chinapakistan
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2010
- Messages
- 1,783
- Reaction score
- 0
I have some question to ask.
What is G12??????
Last edited:
India: A Failed State and Sham Secular Democracy
- Thread starter RiazHaq
- Start date
- Status
Jagjit_Singh
BANNED
New Recruit
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2010
- Messages
- 12
- Reaction score
- 0
http : // en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Failed_state
Pakistan is in top 10
Pakistan is in top 10
LCA Tejas
BANNED
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2009
- Messages
- 1,512
- Reaction score
- 0
did I say G12??? oops, sorry... its G15, my bad...
and a member of G20 and G8+5 aswell, this by itself is enough to prove anyone that India is not a failed state... We have poverty, which is reducing it.... We are not a failed state, but a developing one....
Last edited:
Jagjit_Singh
BANNED
New Recruit
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2010
- Messages
- 12
- Reaction score
- 0
Begging with Dignity
By Rafia Zakaria
In our sixty-second year, perhaps its time we came to terms with the reality that we are and have always been a nation of beggars. Ironically, it is only in embracing this grim reality that we can find the opportunity to change our future
If the recent summit in New York is a reliable gauge, then Pakistan, or rather democratic Pakistan is doing pretty well in the popularity contest otherwise known as the General Session of the United Nations General Assembly.
On Thursday, the Friends of Democratic Pakistan met to discuss the promotion of stable governance and economic development in Pakistan. The group includes Australia, Britain, Canada, China, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, the United States, the United Nations and European Union. President Obama, who co-chaired the meeting, announced the passage of the Kerry-Lugar Bill, which will provide Pakistan with $1.5 billion every year for the next five years.
The meeting and accompanying announcement of aid disbursement have provided much fodder for discussion in both the United States and Pakistan. The United States has expectedly tried to announce passage of the Kerry-Lugar Bill as well as the meeting itself as a major commitment that substantiates its long-term interest in Pakistan. Coming as it does, in the footsteps of an expected change in US policy toward the region, the announcements provide the Obama administration a means to deflect attention from its woes in Afghanistan by pointing to the potential of success in Pakistan.
For the Pakistani government, led by President Zardari, the task in New York is markedly more difficult. It must tread the delicate balance of being both gracious for the assistance while at the same time drawing attention to the holes in the Obama administrations beneficence. One attempt to do just this was President Zardaris demand, made a day before the meeting, that the United States reimburse the $1.6 million that Pakistan has spent fighting the War on Terror in the tribal belt. The demand was programmed ostensibly to emphasise the fact that aid disbursements to Pakistan are in exchange for services rendered in the US-led war against Al Qaeda rather than an act of magnanimity by the United States. In other words, the Pakistani delegation tried to paint as payment what the Americans would present simply as an act of generosity.
This delicate dance between grantors and receivers of aid is not in itself new. In the last few decades, as globalisation has become an economic and security challenge rather than an abstract theory, this dynamic has become a repeated accompaniment to most global summits. The rich nations controlling large chunks of the world economy have packaged their security interests as moralistic efforts to assist the poor without any strings attached. At the same time, poorer nations have sought to expose the security interests and consequent challenges to sovereignty that lie beneath the Global Norths commitments to economic and social development in the Global South.
The duelling narratives that emerge from the above dynamic mean that rich nations always have the task of presenting their aid as magnanimous while poorer ones always have an interest in presenting the aid amounts as emerging out of rich countries self-serving security interests.
In the current case, the challenge for the Pakistani government becomes more complex in light of ideological currents at home that present this dynamic as an inherent attack on the countrys sovereignty. Conservative commentators, especially those belonging to Islamist parties, present the need for aid as a failure by the current administration to safeguard the sovereignty of the nation. In doing so they disregard both the facts of Pakistans precarious economic existence in a world beset by financial crises but also the fact that whether we like it or not, the world market is controlled by countries like the United States.
In fomenting this attitude towards aid in general, these critics present the acceptance of aid as a choice rather than the necessity it has been for many governments past and present. Gullible Pakistanis are thus fed the myth that it is a particular governments greed rather than the nations need that makes aid a requirement, and that the only thing keeping Pakistan from true self-sufficiency is the corruption of one or another administration.
The fact is that the acceptance or rejection of aid by Pakistan is not a facet peculiar to the Zardari administration. Governments past, present and future have been and are likely to remain tied to the disbursement of foreign assistance for many decades in the future. The scale of current security challenges and the inability of our weak state to respond to a growing insurgency necessitates that we accept any help that we get. The particular ravages of the global financial crisis on our economy and the mounting costs of a civil war that has led us to become a world leader in suicide bombings are recent precipitators of our hapless condition.
Idealistic notions of self-sufficiency that suggest that we deny how integral foreign assistance has been to our precarious existence these past sixty odd years indicate a blindness to both our local challenges and the place we hold in the international sphere. Pakistan is not and has never been a superpower, militarily, morally or economically. We do not have the infrastructure to create self-sufficiency in either our agricultural, industrial or manufacturing sectors. We do not have the natural resources to provide for all our energy needs or the capabilities to sell what we do have on the global market. Yet, instead of accepting these challenges and their consequent impact on our place in the world, we live imbued in nationalist myths and pretend that our current reliance on aid is solely a product of temporary mistakes or greedy politicians.
A novel argument for us as we poke fun at the unfortunate officials charged with the task of begging for this aid in New York would be to consider not the hokey notions of becoming the next global powerhouse fuelled by our un-availed (and largely imaginary) natural resources but rather a realistic assessment of what our capabilities and challenges really are. Not once in our sixty-two year existence have we survived without the assistance of foreign governments.
In our sixty-second year, perhaps its time we came to terms with the reality that we are and have always been a nation of beggars. Ironically, it is only in embracing this grim reality that we can find the opportunity to change our future.
Rafia Zakaria is an attorney living in the United States where she teaches courses on Constitutional Law and Political Philosophy. She can be contacted at rafia.zakaria@gmail.com
By Rafia Zakaria
In our sixty-second year, perhaps its time we came to terms with the reality that we are and have always been a nation of beggars. Ironically, it is only in embracing this grim reality that we can find the opportunity to change our future
If the recent summit in New York is a reliable gauge, then Pakistan, or rather democratic Pakistan is doing pretty well in the popularity contest otherwise known as the General Session of the United Nations General Assembly.
On Thursday, the Friends of Democratic Pakistan met to discuss the promotion of stable governance and economic development in Pakistan. The group includes Australia, Britain, Canada, China, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, the United States, the United Nations and European Union. President Obama, who co-chaired the meeting, announced the passage of the Kerry-Lugar Bill, which will provide Pakistan with $1.5 billion every year for the next five years.
The meeting and accompanying announcement of aid disbursement have provided much fodder for discussion in both the United States and Pakistan. The United States has expectedly tried to announce passage of the Kerry-Lugar Bill as well as the meeting itself as a major commitment that substantiates its long-term interest in Pakistan. Coming as it does, in the footsteps of an expected change in US policy toward the region, the announcements provide the Obama administration a means to deflect attention from its woes in Afghanistan by pointing to the potential of success in Pakistan.
For the Pakistani government, led by President Zardari, the task in New York is markedly more difficult. It must tread the delicate balance of being both gracious for the assistance while at the same time drawing attention to the holes in the Obama administrations beneficence. One attempt to do just this was President Zardaris demand, made a day before the meeting, that the United States reimburse the $1.6 million that Pakistan has spent fighting the War on Terror in the tribal belt. The demand was programmed ostensibly to emphasise the fact that aid disbursements to Pakistan are in exchange for services rendered in the US-led war against Al Qaeda rather than an act of magnanimity by the United States. In other words, the Pakistani delegation tried to paint as payment what the Americans would present simply as an act of generosity.
This delicate dance between grantors and receivers of aid is not in itself new. In the last few decades, as globalisation has become an economic and security challenge rather than an abstract theory, this dynamic has become a repeated accompaniment to most global summits. The rich nations controlling large chunks of the world economy have packaged their security interests as moralistic efforts to assist the poor without any strings attached. At the same time, poorer nations have sought to expose the security interests and consequent challenges to sovereignty that lie beneath the Global Norths commitments to economic and social development in the Global South.
The duelling narratives that emerge from the above dynamic mean that rich nations always have the task of presenting their aid as magnanimous while poorer ones always have an interest in presenting the aid amounts as emerging out of rich countries self-serving security interests.
In the current case, the challenge for the Pakistani government becomes more complex in light of ideological currents at home that present this dynamic as an inherent attack on the countrys sovereignty. Conservative commentators, especially those belonging to Islamist parties, present the need for aid as a failure by the current administration to safeguard the sovereignty of the nation. In doing so they disregard both the facts of Pakistans precarious economic existence in a world beset by financial crises but also the fact that whether we like it or not, the world market is controlled by countries like the United States.
In fomenting this attitude towards aid in general, these critics present the acceptance of aid as a choice rather than the necessity it has been for many governments past and present. Gullible Pakistanis are thus fed the myth that it is a particular governments greed rather than the nations need that makes aid a requirement, and that the only thing keeping Pakistan from true self-sufficiency is the corruption of one or another administration.
The fact is that the acceptance or rejection of aid by Pakistan is not a facet peculiar to the Zardari administration. Governments past, present and future have been and are likely to remain tied to the disbursement of foreign assistance for many decades in the future. The scale of current security challenges and the inability of our weak state to respond to a growing insurgency necessitates that we accept any help that we get. The particular ravages of the global financial crisis on our economy and the mounting costs of a civil war that has led us to become a world leader in suicide bombings are recent precipitators of our hapless condition.
Idealistic notions of self-sufficiency that suggest that we deny how integral foreign assistance has been to our precarious existence these past sixty odd years indicate a blindness to both our local challenges and the place we hold in the international sphere. Pakistan is not and has never been a superpower, militarily, morally or economically. We do not have the infrastructure to create self-sufficiency in either our agricultural, industrial or manufacturing sectors. We do not have the natural resources to provide for all our energy needs or the capabilities to sell what we do have on the global market. Yet, instead of accepting these challenges and their consequent impact on our place in the world, we live imbued in nationalist myths and pretend that our current reliance on aid is solely a product of temporary mistakes or greedy politicians.
A novel argument for us as we poke fun at the unfortunate officials charged with the task of begging for this aid in New York would be to consider not the hokey notions of becoming the next global powerhouse fuelled by our un-availed (and largely imaginary) natural resources but rather a realistic assessment of what our capabilities and challenges really are. Not once in our sixty-two year existence have we survived without the assistance of foreign governments.
In our sixty-second year, perhaps its time we came to terms with the reality that we are and have always been a nation of beggars. Ironically, it is only in embracing this grim reality that we can find the opportunity to change our future.
Rafia Zakaria is an attorney living in the United States where she teaches courses on Constitutional Law and Political Philosophy. She can be contacted at rafia.zakaria@gmail.com
chinapakistan
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2010
- Messages
- 1,783
- Reaction score
- 0
did I say G12??? oops, sorry... its G15, my bad...
I have some question to ask about your post.
You mean the number of soldiers? Or hardware equiments?
Sir, I am sure indian are not leading world in this area.
The current Nuke submarine build by indian is without Nuke engine and Nuke weopen, it cannt be called a Nuke submarine. maybe you can develep it in the futrue but not now.
Not rest of the world, there still are some country are not suffering economic downtrun on this planet except indian.
chinapakistan
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2010
- Messages
- 1,783
- Reaction score
- 0
By the way, maybe there are some difference between different nations, but I think there is no failed nations in the world. Failed nation is just created by the west to despise develeping countries.
LCA Tejas
BANNED
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2009
- Messages
- 1,512
- Reaction score
- 0
I will answer it for you
W.r.t troops and Equipments
ISRO takes the pride of most number of satellite launches as far as Iam concerned...
23.09.2009
PSLV-C14
Earth Observation Satellite
ANUSAT
20.04.2009
PSLV-C12
Experimental / Small Satellite
RISAT-2 20.04.2009
PSLV-C12
Earth Observation Satellite
Chandrayaan-1
22.10.2008
PSLV-C11
Space Mission
CARTOSAT - 2A
28.04.2008
PSLV-C9
Earth Observation Satellite
IMS-1
28.04.2008
PSLV-C9
Earth Observation Satellite
INSAT-4B
12.03.2007
Ariane-5ECA
Geo-Stationary Satellite
CARTOSAT - 2
10.01.2007
PSLV-C7
Earth Observation Satellite
SRE - 1
10.01.2007
PSLV-C7
Experimental / Small Satellite
INSAT-4CR
02.09.2007
GSLV-F04
Geo-Stationary Satellite
INSAT-4C
10.07.2006
GSLV-F02
Geo-Stationary Satellite
INSAT-4A
22.12.2005
Ariane-5GS
Geo-Stationary Satellite
HAMSAT
05.05.2005
PSLV-C6
Experimental / Small Satellite
CARTOSAT-1
05.05.2005
PSLV-C6
Earth Observation Satellite
EDUSAT (GSAT-3)
20.09.2004
GSLV-F01
Geo-Stationary Satellite
Resourcesat-1(IRS-P6)
17.10.2003
PSLV-C5
Earth Observation Satellite
INSAT-3A
10.04.2003
Ariane-5G
Geo-Stationary Satellite
INSAT-3E
28.09.2003
Ariane-5G
Geo-Stationary Satellite
GSAT-2
08.05.2003
GSLV-D2
Geo-Stationary Satellite
KALPANA-1(METSAT)
12.09.2002
PSLV-C4
Geo-Stationary Satellite
INSAT-3C
24.01.2002
Ariane-42L H10-3
Geo-Stationary Satellite
Technology Experiment Satellite (TES)
22.10.2001
PSLV-C3
Earth Observation Satellite
GSAT-1
18.04.2001
GSLV-D1
Geo-Stationary Satellite
INSAT-3B
22.03.2000
Ariane-5G
Geo-Stationary Satellite
Oceansat(IRS-P4)
26.05.1999
PSLV-C2
Earth Observation Satellite
INSAT-2E
03.04.1999
Ariane-42P H10-3
Geo-Stationary Satellite
INSAT-2DT
January 1998
Ariane-44L H10
Geo-Stationary Satellite
IRS-1D
29.09.1997
PSLV-C1
Earth Observation Satellite
INSAT-2D
04.06.1997
Ariane-44L H10-3
Geo-Stationary Satellite
IRS-P3
21.03.1996
PSLV-D3
Earth Observation Satellite
IRS-1C
28.12.1995
Molniya
Earth Observation Satellite
INSAT-2C
07.12.1995
Ariane-44L H10-3
Geo-Stationary Satellite
IRS-P2
15.10.1994
PSLV-D2
Earth Observation Satellite
Stretched Rohini Satellite Series (SROSS-C2)
04.05.1994
ASLV
Space Mission
IRS-1E
20.09.1993
PSLV-D1
Earth Observation Satellite
INSAT-2B
23.07.1993
Ariane-44L H10+
Geo-Stationary Satellite
INSAT-2A
10.07.1992
Ariane-44L H10
Geo-Stationary Satellite
Stretched Rohini Satellite Series (SROSS-C)
20.05.1992
ASLV
Space Mission
IRS-1B
29.08.1991
Vostok
Earth Observation Satellite
INSAT-1D
12.06.1990
Delta 4925
Geo-Stationary Satellite
INSAT-1C
21.07.1988
Ariane-3
Geo-Stationary Satellite
Stretched Rohini Satellite Series
(SROSS-2)
13.07.1988
ASLV
Earth Observation Satellite
IRS-1A
17.03.1988
Vostok
Earth Observation Satellite
Stretched Rohini Satellite Series
(SROSS-1)
24.03.1987
ASLV
Space Mission
INSAT-1B
30.08.1983
Shuttle [PAM-D]
Geo-Stationary Satellite
Rohini (RS-D2)
17.04.1983
SLV-3
Earth Observation Satellite
INSAT-1A
10.04.1982
Delta 3910 PAM-D
Geo-Stationary Satellite
Bhaskara-II
20.11.1981
C-1 Intercosmos
Earth Observation Satellite
Ariane Passenger Payload Experiment (APPLE)
19.06.1981
Ariane-1(V-3)
Geo-Stationary Satellite
Rohini (RS-D1)
31.05.1981
SLV-3
Earth Observation Satellite
Rohini (RS-1)
18.07.1980
SLV-3
Experimental / Small Satellite
Rohini Technology Payload (RTP)
10.08.1979
SLV-3
Experimental / Small Satellite
Bhaskara-I
07.06.1979
C-1 Intercosmos
Earth Observation Satellite
Aryabhata
19.04.1975
C-1 Intercosmos
Experimental / Small Satellite
These are Indian satellites, and More foreign satellites have also been sent by India...
Has some one launched more satellites? well then I could be wrong...if your answer is yes
And never said that we are the best in missile, but said one among the best, why not? we have almost all kinds of missiles developed, except for ICBM.... and An ICBM is also under way. And GSLV MRK 3 is the one which would Carry man to outer space... we have also tested reusable space capsule.
A nuke submarine cannot be complete without its Nuke engine,Becoz if the engine has to be refitted fitted, the hull has to be cut open again, and moreover, I dont know what you think, its already undergoing sea trials.
Well, the whole world knows that India and China were the only ones who were not submerged into this economic downturn
Last edited:
LCA Tejas
BANNED
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2009
- Messages
- 1,512
- Reaction score
- 0
You said it, there is always enough room for everyone and anyone to grow....
chinapakistan
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2010
- Messages
- 1,783
- Reaction score
- 0
Then who is NO.4 under India? US? China? or Russia?
Sorry, I dont know very well about this area, but even you launched most sattiltes, it cannt be said you are "leading the world with most number of Satellite launches,Tested a vehicle which could carry man in outer space." The leader in this area is US. And indian is behind US Russa and china.
About this I am sure that I have read some article(news) about indian Nuke engine, In that article indian Nuke submarine is without Nuke engine and cant lauch Nuke missile.
LCA Tejas
BANNED
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2009
- Messages
- 1,512
- Reaction score
- 0
Interms of military man power India comes under china, which is 2nd. and why cant it be 3rd when equipments are also taken into concern???
I did not say we are the leader in testing a vehicle which could carry man to out orbit, I said its still in testing phase, as far as satellites, I have done enough research, NASA and other old space agencies were working on more manned missions rather launching satellites, over 2decades,Many countries look towards ISRO for launching there satellites, bcoz since 1980 we are launching only satellites.
I would get you many article saying Chinese moon mission was a fake, and I could show you videos aswell... would you believe in it?
the ground reality is Our Nuke submarine is Nuke capable, we have launched Sagarika missiles exclusievely for Arihant and Other nuke missiles.... I can provide you many links which states its undergoing sea trials....
chinapakistan
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2010
- Messages
- 1,783
- Reaction score
- 0
Do you mean when equipmentes are taken into concern you are on the top of china? And could you provide any src about that? Or can you list all weapon and compare them again, I think you will get the different result. And you can search by your google you should know the top millitory power in the world is "US Russa China" or "US China Russia". And sorry to say that even just consider current equipments leaving considering indian weak millitory industry and need to buy all of his weapon from outside, indian millitory power is still not in the same league with these three country. I think no one can doubt these.
LCA Tejas
BANNED
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2009
- Messages
- 1,512
- Reaction score
- 0
Ok lets keep it fourth.... even though when adding army and Equipments we would be third,But to your satisfaction Lets keep it fourth....
USA and Russia use more machines than Men, thats why they are considered the best in the world, and Iam sorry to break your dreams, China too is not in the lines of challenging anyone from the top 5 and so is India....
chinapakistan
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2010
- Messages
- 1,783
- Reaction score
- 0
It is not to my satisfaction, I just believe truth. Can you provide any src or Comparing list to support your saying about adding army and Equipments india is the 3rd millitory power?? And about this quesetion, you can ask the whole world except indian, I am sure you will get the same answer.
I dont know if china can list in top five or not, but I know China millitory tech is far behind US and a little behind Russia.
LCA Tejas
BANNED
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2009
- Messages
- 1,512
- Reaction score
- 0
I dont know if you have heard of a website called global firepower, just compare with the top 3 countries with your country, count the man and machine and do some basic mathematics ,you would come to my conclusion.
And China And India very well make it to the top 5... there is no doubt about it...And dont take my words as the the most powerful military , Becoz India is 4th in it... iam just talking about Man and machines, in head count, just go to that website. count a bit...
Last edited:
chinapakistan
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2010
- Messages
- 1,783
- Reaction score
- 0
I know that site, and what i said is based on that site. this one, yes?
World Military Strength Ranking
And the top 3 coutries is 1.US 2.China 3.Russia.
Do you mean compare US with china, china with china?????
And I really count the man and machine and do some basic mathematics ,but I dont get your conclusions. There are aslo ranking list about details like below, And I really can understand how did you get your conclusion using your mathematics?
· Airborne Systems
· Helicopters
· Land Systems
· Towed Artillery
· Navy Ships
· Aircraft Carriers
· Submarines
· Destroyers
· Frigates
· Mine Warfare
· Patrol Craft
You can check that, China only rank behind indian in AC. I dont think you are talking about india can rank in 3rd bcoz you have one AC. Or you really believe that?
Edited:
About indian submarine's Nuke capable, leaving Nuke engine I really need you provide some links about you success tested "Sagarika missiles exclusievely for Arihant and Other nuke missiles" to me. I tried to google that but I get nothing about that.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
