What's new

Should Pakistans Army Chief resign after NATO attack

Should Pakistan’s Army Chief resign after NATO attacks

  • Yes

    Votes: 36 54.5%
  • No

    Votes: 30 45.5%

  • Total voters
    66
I don't agree with the question OP has posted here. The more appropriate question is after what happened in Abbotabad and then in Mehran base and now in Mohmand Agency Do we really need a military and is it justified to spend so much money on them.
 
. .
US has done this intentionally and it will show as if it was by mistake. They mistook Pak Soldiers for Taliban. But really as per the US anyone who brandishes any weapons apart from them whether Pak army or not in that region is a Terrorist.

Nothing will happen. Pak is heavily dependent on US and especially after China backed out of Gwadar Port, surveillance plane damage, Aid money etc.

The are just doing this for the people's sake but everything will be back to square one after some time.

If Pakistani nations truly boosts of its sovereignty then it shouldn't have allowed any foreign nation to build bases in its soil. That's what separate India from Pak.
I dont know why you people keep urself in self denial......US has airbases around all over the world. They have bases in Korea and Japan. French operate a foreign base. Even Singapore has been leased a base in India. I don't know why my fellow Indian friends often come up with such stupid stunts. Pakistan is not the sole recipient of US FMS, NATO, Egypt, Israel and many more countries are included in this list. But as far as the question goes that why does this hurt Indians, Everybody knows......
 
.
I don't agree with the question OP has posted here. The more appropriate question is after what happened in Abbotabad and then in Mehran base and now in Mohmand Agency Do we really need a military and is it justified to spend so much money on them.
Yes! U are absolutely right we can't afford to have such a military who can't even save its own military persons from the brutality of the foreign invaders. How they gonna guard their nation or the country.....we can't have worthless military....:smokin:
 
.
Mastan Sb,

You rightly summarized this, we can take care of this NATO strike later but should not let off the hook this traitor Haqqani.
Haqqani was correct in his way that the role of military should be restricted to the defence. Military, effectively, has become an empire in itself. Apart from security, now they operate with commercial and political interests. Where else on this planet do you see Military running Banks, Fertilizer mills, Complexes for rent, housing societies and security services (not to mention a marriage hall services)?
 
.
I don't agree with the question OP has posted here. The more appropriate question is after what happened in Abbotabad and then in Mehran base and now in Mohmand Agency Do we really need a military and is it justified to spend so much money on them.

well if you want to live peacefully, yes, things could get alot more worse, and stop being attacked by you know who.
 
.
Haqqani was correct in his way that the role of military should be restricted to the defence. Military, effectively, has become an empire in itself. Apart from security, now they operate with commercial and political interests. Where else on this planet do you see Military running Banks, Fertilizer mills, Complexes for rent, housing societies and security services (not to mention a marriage hall services)?

The army just owns them, and gets the money from them.

When you don't have an effective governmental setup, these things do come in.

When a building falls, the army engineer corps is the first to reach the scene ( a professional force). Why ? because there is no such thing existing because of the administration.

Whenever there is a disaster, specialized teams from the army come in. Why? because there is no infrastructure setup by the administration.

The Army provides, Fauji Cement, schools , colleges, hospitals, houses, etc etc. Which do not employ soldiers or officers in the schemes themselves. The army just gains profit from it. And this becomes an extra avenue for cash inflow and budget.
 
.
well if you want to live peacefully, yes, things could get alot more worse, and stop being attacked by you know who.

I don't know how we are going to retaliate when "they" will attack. The chances are high that my military might get owned in such scenario. Anyways even having a big military we aren't living "peacefully". So isn't it better to send this money on something else. Something better.
 
.
I don't know how we are going to retaliate when "they" will attack. The chances are high that my military might get owned in such scenario. Anyways even having a big military we aren't living "peacefully". So isn't it better to send this money on something else. Something better.

Is not it better to first get the money we already have properly utilized, then talk about budget cuts?

It all goes down to balls, whether you have them or not. If we have them, we can stand up, and give a flat out no.
 
.
The army just owns them, and gets the money from them.

When you don't have an effective governmental setup, these things do come in.

When a building falls, the army engineer corps is the first to reach the scene ( a professional force). Why ? because there is no such thing existing because of the administration.

Whenever there is a disaster, specialized teams from the army come in. Why? because there is no infrastructure setup by the administration.

The Army provides, Fauji Cement, schools , colleges, hospitals, houses, etc etc. Which do not employ soldiers or officers in the schemes themselves. The army just gains profit from it. And this becomes an extra avenue for cash inflow and budget.
The question is whether civilian setup has failed by itself or failed because it wasn't allowed to groom itself. Whenever the military government comes in, the ex-services are installed all across the civilian administration (from wapda to steel mills, police and you name it) the benefit for military is that these guys remain more loyal to their ex employer rather than their current employer. They make way for their other ex-service comrades with argument that for the sake of social security of these ex-servicemen, it would be useful to benefit from their skill set (Pakistan military services are voluntary services, so military is not responsible for the post retirement employment of ex-servicemen) . But what it does is that the civilian administration is oppressed which leads to dismal results.
 
.
Resign is not the solution He should order Armed Forces to hit back and destroy Nato Soldiers and bases If he do this he will be backed by Whole nation
 
. .
Do not see the logic for seeking resignation of an Army Chief of a nation whose former promoted himself to Field Marshal for no reason at all.
 
.
Kiyani should take hard measures otherwise he should resign. Being a Pakistani i am feeling shame, in three years 72 soliders and officers killed by Nato helicopters. Nato supply should be permanently closed. But i know after few days these cowards open again Nato supply. Shameful for nation shameful for paksitan.
 
.
Resign is not the solution He should order Armed Forces to hit back and destroy Nato Soldiers and bases If he do this he will be backed by Whole nation

Sir,,

What would the whole nation do----pakistani people are like air in a brown paper bag----.
 
.

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom