Solomon2
BANNED
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2008
- Messages
- 19,475
- Reaction score
- -37
- Country
- Location
This is a "baggage" issue. For generations Pakistan has lacked leaders who were fully legitimate: they exercised power unconstitutionally or undemocratically. Pakistanis then saw legitimacy in consensus or unity. But Pakistan has had two leaders now who reached power constitutionally through elections. Why should they not have the exercise their authority to act without consensus? Abraham Lincoln squeaked through reelection by inches but he did not concede either policy or power to his very popular opponents both within and without his administration.I think the answer is obvious and you already know it , why teach/remind me of my country's history ? The " Armed Forces of Pakistan " or the " high command " is already faced with a lot of blames and public/political pressure and cant go on the offensive openly , you need the nation to be united which it unfortunately isn't . They are divided on the issue...If they were capable of , they would have done that by now , wouldn't they have ?
They don't have to be. They need to be opposed by will and right, not just might. Negotiation isn't as important right now as the gov't dictating its terms for surrender.The terrorists aren't ready to talk on the Govt's terms as you assume there -
That makes a public political agenda by the leadership even more important, yes?Decide who's your enemy first until then , you are confused as a nation .
Even the Sri-Lankans knew of the common enemy but the Pakistanis do not , majority considers -
Stop
Seeking
Consensus!
Courting consensus either enshrines paralysis, empowers the mob, or suggests that a politician is useless/deceitful.