TechLahore
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2009
- Messages
- 1,741
- Reaction score
- 0
In dear old SMC's words.. A diversion.. ??
No, I was just pointing out that your allegation of hypocrisy was a bit hypocritical.
Your Srilanka example is as out of context here. In India Pakistan case, a Pakistani newspaper is preaching to India about an internal aspect of Indian armed forces where the record of Pakistan on the same aspect (corruption in army) is a thousand times worse.
No more obfuscation, please! Are you saying that Jawed Naqvi is not an Indian citizen? Why are you hiding behind the fact that the article was published in DAWN? The author of the article is not DAWN, but a living, breathing Indian citizen who is simply pointing to facts... facts which you are unable to counter or even respond to short of the "Hypocrisy, hypocrisy" chant we've heard repeatedly.
As for "thousand times worse", is that an objective comment established by some verifiable metric that can be agreed to or is it another subjective slur as you continue to grasp for a counter point with merit?
Thats the worst kind of self serving logic that I have heard. Because the coup is bloodless, its democratic. There is a way to
Are you trying to deliberately miss the point? It is not democratic because it is bloodless. It is democratic because it has the support of the vast majority of the people of the country. And as a consequence, since it is democratic and widely supported, there is no opposition. And since there is no opposition, there is no bloodshed. Hopefully you will have a slightly harder time missing the point this time.
The issue is not if in the heat of the moment, Pakistan is called a safe haven for terrorists or the source of terrorism cancer. The thing is that so many people have called it so many times that its no longer a statement of impact but a statement in passing. The type cast is so
Perhaps that is the way you chose to see it. I see it differently. I think name calling is a tool often used to pressure countries. In the case of Pakistan, this tool has been employed for several years now with no results to speak of. Pakistan continues to pursue its own national interest and despite the "training camp" mantras has called India's bluff twice by deploying troops eyeball to eyeball across the border (2002, and then 26/11).
strong that its stuck. National interests are good, but at the cost of becoming an international symbol for terrorism.. I am not so sure..But then your country.. your call...
Once again, it is your perception. You are free to have it. Other people may have formed their perceptions of India based on the brutal killings of Kashmiris, the Naxalite rebellion, Slumdog, poverty, Tamil terrorism and much more. Let's not get into that. What do they say about opinions? They are like your rear-end and everyone has one...
The aid is not yet finalized.. The US govt is going to propose it next year to a republican congress. Lets see how that goes down and the returns extracted against this aid. As I said, I would rather have the
Wasn't it the republicans that were in favour of amping up military assistance to Pakistan? Wasn't the republican sanctioned military assistance condition free? Wasn't that the most major criticism of the republican approach to Pakistan in certain circles?
Yes, we shall see. And as for what will be extracted against this aid, don't Indians complain about the fact that nothing has been extracted with any of the billions of assistance and weapons given to Pakistan? Can't have it both ways
American president selling me stuff against my money instead of giving me money in return for bombing my citizens in my territory..
Hmm. So that would mean that were it not for American money, Pakistan would not have gone after these people? Let's see now... Sufi Mohammad in Swat, that was one of the biggest Army ops. When was the first time the Army acted against him and his organization? Try the 90s. Then let's take the "Punjabi Taliban", aka Sipah-e-Sahaba. When were they first targeted? Once again, try the 90s. Operations against these groups have been going on over time. They have never been in the international limelight, however. Now they are. But that doesn't change history.
Now let's consider the flip side of this. If Pakistan is taking money to bomb its own citizens, then you would think that Pakistan is doing America's bidding. If that's the case, how do you explain NWA?
Once again, you can either say Pakistan is protecting its interests/assets in NWA and going after only those elements which it deems to be unacceptable OR you can say that Pakistan is simply taking US money and bombing everyone the US asks it to. But you can't straddle the fence and play it both ways.
I think even you know that the "bombing citizens for money" argument is utter nonsense, but you are free to continue the pretense.
This I totally agree to. US is a non entity in the game of Pakistan sponsored insurgency in Kashmir. Every new tactic by Pakistan
As it is in the game of Indian sponsored terror in Pakistan. Poor US. So powerless.
Its a pipe dream that USA will pressure INdia to tangibly do something that is beneficial to Pakistan on the Kashmir issue or any other..
Haha! Good one! Since you flipped my statement around, I am glad you recognize Pakistan and India's influence in this regard at parity.
Specific to the billions of dollars of aid from USA, my point was that despite those sweetners, the situation for Pakistan since 1990's has been on a downward spiral except 2-3 years immidiately after 9/11. So I believe the issue is more intrinsic than something that can be sweetened by a few billion dollars of military aid.
Downward spiral how? As defined by you or some objective metrics. Has the Pakistani economy grown only 2-3 years since 9/11? Has our military power grown only during 2-3 years? Have our exports increased, or remittances gone up only in this period?
Please get off your high horse. India and Pakistan are roughly at the same level of per capita income. If Pakistan has done so badly, then up until this day, India has done equally badly. If it had done so much better, then there wouldn't be a trivial difference in per-capita income.
Now, you talk about the future and 8% growth and this and that... well, let's see. The future is yet to unfold.
I think you didnt get my point.. What does a UNSC seat get India? Not a solution to Kashmir certainly.... Its simply a power play.. More of a prestige issue.. The UN reforms are a decade if not 2 away.. Till then its more of an endorsement of a country's importance on the international scene than anything else. As I said before..Nothing tangible coming out of it
Agreed. Nothing tangible coming out of it. Glad we can see eye to eye on this at least.