M. Sarmad
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2013
- Messages
- 7,022
- Reaction score
- 62
- Country
- Location
Since when has it been a rule that we may not argue opposite sides when it suits the national interest? After all, Pakistan herself is a living illustration; after tearing apart the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan by raising the mujahedin against the Red Army, she found herself at the receiving end of TTP insurgency, and did not hesitate to complain about the exact same behaviour that she had displayed.
So if we argue against the Chinese veto, we will argue that the Soviet veto was to redress the balance of the western powers supporting their loyal servants in CENTO and SEATO; and, in anticipation of your mirroring that argument in the case of China, arguing that China was equally entitled to redress the balance by holding out stoutly for an isolated Pakistan, would you not be engaged under the same Rules of Engagement?
As far as options are concerned, all the information has been given to representatives of the PRC; they have undertaken to study the information. On every occasion, without any detailed explanation, they have merely obstructed any prohibitive action, and left it to the world to conclude what it might. Lack of evidence was certainly not the sticking point.
I agree that the position China has taken is most reasonable and justified - from the Pakistani point of view!
You can't have it both ways, sir.
As for 'arguing', you obviously are free to argue about anything and everything you want... that your arguments are weak and flawed, that, of course, is an entirely different thing.
And as for your 'loyal servant' remark, I refuse to indulge in cheap jibes...
Asking someone to prove one's claims/allegations is reasonable and justified from a neutral point of view as well.