Faiez
BANNED
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2009
- Messages
- 1,658
- Reaction score
- 0
Funny how you're a pro-"state" person but you don't know the Duty of the Army or the oath they take.
When you take the oath in the Army, you say "I will protect Pakistan from Internal and External Threats". The Pakistani Army is not like your western countries Armies. The Constitution let's the Army to do what it wants, If the Government asks for it. Not all of the Army is like Zia-Ul-Haq. I'm sure his intentions were the best, but we got radicalized in the wrong way. You pro state liberals should The understand that. If the Army has to step in, like when Musharraf did, they have to make a decision to either save the Constitution or the State. If you save the Constitution the State will no longer exist therefore the second option is best for you, even if the you don't understand.
If those dirty politicians should come above the Army, we'd be overrun by India years ago.
Look at Nawaz Sharif. He ordered our forces to retreat when we were next to solving the Kashmir conflict once and for all. Most of the casualties suffered were during the retreat where we were shot in the back.
You can make a security guard sign a legally binding agreement that he'll do what ever is in his power to protect your property/life, big deal "oath".....
The constitution can be changed by the people. The people make the constitution that governs the army. The army is below the law, not above it.
Save the constitution vs save the state ? LoL. Musharaf had the option of illegally/unconstitutionally saving himself from getting legally/constitutionally fired and he used it. That's all. He along with other generals/soldiers (aka security guards of the nation) should have been the ones to go to jail after they tried to overthrow the gov.
What happens to the state is the peoples' matter, not army alone's. The people are the deciders, not the army.
Let me give you an example. I run a business as a CEO, representing the shareholders and I make decisions on their behalf. We have some security guards who are paid for their security services from this business. Now one day, the security staff decides they can run the business better than me and they throw me out of the office and take over. Do you think that's fair to the shareholders who voted for me as the CEO? A bunch of security guards just took over their business at gun point, do you think that should be allowed ?
Now I don't like NS or Bhutto or what ever. I don't like any politicians. But law is to be followed, even if it is unfavorable until the law can be amended to suit the people's interests better. If you don't, then the state is basically a joke.