Pak Army isn't capable of fighting and Bajwa's Kashmir deal with India

[IceCold]

Pakistan does not need an enemy, like India. The way Pakistan made blunders after the 1970s, they actually don't need any enemies.

Agreed but the blunders have been committed long before starting from Ayub Khan. He laid the foundation and a legacy which is carried on to this day

 

[truthseeker2010]

Does a PAK leader have another option?

Expect to sell the old dreams, which are never going to be fulfilled.

Pakistan does not need an enemy, like India. The way Pakistan made blunders after the 1970s, they actually don't need any enemies.

True, as long as pak has 12th grade military. It doesn't need anymore enemies.

 

[Mav3rick]

But the question is whether we should abandon our ideals for a western model of capitalist-driven peace

If our ideals lead to war, destruction, despair and hurt then yes we should absolutely abandon our ideals. However, if our ideals lead to respect, strength, prosperity and well being then we should hold on to them even more.

European countries are not bound by do qaumi nazariya and are christian republics. Peace between India and Pakistan is ironic.

Evidently you are not aware of the European history. Even today some of those countries would go to war against each other at a whim. The only thing that holds them back is the commerce between them. Europe has a bloodier history that Asia and they are still deeply divided on many matters. It's just that the prosperity trumps everything else and which holds them together. I see no reason why Pakistan, India, China, Afghanistan, Iran, Bangladesh etc., cannot coexist in the same manner and become the most dominant super power block in the world within decades.

 

[Salik]

The West created Pakistan and nurtured it to be used against India, the Soviet Union, Iran, and sometimes even China.

To provide a more accurate perspective, it is worth noting that the West recognized the potential usefulness of Pakistan and permitted its establishment. Given the circumstances of the 1940s, with the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, it seems improbable that the West would have endorsed the formation of a new Muslim country. Consequently, dissenting voices, including prominent figures such as M.A. Jinnah, the founding father, Liaquat Ali Khan, Fatima Jinnah, and others, were swiftly suppressed following Pakistan's creation. Pakistan's existence is contingent upon its utility to the West, and if that utility wanes, Pakistan could revert to its pre-1947 non-existent state. Hence, the primary threat to Pakistan's survival does not emanate from India but rather from the West, which initially facilitated its inception. The true birth of Pakistan will only be realized when Pakistanis triumph over the Western forces striving to undermine it.

 

[EyelessInGaza]

If our ideals lead to war, destruction, despair and hurt then yes we should absolutely abandon our ideals. However, if our ideals lead to respect, strength, prosperity and well being then we should hold on to them even more.


Evidently you are not aware of the European history. Even today some of those countries would go to war against each other at a whim. The only thing that holds them back is the commerce between them. Europe has a bloodier history that Asia and they are still deeply divided on many matters. It's just that the prosperity trumps everything else and which holds them together. I see no reason why Pakistan, India, China, Afghanistan, Iran, Bangladesh etc., cannot coexist in the same manner and become the most dominant super power block in the world within decades.

Very well said.

 

[nomi007]

Hamid Mir is scared ....didn't you see today in Mohammad Malik show.

He is puppet of RAW AL PINDI

 

[Imran Khan]

In se jang nhi hoti inko roti torny ke liue rakha hai bus.

 

[ghazi52]

,.,.,.

 

[KaiserX]

To provide a more accurate perspective, it is worth noting that the West recognized the potential usefulness of Pakistan and permitted its establishment. Given the circumstances of the 1940s, with the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, it seems improbable that the West would have endorsed the formation of a new Muslim country. Consequently, dissenting voices, including prominent figures such as M.A. Jinnah, the founding father, Liaquat Ali Khan, Fatima Jinnah, and others, were swiftly suppressed following Pakistan's creation. Pakistan's existence is contingent upon its utility to the West, and if that utility wanes, Pakistan could revert to its pre-1947 non-existent state. Hence, the primary threat to Pakistan's survival does not emanate from India but rather from the West, which initially facilitated its inception. The true birth of Pakistan will only be realized when Pakistanis triumph over the Western forces striving to undermine it.

I agree. But in the sense that Pakistans future is in forging closer relations with the West + Along with building upon its strong Relationship with China + GCC as well.

Europe + North America + South America+ Japan+ South Korea + Australia is to much of a big market for us to be on bad terms with and their is far bigger potential in expanding into new markets in the west vs China which has a declining population.

Sure the west was very supportive of Pakistans initial creation + the facilitation and strenghening of its military which was a bulwark again Soviet Communism and Indian none alignment. but can you blame the west for Pakistans failure in taking benefit from all the aid it has received since 1947???

I asked Richard Haas who is amongst America's smartest foreign policy experts and he has influenced many top hitters of the state department and he stated that Pakistan is perhaps the only Major Cold War ally which failed to take benefit from America's support. There is a point there that we as a society as so corrupt, short sighted, ungrateful, and lazy that even a nation like Vietnam which was destroyed by American in a 10 year war exports 300+ billion a year vs ours 30+ billion a year even with all the western /chinese aid, loans, grants, development assistance provided over the last 70 years.... again in that case can you blame the west or pakistanis themselves?

 

[ProudThamizhan]

You haven't "debunked" anything.



You do realize that your water supply runs through IOK, right? We have a treaty but they've been violating it for years. You think the Indians care about Tibet b/c they love the ppl? No, it's because Indian waters originate from there.

Also, Hindutvadis don't just claim IOK. They want ALL of Kashmir & GB. That's what peaceniks like you don't get. The moment you make a deal on IOK they're then going to demand more & more.

Lastly, religiocultural ties & our own ideology means that we can't abandon them.



No, you're not going to be declared a state sponsor of terrorism or be put on any list. There's a difference b/w supporting non-state insurgents & a GOV-IN-EXILE. See the Syria model. The lack of a referendum would justify supporting it. It's an internationally recognized right. Plus, as I said you'll be getting international support for it as well via OIC conferences, etc. Also, see point 7. You're not doing all these things in isolation.

If we weren't declared one when the US would accuse us daily of supporting Taliban, what makes you think they'll do it now? The disparity b/w Pak & India has never been higher & yet we've at most been put on FATF. Let's be real here, India isn't that important & the Chinese wouldn't allow it anyway.
The FATF also can't just put us back on the list w/o a vote & considering we already meet their requirements AND we're not supporting non-state insurgent groups, it would be very difficult. FYI, being put on the FATF is not the reason for our economic problems. FATF is not a sanctions regime. It's the misgovernance, corruption & lack of good economic policy that has got us to where we are now.

US financial hegemony is collapsing anyway. More & more countries are now trying to bypass the US financial system. Already, share of dollar reserves is only about 50%. Neither sanctions nor FATF will mean much in the near future (Ironically, it was sanctions & their threat that kickstarted our defence industry).

The only reason there's a disparity in diplomacy is b/c of economy. If the generals stick to their own jobs & let PTI handle economy the disparity would diminish.

Regarding Kashmiris, this isn't 1965. They have had an indigenous armed rebellion for 3 decades now.



Read the above points for what exactly. You don't have to outmatch Indian influence. However, India is the biggest security threat to Bangladesh. There will always be friendly elements that will be willing to help us.



The point is self-explanatory. Joint-ops in case of war.



Why would this piss of the Saudis if they're being invited to it? They & the GCC would most likely have even more influence than they have now.



Whatever works. A BMD will become more viable as technology becomes more advanced.



The purpose of IW is to uproot those "roots". You're obviously going to be working on your own soft power as well.



Maybe, maybe not. If you produce something they want then their business class wouldn't care. Hence, why their trade with China continues to increase. Not a huge deal if they don't. We've barely even tapped the rest of the world market so let's worry about that.

At the end of the day, India is going to bring war to your doorstep. They're not going to stop at IOK. Pakistanis need to come out of this delusion that we can have peace with India. So you need to decide whether it's on your terms or theirs. Making excuses without trying anything isn't a strategy.

India has never and never will start a war.

Generations of Pakistani people have been misled by a combination of military religion and political establishments into thinking of India as their enemy to be feared and hated, just so they can swindle the money.

If people like you haven’t still learnt that truth that will be continuous saga of tragedy for Pakistan

 

[ghazi52]

.,.,

https://twitter.com/x/status/1651888178645671938

 

[ghazi52]

.,.,

Views of ex-COAS on army’s ‘combat worthiness’ quoted ‘out of context’: ISPR​

Iftikhar Shirazi
April 28, 2023

The Inter-Services Public Relations said on Friday that discussion in the media regarding Pakistan Army’s combat worthiness and the former army chief’s views to this end on the “future threat to Pakistan” have been “quoted out of context”.

In a statement issued today, the military’s media wing said: “Recently, there have been discussions in the media on the Pakistan Army’s combat worthiness in view of the condition of certain weapon systems on its inventory.

“To this end, views of the former army chief on the future threats to Pakistan, which he shared with media persons in an off-the-record interactive session, have been quoted out of context,” it said.

“The army assures the people of Pakistan that we always took and will continue to take pride in our operational preparedness and utmost combat worthiness,” the ISPR went on to say.

It added that Pakistan’s armed forces would continue to keep their weapons, equipment and “battle-hardened human resource ever ready for the defence of the motherland”.

The ISPR statement comes days after journalist Hamid Mir, in an interview with a local television channel, claimed that “[former COAS] Gen Qamar Javed Bajwa told 20-25 journalists in 2021 that the Pakistan Army was not capable of combat”.

Recalling the events after the 2021 ceasefire between Pakistan and India at the Line of Control, Mir alleged that Gen Bajwa had “made a deal on [occupied] Kashmir” — the details of which, he added, have yet not been made public.

He claimed that immediately after the ceasefire, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi had to visit Pakistan but the then-foreign minister and premier [Shah Mahmood Qureshi and Imran Khan] weren’t aware of it.

Mir went on to say that the then-PM had demanded that details regarding Modi’s visit should be given to Foreign Office after which “Bajwa came to the FO with his entire convoy and gave a lecture”.

“This was the same lecture that he gave in front of us once too … that [Pakistan Army] tanks were not capable of running and there was no diesel for the movement of troops,” the journalist alleged.

“In front of 20-25 journalists, you are saying that the Pakistan Army is not capable of combat. But even at that time, we didn’t believe him,” he claimed, adding that the entire incident took place at the General Headquarters.

 

[Salik]

I agree. But in the sense that Pakistans future is in forging closer relations with the West + Along with building upon its strong Relationship with China + GCC as well.

Europe + North America + South America+ Japan+ South Korea + Australia is to much of a big market for us to be on bad terms with and their is far bigger potential in expanding into new markets in the west vs China which has a declining population.

Sure the west was very supportive of Pakistans initial creation + the facilitation and strenghening of its military which was a bulwark again Soviet Communism and Indian none alignment. but can you blame the west for Pakistans failure in taking benefit from all the aid it has received since 1947???

I asked Richard Haas who is amongst America's smartest foreign policy experts and he has influenced many top hitters of the state department and he stated that Pakistan is perhaps the only Major Cold War ally which failed to take benefit from America's support. There is a point there that we as a society as so corrupt, short sighted, ungrateful, and lazy that even a nation like Vietnam which was destroyed by American in a 10 year war exports 300+ billion a year vs ours 30+ billion a year even with all the western /chinese aid, loans, grants, development assistance provided over the last 70 years.... again in that case can you blame the west or pakistanis themselves?

The analogy of a child raised to serve others, resembling a guinea pig, is used to depict the story and perceived destiny of Pakistan. It suggests that Pakistan's existence is centered around serving others, particularly the West, without having a distinct identity or autonomy. The implication is that Pakistan's future will ultimately lead to its demise as long as it continues to serve external interests. Developing and progressing as a nation would require a radical transformation, possibly even necessitating the creation of an entirely new country.

 

[KaiserX]

The analogy of a child raised to serve others, resembling a guinea pig, is used to depict the story and perceived destiny of Pakistan. It suggests that Pakistan's existence is centered around serving others, particularly the West, without having a distinct identity or autonomy. The implication is that Pakistan's future will ultimately lead to its demise as long as it continues to serve external interests. Developing and progressing as a nation would require a radical transformation, possibly even necessitating the creation of an entirely new country.

You dont make any sense at all. Please get your brain checked.

No the west did not create pakistan. The brits tried until the very end to short change its creation. Its documented in history.

Pakistan was created by the sacrafice of muslims of this land not by the “west” as you keep blabbering about.

Sure the west sustained it initially, sure the west provided military + financial aid for many many decades but again are you going to blame the west for pakistanis not taking benefit of opportunities provided to them?

Likewise today China is investing billions yet have pakistanis taken any benefit??? Nope instead we are back to our ways destroying any semblence of foreign investment then blaming them for our failures as you continue to do.

I wont retype all the other points i listed. You can go and attempt to read for once. Learn to take responsibility rather than blaming everyone OTHER than pakistanis…

 

[Salik]

You dont make any sense at all. Please get your brain checked.

No the west did not create pakistan. The brits tried until the very end to short change its creation. Its documented in history.

Pakistan was created by the sacrafice of muslims of this land not by the “west” as you keep blabbering about.

Sure the west sustained it initially, sure the west provided military + financial aid for many many decades but again are you going to blame the west for pakistanis not taking benefit of opportunities provided to them?

Likewise today China is investing billions yet have pakistanis taken any benefit??? Nope instead we are back to our ways destroying any semblence of foreign investment then blaming them for our failures as you continue to do.

I wont retype all the other points i listed. You can go and attempt to read for once. Learn to take responsibility rather than blaming everyone OTHER than pakistanis…

Dear Sir, I believe that Pakistan needs at least two decades of minimal foreign involvement. For years, Pakistan has been under the pressure of serving other countries, from the Afghan War to the War on Terror, and now there is another potential Afghan campaign looming. Additionally, China is trying to utilize Pakistan's strategic location through the CPEC project. To allow Pakistan to develop itself, all of these foreign involvements must be put on hold for a period of time. Pakistan must focus on domestic issues and building its own infrastructure.