nuclear infrastructure. Too weak to defend itself and too rich to be left alone, the country has always been surrounded by those who eye its wealth. It has many universities staffed by highly paid expatriates and tens of thousands of Saudi students have been sent to universities overseas. But because of an ideological attitude unsuited to the acquisition of modern scientific skills, there has been little success in producing a significant number of accomplished Saudi engineers and scientists.
Perforce, Saudi Arabia will turn to Pakistan for nuclear help. This does not mean outright transfer of nuclear weapons by Pakistan to Saudi Arabia. One cannot put credence on rumours that the Saudis have purchased nuclear warheads stocked at Kamra air force base, to be flown out at the opportune time. Surely, this would certainly lead to extreme reaction from the US and Europe, with no support offered by China or Russia. Moreover, even if a few weapons were smuggled out, Saudi Arabia could not claim to have them. Thus they could not serve as a nuclear deterrent.
Instead, the Kingdom’s route to nuclear weapons is likely to be circuitous, beginning with the acquisition of nuclear reactors for electricity generation. The spent fuel from reactors can be processed for plutonium. Like Iran, it will have to find creative ways by which to skirt around the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty – which forbids reprocessing spent fuel. But it doubtless takes heart from the fact that the US forgave India for its nuclear testing in 1998, and eventually ended rewarding it with a nuclear deal. Saudi Arabia had unwillingly signed on to the NPT in 1988. Its position then was that it would be happy to sign up but only if Israel did the same. That, of course, never happened. But Saudi Arabia had no option but to follow the US diktat.
The Kingdom’s first steps towards making nuclear weapons are being contemplated. In June 2011, it said that 16 nuclear reactors were to be built over the next 20 years at a cost of more than $300 billion, each reactor costing around $7 billion. Arrangements are being made to offer the project for international bidding and the winning company should “satisfy the Kingdom’s needs for modern technology”. To create, run and maintain the resulting nuclear infrastructure will require importing large numbers of technical workers. Some will be brought over from western countries, as well as Russia and former Soviet Union countries.
But Saudi Arabia will likely find engineering and scientific skills from Pakistan particularly desirable. Since many are Sunni Muslims, the Pakistanis would presumably be sympathetic with the Kingdom’s larger goals. Having been in the business of producing nuclear weapons for nearly 30 years under difficult circumstances, they would also be familiar with supplier chains for hard-to-get items needed in a weapons programme. And because salaries in Saudi Arabia far exceed those in Pakistan, many qualified people could well ask for leave from their parent institutions at the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission, Kahuta Research Laboratories, and National Development Complex.
Good sense dictates that Iran stops its pursuit of the Bomb. But whether it does or not, Pakistan should stay out of the Iran-Saudi nuclear rivalry. Over and above all this, Israel and the United States must stop threatening to bomb Iran.
Published in The Express Tribune, January 23rd, 2012
niaz
PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 5,164
- Reaction score
- 211
- Country
- Location
Problem is the CTBT which was passed by United Nations General Assembly on Sept 10, 1996. Out of the 44 states that operated nuclear reactor of some sort, 41 countries including Iran signed it. Three countries India, Pakistan and North Korea did not sign it. 35 countries later ratified the treaty however 6 countries China, Egypt, Iran, Israel and the United States have signed but not ratified the Treaty. One of the reasons that European Union have followed up on the sanction on Iran is because Iran had originally signed the CTBT.
In 1998 India said it would only sign the treaty if the United States presented a schedule for eliminating its nuclear stockpile, a condition the United States rejected. Pakistan said that it will only sign if India signed it.
Just look at our neighbour and arch enemy India. India has said ‘NO’ to US on many occasions especially on the CTBT as mentioned above. India has strong democratic roots and never had any military coup. Indian industrial and economic progress is phenomenal. Standard of technical and medical education in India is very good and in the IT field India leads the world.
Pray tell me, why make Iran our role model? We don’t have to follow India in everything but at least use her industrial progress as our role model. We should be saying that if India can why can't Pakistan?
Don’t you think it is narrow mindedness in the extreme to ignore one of the world’s leading emerging economies but follow theocratic Iran’s road to oblivion?
Thank you sir
From where I am sitting I can see no compelling evidence that Iran has the nuke. It seems the west does not even want Iran to have the capability. Remember WMD in Iraq
I do not really accept that democracy is necessarily the best form of governance or managing the relationship between the state its institutions and the individual. Certainly not in India or Pakistan where we have relatively high literacy levels etc. I mean in Pakistan with 3 million votes out of some 180 million we have PPP commanding a majority and clearly not representing the wishes of the man on the street.
Both in Pakistan where we could put up a donkey in certain areas with the blessing of a 21 year old Bhutto's blessing and in India the same with an Italian woman's blessing we could elect a donkey democracy is something simply hoisted upon us from the west which does not wish us or our neighbourhood well
Sir I take issue with this with the resources at the disposal including manpower if you compare India to a country of similar population they have failed miserably. India is often compared to countries like Pakistan which are much smaller and it seems to fare much better.
If you take the example of borders India has major with its neighbours which are outstanding if you look at China using a policy of give and take China has resolved it's border issues with the majority of it's neighbours and not forgetting the Chinese have managed to eradicate illiteracy. Have you noticed even outside China Chinese nationals are very pro Chinese whereas Indians and or Pakistanis often tend to start falling for western analysis of our countries
I think sometimes we don't make ourselves clear and if we tried we would be in danger of going well off topic.
I myself have no love for a theocratic state. But I am fed up to the back teeth of Pakistan Saudi leaders in fact most Muslim if not all putting their citizens and their principles and ideals subordinate to western interest.
We need to invent our own form of democracy that suits our people rather than trying to ape and follow the Westminster model of democracy. We need to have a Pakistani flavour in the absence of a better word in governance and management of our problems and issues. Anyway I think I have already gone well off topic.
MastanKhan
PDF VETERAN
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2005
- Messages
- 21,269
- Reaction score
- 166
- Country
- Location
Why not----the current regime is pathetic----. Your politicians have made more enemies for the nation just by talking too much. You have made the life of whole of the middle east miserable---. Your country with so many resources is a bad example of how a nation ought to act.
When I hear statements made by iranian leadership---I hear them as the enemies of islam and not the friends of islam---. The empty threats that your leadership makes towards other nations under the guise of islam has created more problems for muslim nations---it has made the so called enemy stronger by the day---.
The startegy to win a war is to LULL the enemy into a false feeling of security so that he does not feel threatened and does not invest into defence----your politicians idiocy has raised the bar of stupidity to levels never seen in he history of mankind by continuously threatening to destroy a smaller nation ( which is a favourite of the world super powers )---the lack of understanding and comprehending the ideology of lying low and preparing silently tells me that there are major issues being faced internally in the country.
These threatening statements are made to divert the attention of the public away from the real problems to keep the party in power stay in power.
The second assessment is that the leadership of your political party is not loyal to iran but to their political agenda.
Now don't get me wrong---our sh-it here in pakistan---stinks as well.
But remember--the actions and speeches of your nation has made the life of muslims all over the world a little more miserable than it needed to be.
Storm Force
BANNED
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2009
- Messages
- 5,100
- Reaction score
- -66
- Country
- Location
Yes india should be doing better NO DOUBT
BUT a $2 trillion GDP and $300 billion forex means they are hardly a failure either.
IN CASE you missed you THEY HAVE JUST declared a budget of $40 billion for their defense forces at merely 2% ( yes 2% )
How many developing countries can build
nuke subs or airc raft carriers or indeed 7000 tonne guided missle destroyers
cause india is doing just that
BUT a $2 trillion GDP and $300 billion forex means they are hardly a failure either.
IN CASE you missed you THEY HAVE JUST declared a budget of $40 billion for their defense forces at merely 2% ( yes 2% )
How many developing countries can build
nuke subs or airc raft carriers or indeed 7000 tonne guided missle destroyers
cause india is doing just that
Similar threads
