Pakistan's defence budget cut - retracted. Increased by 7.

[Myth_buster_1]

India's defence expenditure v social spending debate
wAv6V7L3cTc[/media] - India's defence expenditure v social spending debate-09Oct07

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

It really make no difference as to what is the social vs defence spending.

If defence is not there, then what is that of social spending one is worried about?

The poor are guaranteed 100 days of work by the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme at Rs 70 per day.

There has been no cut in Pak defence spending and instead there has been an increase. Thus, it is odd to ask for a similar cut in India's defence budget, when there is none in Pakistan's. So, what is the cut they want?

'Does Pakistan have any scheme for guaranteed employment of the rural poor?

 

[TALWAR]

Pakistan is no match for India in its economic might and looking at the current scenario, the difference is only widening.

And freezing or cutting your defence budget does not reflect the "peace" attitude, it only reflects the economic status of Pakistan.

If pakistan want to show signs of peace, then pak must stop encouraging terrorists to infilterate into India and stop giving cover fire to the terrorists.
If you give us peace, we will return 10 times more. But if pakistan continues to use the policy of "Bleed india with 1000 cuts", then in long term perspective, its capability will be limited only to that.

And moreover, you cannot just afford to support the so called Jihad in Kashmir, because the times have changed. Terrorism was earlier only India specfic problem, but is now global enemy. Any support to terrorism with warrant global wrath and isolation.

The peace deals are just not going to work. We dont negotiate with terrorists, we only kill them or offer them to surrender. A few years back Afganistan was the battelground for fighting terrorists. But with the peace deals taking place, pakistan is increasingly becoming the battelground to fight the terrorists. It would be wise to fight them yourself, than let others fight in your own land.

You guys should be knowing well how US is changing the world opinion against pakistan, and branding it as terrorism.
Do you guys think that India is fool not to accept the Nuclear deal from US. Today we take carrot and tomorrow we get stick, so its better to deny the carrot.


Most importantly, just imagine what will happen if Osama pulls out another 9/11 like attack. The world belives that Osama is in Pakistan, and then you have no option but to let the US led forces to attack terrorists inside pakistan. And US led forces do not care about the collatoral damage, so the civilian casuelties will be very high.

Its best to come clear against terrorism and fight it yourself than making peace deals.

 

[blain2]

Pakistan is no match for India in its economic might and looking at the current scenario, the difference is only widening.

And freezing or cutting your defence budget does not reflect the "peace" attitude, it only reflects the economic status of Pakistan.

If pakistan want to show signs of peace, then pak must stop encouraging terrorists to infilterate into India and stop giving cover fire to the terrorists.
If you give us peace, we will return 10 times more. But if pakistan continues to use the policy of "Bleed india with 1000 cuts", then in long term perspective, its capability will be limited only to that.

And moreover, you cannot just afford to support the so called Jihad in Kashmir, because the times have changed. Terrorism was earlier only India specfic problem, but is now global enemy. Any support to terrorism with warrant global wrath and isolation.

The peace deals are just not going to work. We dont negotiate with terrorists, we only kill them or offer them to surrender. A few years back Afganistan was the battelground for fighting terrorists. But with the peace deals taking place, pakistan is increasingly becoming the battelground to fight the terrorists. It would be wise to fight them yourself, than let others fight in your own land.

You guys should be knowing well how US is changing the world opinion against pakistan, and branding it as terrorism.
Do you guys think that India is fool not to accept the Nuclear deal from US. Today we take carrot and tomorrow we get stick, so its better to deny the carrot.


Most importantly, just imagine what will happen if Osama pulls out another 9/11 like attack. The world belives that Osama is in Pakistan, and then you have no option but to let the US led forces to attack terrorists inside pakistan. And US led forces do not care about the collatoral damage, so the civilian casuelties will be very high.

Its best to come clear against terrorism and fight it yourself than making peace deals.

Mr. Talwar,

If you give us peace, we will return 10 times more.

Sloganeering does not cut it in South Asia. There was peace between Pakistan and India and no terrorism in Kashmir between 1948-65 and then from 1971 to 87. That is more than enough time to return the peace dividends but nobody bothered.

You guys should be knowing well how US is changing the world opinion against pakistan, and branding it as terrorism.

US power has its limitations and the GoP is not stupid either. Don't think that by branding Pakistani support for Kashmiris as terrorism, this support will go away. US has certain powers, but it does not have absolute power to change the way masses feel. Most of the Muslim countries already don't buy this self-serving definition of "terrorism" coined by the US. In the UN there is no agreement on what self-defence is and what it terrorism (US calls attacks on its own occupational forces in Iraq and Afghanistan as terrorism). Even by the existing UN injunctions, this is not so.

So my friend, don't put so much weight on US changing opinions all around. The US lost the moment after it wasted the sympathy gained after 9/11 by invading Iraq and then Afghanistan. Now the others (occupied) have greater grievances and more listening ears than what the American attempts to change the opinion get.

We dont negotiate with terrorists, we only kill them or offer them to surrender.

And I am sure that has really pacified Kashmiris or resolved the problem of terrorism worldwide. Israelis are still killing and getting killed using the same policy. Pakistan has tried the same to no effect. So aside from bravado, the above statement serves no real purpose in resolving the situation on the ground. You have to talk and you have to put other types of pressure. One prong alone does not yield the desired results.

Getting back to this specific topic, there is no defence budget cut in Pakistan. Life goes on.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

Pakistan is no match for India in its economic might and looking at the current scenario, the difference is only widening.

And freezing or cutting your defence budget does not reflect the "peace" attitude, it only reflects the economic status of Pakistan.

If pakistan want to show signs of peace, then pak must stop encouraging terrorists to infilterate into India and stop giving cover fire to the terrorists.
If you give us peace, we will return 10 times more. But if pakistan continues to use the policy of "Bleed india with 1000 cuts", then in long term perspective, its capability will be limited only to that.

And moreover, you cannot just afford to support the so called Jihad in Kashmir, because the times have changed. Terrorism was earlier only India specfic problem, but is now global enemy. Any support to terrorism with warrant global wrath and isolation.

The peace deals are just not going to work. We dont negotiate with terrorists, we only kill them or offer them to surrender. A few years back Afganistan was the battelground for fighting terrorists. But with the peace deals taking place, pakistan is increasingly becoming the battelground to fight the terrorists. It would be wise to fight them yourself, than let others fight in your own land.

You guys should be knowing well how US is changing the world opinion against pakistan, and branding it as terrorism.
Do you guys think that India is fool not to accept the Nuclear deal from US. Today we take carrot and tomorrow we get stick, so its better to deny the carrot.


Most importantly, just imagine what will happen if Osama pulls out another 9/11 like attack. The world belives that Osama is in Pakistan, and then you have no option but to let the US led forces to attack terrorists inside pakistan. And US led forces do not care about the collatoral damage, so the civilian casuelties will be very high.

Its best to come clear against terrorism and fight it yourself than making peace deals.

Actually, 9/11 has been the turning point of Pakistan's destiny.

It was unfortunate for Pakistan to be linked to it by association and not by intent.

Further the state of affairs at the time internally for Pakistan was not conducive since she was in dire straits economically and there was labels like ''failed state'' or ''rouge state'' was being bandied quite liberally in the international arena. Further, President Musharraf's regime was looked upon as yet another military dictatorship having been foisted on Pakistan.

Therefore, the dice was loaded against Pakistan.

From this unfortunate scenario, President Musharraf salvaged Pakistan, Pakistan was recognised as a responsible state and with aid from the US, WB and IMF, Pakistan's economy bounced back into not only a healthy state, but to an enviable state of financial upbeat.

As the American adage goes - there is nothing like a free lunch. Hence, Pakistan had to align with the US in the GWOT. It was obviously not a popular choice since it was felt in the Islamic world that the GWOT was actually a cloak to obliterate Islam or at least, marginalise it to an inconsequential position. It is to the credit of President Musharraf that he handled this dichotomy most astutely, wherein he did occasionally upset the US and in the later stages, added to the US frustration of his dragging his feet!

Thus, he had to go and he was himself marginalised and the elections forced on him brought his regime to a defeat.

There is no doubt the US will do its utmost to remain as the sole superpower. In its equation to be so, Afghanistan plays an important role since it overlooks areas of US interest, be it Iranm, the CAR, China or South Asia. It is wishful thinking that the US will pack its bags and go. No matter which party rules the US, the US geostrategic and geopolitical aims will remain the same.

In this whople episode, Pakistan is in a tight spot and its govt, whatever the hue, cannot extricate itself from the vicious circle, While domestic policy demands a clean break from the GWOT, realpolitik prevents such a drastic action.

The Pakistan govt thus in a bind.

To come clear and go against terrorism and the Taliban (which has many graduates from its madrassas) would inflame a large majority and that is a chance that no govt of Pakistan cannot take. It will have to be the reluctant suitor to this GWOT marriage of convenience.

It is an unfortunate state of affair, but a real one at that!

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

=blain2;165051


US power has its limitations and the GoP is not stupid either. Don't think that by branding Pakistani support for Kashmiris as terrorism, this support will go away. US has certain powers, but it does not have absolute power to change the way masses feel. Most of the Muslim countries already don't buy this self-serving definition of "terrorism" coined by the US. In the UN there is no agreement on what self-defence is and what it terrorism (US calls attacks on its own occupational forces in Iraq and Afghanistan as terrorism). Even by the existing UN injunctions, this is not so.

So my friend, don't put so much weight on US changing opinions all around. The US lost the moment after it wasted the sympathy gained after 9/11 by invading Iraq and then Afghanistan. Now the others (occupied) have greater grievances and more listening ears than what the American attempts to change the opinion get.

The unfortunate part for those who feel otherwise, the US continues to be the ''voice'' of most countries and what may appear a trifle difficult to accept, is that what they are saying sticks. Russia has been censured for the action in Abkhazia! Imagine Russia being put in the dock!

Therefore, one cannot wish away the powers of the US in opinion making around the world.

The Islamic countries may brook any sentiments, but they still kowtow to the US, even Syria. The only Islamic nation to oppose is Iran and it finds itself isolated from the Islamic world thanks to the US and its influence opinion making in amongst the Arab nations.

In fact, the Arabs are the greatest followers of the US.

Therefore, the US still rules the waves!

 

[blain2]

Talwar,

I did not mean to edit your post. Sorry about that. I thought I had responded to it but such was not the case.

 

[blain2]

The unfortunate part for those who feel otherwise, the US continues to be the ''voice'' of most countries and what may appear a trifle difficult to accept, is that what they are saying sticks. Russia has been censured for the action in Abkhazia! Imagine Russia being put in the dock!

Therefore, one cannot wish away the powers of the US in opinion making around the world.

The Islamic countries may brook any sentiments, but they still kowtow to the US, even Syria. The only Islamic nation to oppose is Iran and it finds itself isolated from the Islamic world thanks to the US and its influence opinion making in amongst the Arab nations.

In fact, the Arabs are the greatest followers of the US.

Therefore, the US still rules the waves!

My point is what the man on the street feels in the muslim world..Arab leadership and Arab nations are two poles apart. The media offensive in the west has failed to change the opinion of most on the Muslim street about what terrorism and what the right for self-determination and liberation really are.

You are absolutely right that media belongs to the US. However Media is only one aspect of this debate. On any given day, I can search for news about Pakistan on Yahoo and I am sure that 90% of the articles are negative as such is the way the perceptions are molded. However the vast majority of the Muslim world is actually shielded from this media blitz either because they simply don't buy it or don't have the time or opportunity to bother with it.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Talwar,

I did not mean to edit your post. Sorry about that. I thought I had responded to it but such was not the case.

Yeah I have done the same myself - thought I hit quote, but hit edit instead.

I'm going to delete that post though, since it makes no sense the way its formatted now, feel free to restore it.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

My point is what the man on the street feels in the muslim world..Arab leadership and Arab nations are two poles apart. The media offensive in the west has failed to change the opinion of most on the Muslim street about what terrorism and what the right for self-determination and liberation really are.

You are absolutely right that media belongs to the US. However Media is only one aspect of this debate. On any given day, I can search for news about Pakistan on Yahoo and I am sure that 90% of the articles are negative as such is the way the perceptions are molded. However the vast majority of the Muslim world is actually shielded from this media blitz either because they simply don't buy it or don't have the time or opportunity to bother with it.

At the end of the day, the US knows the limitations of its influence, and the fact that it really will have little control over popularly elected governments in the Muslim world, hence the propping up of autocracies and monarchies.

I don't think the lessons of Algeria should be forgotten in an attempt to coddle to US interests, prerogatives and downright naivety in dealing with the ideological threat we face. The fight against the Taliban isn't merely a fight against criminals or warlords, it is a fight against ideology, and ideology does not die out through military failure, especially when the narrative of a "weaker force triumphing over Goliath's" is such an important part of the ideological makeup (The early victories and travails of Muhammed, the traditional victories and stalemates of the Pashtun's against huge invading empires etc.).

Both in Afghanistan and Pakistan, such ideology will have to be channeled into a more constructive and participatory process, slowly, such that it chips away at the root causes that allow for popular support for such ideology, through a combination of "sticks and carrots".

 

[blain2]

Yeah I have done the same myself - thought I hit quote, but hit edit instead.

I'm going to delete that post though, since it makes no sense the way its formatted now, feel free to restore it.

No its fine. Thanks!

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

My point is what the man on the street feels in the muslim world..Arab leadership and Arab nations are two poles apart. The media offensive in the west has failed to change the opinion of most on the Muslim street about what terrorism and what the right for self-determination and liberation really are.

You are absolutely right that media belongs to the US. However Media is only one aspect of this debate. On any given day, I can search for news about Pakistan on Yahoo and I am sure that 90% of the articles are negative as such is the way the perceptions are molded. However the vast majority of the Muslim world is actually shielded from this media blitz either because they simply don't buy it or don't have the time or opportunity to bother with it.

I am with you as to your contention about the feeling of the man on the street in the Islamic world.

However, since Islamic countries are ruled by Sheiks or very autocratic govts, the man in the street is almost redundant to the actions of the govt.

 

[blain2]

However, since Islamic countries are ruled by Sheiks or very autocratic govts, the man in the street is almost redundant to the actions of the govt.

You wont find me disagreeing here.

 

[TALWAR]

Actually, 9/11 has been the turning point of Pakistan's destiny.

It was unfortunate for Pakistan to be linked to it by association and not by intent.

Further the state of affairs at the time internally for Pakistan was not conducive since she was in dire straits economically and there was labels like ''failed state'' or ''rouge state'' was being bandied quite liberally in the international arena. Further, President Musharraf's regime was looked upon as yet another military dictatorship having been foisted on Pakistan.

Therefore, the dice was loaded against Pakistan.

From this unfortunate scenario, President Musharraf salvaged Pakistan, Pakistan was recognised as a responsible state and with aid from the US, WB and IMF, Pakistan's economy bounced back into not only a healthy state, but to an enviable state of financial upbeat.

As the American adage goes - there is nothing like a free lunch. Hence, Pakistan had to align with the US in the GWOT. It was obviously not a popular choice since it was felt in the Islamic world that the GWOT was actually a cloak to obliterate Islam or at least, marginalise it to an inconsequential position. It is to the credit of President Musharraf that he handled this dichotomy most astutely, wherein he did occasionally upset the US and in the later stages, added to the US frustration of his dragging his feet!

Thus, he had to go and he was himself marginalised and the elections forced on him brought his regime to a defeat.

There is no doubt the US will do its utmost to remain as the sole superpower. In its equation to be so, Afghanistan plays an important role since it overlooks areas of US interest, be it Iranm, the CAR, China or South Asia. It is wishful thinking that the US will pack its bags and go. No matter which party rules the US, the US geostrategic and geopolitical aims will remain the same.

In this whople episode, Pakistan is in a tight spot and its govt, whatever the hue, cannot extricate itself from the vicious circle, While domestic policy demands a clean break from the GWOT, realpolitik prevents such a drastic action.

The Pakistan govt thus in a bind.

To come clear and go against terrorism and the Taliban (which has many graduates from its madrassas) would inflame a large majority and that is a chance that no govt of Pakistan cannot take. It will have to be the reluctant suitor to this GWOT marriage of convenience.

It is an unfortunate state of affair, but a real one at that!

Your explanation is very logical indeed.
However, what is the solution. If pakistan reluctantly supports the WOT, and continues to be safe haven for taliban, its not safe for South Asia in a long term perspective. The world is more united to fight terrorism than ever before. In such a scenario, what are pakistans options?

Security is no more related to borders, uncertainity somewhere affects security somewhere. And as long as the south asian region is not free from terrorists, there cannot be peace in the whole region.

 

[TALWAR]

Talwar,

I did not mean to edit your post. Sorry about that. I thought I had responded to it but such was not the case.

No worries! As long as you have read it.
Only now I notice that you yourself are a mod.

Also with an inflation of around 11% and PNR depreciation of about 10%, do you think a 7% hike is indeed a "hike" or even "freeze".