COAS Gen. Kayani Urges Less Spending on Defence

[Peregrine]

What is wrong with the Generals getting farm lands? After living dangerously, they probably aspire to live peacefully as agriculturists, which is fair enough. And maintain themselves financially in retirement, Army pensions are'nt too great.

Even swords can be beaten into ploughshares.

You probably have no idea about perks given to Generals even after retirement. First, you try to dig up some facts, then get back at me. Retired and live as agriculturalists? LOL OMG! how about Ambassadors to foreign countries?........ Anyways you try to gather some info on your own.

 

[Solomon2]

put israel on a

"You say Pakistan has problems? Israel blah blah blah...now don't talk about Pakistan's problems anymore." The Arab Spring shows that approach doesn't work forever. It'll just take a little longer for Pakistan, I guess. Whose side are you going to be on, AZ? Or are you going to wait until the storm sweeps you along in its wake?

you come from the mindset that Pakistan must act uniliaterally and set aside its own security concerns.

Not at all. However, Americans have always drawn a line between Pakistan's security concerns and its imperialistic ambitions of conquest. This has been a source of Pakistan's frustration for many decades.

Well budget cuts or no cuts, we will never scale back on our security. More funds should be routed towards the training of police so that they can protect the prisons from militant onslaughts

It doesn't work. Funds directed at police end up in somebody's pockets; efforts to make such people more accountable are resisted by both civilian and military officials. Pakistan is going down, mate.

it's unfortunate that NATO (which controls and basically administers Afghanistan) is unwilling or unable to stop TTP militants from seeking safe-haven in Afghanistan -which has become an increasingly troublesome country for Pakistan.

Do you think Pakistani attemptd to turn NATO's supply line into a noose helps?

 

[Capt.Popeye]

unfortunately if it does , its we who will indirectly or directly be affected . a country in chaos is one thing, but when its a nuclear armed one its another story .
i doubt south block want to see Pakistan descend into chaos . its will be a headache of unimaginable proportions to us .

That is true. But realities are a bit different. Then again, this "nuke armed" thing is finally gas! Possessing nukes cannot prevent low intensity conflicts. What is worrisome in this context is just misuse/mishandling of the nukes in question. No govt will dare to let that happen, because that govt.'s control will then get erased (along with the govt. itself).
OTOH, actually posession of nukes actually only just raises the threshold. Real deterence only comes from a matching "conventional capability" in tandem with the "nuclear capability".

About South Block not wanting Pakistan to descend in to chaos is true. It certainly does not want that. But if it finds lack of reciprocity, then it will allow Pakistan just to teeter on the brink. Which is what is on New Delhi's mind. And will calibrate its moves constantly accordingly. Something like a "visible carrot" and an "invisible stick".

Maybe Solomon2 has a point there after all.

 

[Rajputana]

i think after touring siachen Kayani has realized he he cannot afford to keep soldiers posted like the Indian Army.

He knows if he keeps sending them up there without proper equipment and facilities they will keep dying. Not to talk of the fact that no Indian soldier has died in 8 years and Pakistan losing 150 in a day totally destroys the morale of **** soldiers.

Now he is requesting India to spend less, well they should have thought of that before blundering on Kargil.

 

[Abhishek_]

Kiyani isn't talking about the possibility unilateral moves by Pakistan, only mutual ones. That effectively gives India a veto on Pakistani development policy: for India to keep Pakistan messed up it need change nothing India is doing already

quoted for truth.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

You probably have no idea about perks given to Generals even after retirement. First, you try to dig up some facts, then get back at me. Retired and live as agriculturalists? LOL OMG! how about Ambassadors to foreign countries?........ Anyways you try to gather some info on your own.

I will certainly concede to not being familiar with the actual perks given to the Generals in Pakistan post-retirement apart from the agricultural lands. I would definitely consider any aspirations that they may hold to cultivate the land in very good faith. And the nation should not grudge them that. If the other perks are so substantial so as to be ostentatious, then a re-think may be in order.

BTW, Army pensions in India are only just comfortable, so they do not arouse public ire. May be that influenced my opinion.

 

[JanjaWeed]

That effectively gives India a veto on Pakistani development policy: for India to keep Pakistan messed up it need change nothing India is doing already, or else make a few more aggressive noises and Pakistani military spending will either stay at the current level or even rise.

A classic quote couple of years ago by Imran Khan comes to my mind.. India doesn't have to do anything to hurt Pakistan. All they need to do is to raise their own defence budget to break back of Pak's economy. Looks like more & more people in Pakistan realising this fact including the army chief!

 

[mautkimaut]

I have to say.. Kiyani is the only man who can bring peace to the sub continent..

Good to hear his views on reducing the reduced defence spending.

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

Ignoring your unnecessary crudeness, would you please care to explain how this statement is incomplete or skewed?

because you're looking at it from a very limited prism that completely rejects and/or ignores Pakistan's perspective

India has worked long and hard to put Pakistan in a disadvantaged position on many fronts. Why should, or indeed would, it change those policies now?

india's designs against Pakistan would fail, new delhi knows this already

and that's why it is in their own interests to promote regional security and taking steps that will alleviate our security and other concerns....and in actuality, it was never india that put Pakistan in disadvantaged position on international arena. Pakistan is at a challenging period because it is not towing the west's line bit-by-bit vis a vis the Afghanistan theatre.

that's a whole other subject and there's no need to delve into it here

with all due respect, i think your question is flawed; it is actually the Pakistani government and its neglect of duty to nation that has been Pakistan in disadvantaged position more than anything else

 

[FireFighter]

Not at all. However, Americans have always drawn a line between Pakistan's security concerns and its imperialistic ambitions of conquest. This has been a source of Pakistan's frustration for many decades.

HAHAHAHA

This has to be the biggest comedy I have ever read on this forum. Look who is talking, with a King in his picture.

Are you freaking serious mate?

It doesn't work. Funds directed at police end up in somebody's pockets; efforts to make such people more accountable are resisted by both civilian and military officials. Pakistan is going down, mate.

Do you think Pakistani attemptd to turn NATO's supply line into a noose helps?

Yes, Pakistanis love seeing Nato soldiers running out of toilet paper and wiping their ***** with opium leaves instead.

india's designs against Pakistan would fail, new delhi knows this already

and that's why it is in their own interests to promote regional security and taking steps that will alleviate our security and other concerns....and in actuality, it was never india that put Pakistan in disadvantaged position on international arena. Pakistan is at a challenging period because it is not towing the west's line bit-by-bit vis a vis the Afghanistan theatre.

that's a whole other subject and there's no need to delve into it here

with all due respect, i think your question is flawed; it is actually the Pakistani government and its neglect of duty to nation that has been Pakistan in disadvantaged position more than anything else

India is in a much stronger economic/political position, with Pakistan on a downward economic spiral, why would India be interested in our security/economic betterment especially when it has clear imperialistic ambitions?

When you're weak, you should concentrate on addressing your weaknesses, instead of begging for help from your enemies to look into your concerns.

It really baffles me when ignorant political goons the likes of Nawaz Shareef make such idiotic statements.

I just can't believe people that vote for these idiots, seriously.

 

[notsuperstitious]

Its not clear what he meant. However one has to take notice when Kayani speaks as he holds all the keys to peace in the sub continent.

If he was trying to hold India responsible, then he was just taunting India, he probably winked and did high fives with other generals afterwards.

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

"You say Pakistan has problems? Israel blah blah blah...now don't talk about Pakistan's problems anymore." The Arab Spring shows that approach doesn't work forever. It'll just take a little longer for Pakistan, I guess. Whose side are you going to be on, AZ? Or are you going to wait until the storm sweeps you along in its wake?

Don’t worry about me and don’t worry about Pakistan, my son. It doesn’t concern you at all.

Not at all. However, Americans have always drawn a line between Pakistan's security concerns and its imperialistic ambitions of conquest.

You invade one country after the other based on lies and half-truths, arm one entity over the other –and you talk to me about conquest and imperialistic ambitions.

This has been a source of Pakistan's frustration for many decades.

I think media-trials and baseless empty words of hot air, 'bounties' et al are more evident signs of frustration

It doesn't work. Funds directed at police end up in somebody's pockets; efforts to make such people more accountable are resisted by both civilian and military officials.

Military would have no reason at all to be opposed to re-vamped and improved police forces, equipped to deal with today’s challenges……as I said earlier, army’s job isn’t to be everywhere at one time when some untoward incident takes place. If you thought otherwise, then youre an idiot and i cant help you.

Do you think Pakistani attemptd to turn NATO's supply line into a noose helps?

Pakistan ought to undertake any measure that falls in line with its national interest. I think the parliamentary review comes at a time when there is a lot of domestic pressure over how much support Pakistan should blindly extend to prolong a war that has brought more insecurity and terrorism to the region. NATO isn’t part of the solution, it has unfortuinately become part of the problem.

The ''noose’’ you are talking about is in the hands of parliament, not GHQ. You have a problem with what measures Pakistan takes on its OWN territory, well – take it up with parliament….


my thoughts on the aspiring ''steven cohens'' -- the ''enthusiastics'' sitting far away trying to villify and peddle crap about Pakistan:


bleeding *** sore *** niggaz!!

 

[LiberalAtheist]

even the PA is not as dumb as we thought they realize the fact that they would be done before the war would start nothing wrong with that however nothing he says is worthwhile unless he wants to do something about the hundreds of terrorist training camps on Pakistani soil

 

[VCheng]

because you're looking at it from a very limited prism that completely rejects and/or ignores Pakistan's perspective...................

Okay, everybody has some sort of a prism, even you, but pray tell what prism is Imran Khan looking through here:

A classic quote couple of years ago by Imran Khan comes to my mind.. India doesn't have to do anything to hurt Pakistan. All they need to do is to raise their own defence budget to break back of Pak's economy. Looks like more & more people in Pakistan realising this fact including the army chief!

Doesn't that refer to the same thing I asked above?

So please explain to me what perspective can you add that can refute that proposition?

 

[Jango]

It doesn't work. Funds directed at police end up in somebody's pockets; efforts to make such people more accountable are resisted by both civilian and military officials. Pakistan is going down, mate.

What would the army gain by telling the government to not stop corrupt practices?