WE PAKISTANIS WILL LOVE THIS CONSPIRACY THEORY

[S-2]

"the truth is you never seen ghettos in here dawg."

Hide your slang and attempt to communicate like somebody who's actually seen a real classroom at one time. I'm a U.S. citizen and know exactly our visible warts and have likely seen things of which you've no clue. Visited the Crow Agency outside Hardin, Mt. lately?

We've all sorts of "ghettos" in all sorts of places. We've also leaders who've risen from the most modest of means and do so routinely.

You, hasang20, are my exhibit #1 on public education.

Every time your fingers hit the keyboard your already miniscule capabilities diminish.

Think of your fingertips as an open drain linked directly to your mind and attempt preserving what little you've left. Those cells are irreplacably precious.

 

[donrahul]

Progressive policies that won't work? Secular and capitalist ideology have enslaved the majority of the people in the world. This ideology benefits an elite that is ridiculously rich, and a majority who live on less than $1-2 a day...and this $1-2 is based on Legal Tender and doesn't even EXIST! The people in this world have nothing.

That is a ridiculous statement. Give an example of a nonsecular or a non capitalist based country(wher religion is closely intertwined with politics)which has succeeded.

Whether one likes it or not. The West, was like us a few hundred years back and they have pulled up their socks and come to this level. the East(Middle east and south east) have been doing nothing but, calling the west as rich man's haven and a poor man's hell.. wht d hell. there are poor people in the country whose number is steadily dwindling thanks to progressive policies.

Now everybody has a favourite punchbag. The US banking recession. Let me assure, its a one off case, where the regulatory body's power to check the banking and finance instituition was steadily curtailed.

Secularism is the in thing and Progressive policy is the way to go.

 

[fatman17]

I'm surprised you guys are taking this thread seriously. When I read the original post I think the author has his tongue stuck hard in his cheek and a devilish smile in his eyes. I think it's a joke, meant to generate letters to the editor, create controversy and sell his newspapers. Don't fall for it......

isnt this whats it all about! the author has succeeded IMHO!

 

[asaad-ul-islam]

That is a ridiculous statement. Give an example of a nonsecular or a non capitalist based country(wher religion is closely intertwined with politics)which has succeeded.

Whether one likes it or not. The West, was like us a few hundred years back and they have pulled up their socks and come to this level. the East(Middle east and south east) have been doing nothing but, calling the west as rich man's haven and a poor man's hell.. wht d hell. there are poor people in the country whose number is steadily dwindling thanks to progressive policies.

Now everybody has a favourite punchbag. The US banking recession. Let me assure, its a one off case, where the regulatory body's power to check the banking and finance instituition was steadily curtailed.

Secularism is the in thing and Progressive policy is the way to go.

no, it's not actually, he has a point. though, your views, which we can see in the first lines, are a bit too simple.

note, I would like to make it clear that I do not prefer socialism or capitalism. yet, we can take account of the fact that not even the US of A operates on a fully "genuine" capitalist system. There are checks and regulations on the free market, I think that's more than enough to say that capitalism is not that answer, rather something in between or at least modified.

The west was like us a few hundred years back, and they progressed because their society matured. They built a proper form of governance very early on with effective institutions. needless to say, the west accelerated growth because of innovation. They industrialized very early on because of innovation, and that revolution gave birth to the entrepreneur culture and modern business. industrialization in the western world also gave birth to what we know as modern banking, stocks and bonds were introduced slowly over time.

After a hundred years, Corporate America has taken a firm root in the world, driving most technological growth. Now, tell me, is there any chance for third world countries to gain technology without having to sacrifice their concepts of empowerment of all peoples? No, the only way American or western corporations would be willing to bring their operations into the country is through free trade and a liberal capitalistic market.

let's say for the sake of the argument, they refuse that change. Now, what happens when these countries have to trade? they can only do so by agreeing to standards set by the entire world, which, like I said, has basically embraced the western concept of a market. that means they must pay for their imports through the banking system. to pay for those imports, they need money that actually means something in terms western banking terms. They would also need exports, and the you know the rest...

 

[asaad-ul-islam]

to add more, secularism has worked for the west (I'm getting tired of this word, I sound like a conspiracy theorist). We all know how the separation of church from the state is what took Europe out of the Dark Ages and into the Renaissance.

I've yet to see some serious results for the islamic world. as for the islamic market, I can't say for sure how it would work because I'm not that knowledgeable enough to open my mouth. However, I can say that it is something between capitalism and "something like" socialism. everyone gets to keep their hard-earned money, however, it is the duty of the state to provide welfare to its people. The state also has to ensure a fair market, it has to crack down on monopolies with anti-trust laws. Although the US of A does the above, I think an islamic market system would take it to the next level, but no where near enough a full-blown socialistic system.

-just my 2 cents, so don't take this seriously.

 

[Vinod2070]

Oh certainly we aren't even close to US standards in social infrastructure, neither are the Indians for that matter, for whom you have nothing but slavish praise (endemic poverty and grand visions of the moon and Gorshkov??), but we haven't had 2 hundred odd years to develop all that either.

The point here is simple - Pakistan can afford to maintain a minimum conventional and nuclear deterrent and at the same time have enough resources left over to significantly improve its social infrastructure. It can do that today. The question is one of good leadership that formulates effective policy and processes and implements them, otherwise a billion saved from the defense budget will just be another billion down the drain.

Do we see some contradiction and may be a touch of hypocrisy here!

The first point is that Gorshkov and the moon mission are not taking away from the Social programme as you claim the same for Pakistan.

The moon mission cost less than a frontline fighter plane (it was ~6% of Isro's budget over a three year period), the Gorshkov $60 Million a year for it's 30 years life (double that for other costs and it is still not too big for the value it brings).

So not sure how and why these two needed to come in this discussion.

The second point is the increasing tendency to stifle all discussion by claiming one or the other kind of bias or generalization!

May be it helps to avoid answering tough questions!

The points raised in this thread are valid. They apply to India too and there should be no hesitation in accepting them without accusing people of dehumanizing a nation.

India has not done well at all in her social sector. The huge amounts of money thrown in are going down the drain. They are feeding the inefficient bureaucracy who looks only after itself. The only gains are being made by the private sector.

I would any day trade a bunch of fighter planes (that would never see action) for a large number of schools, health clinics and libraries for our people. I would say drop the 126 number to 100 and invest that money in the social sector.

The bureaucracy and the military establishment are a self perpetuating organism. They would always want more for themselves irrespective of whether it is justified or not. It is for the nation at large to see how much resources to invest in them.

They are for serving the country and not the other way round!

 

[Vinod2070]

That is a ridiculous statement. Give an example of a nonsecular or a non capitalist based country(wher religion is closely intertwined with politics)which has succeeded.

That is the best thing with people who claim such things: they want to talk at the theoretical level.

So while the problems in the current world order are seen through a magnifying glass, the solution proposed is something that doesn't need to be subjected to the same scrutiny.

One can always claim that there is no perfect Islamic state now that can be used as an example. There never was one after the first 40 years of Islam.

So one has to believe that those 40 years were perfect because the Arabs claimed they were. And that system is the solution to all problems of now and hereafter!

One has to just have faith that it works that way!

 

[Flintlock]

ROFL dude i live in US too so i know how poverty is in here the truth is you never seen ghettos in here dawg.

Tell me one reason why a patriotic American would want you in his country.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Vinod:

You aren't reading the comments in context.

S-2 brought up the comparison of India and Pakistan, while criticizing Pakistan's stratgic and military programs, at the cost of neglecting social infrastructure. He would have only Pakistan 'bare its neck' and say 'go ahead and hit us'. You need to read S-2's post again, since you clearly didn't get his point, and his point was solely directed at Pakistan, not some general commentary on the virtues of nations reducing military spending to invest in social infrastructure.

The comment about the moon and Gorskov, despite endemic poverty, was to point out to S-2 that India had done much the same, yet there was no criticizm on that count from him. Had his post been more general in referring to all nations suffering from social problems, yet spending large amounts on military and strategic programs, I would not have had an issue with his comments.

Secondly, S-2 bias came through quite clearly starting from his first post in this thread that I responded too - and I pointed out where in my comments. He initiated the generalizations, not me.

It isn't that hard to insert the word 'some' when referring to a group of people, whether Pakistanis, Indians or members of this forum, lest everybody get painted with the same brush.

 

[Vinod2070]

Vinod:

You aren't reading the comments in context.

On this count, I can say that I read each word of the thread very carefully before I wrote my post.

S-2 brought up the comparison of India and Pakistan, while criticizing Pakistan's stratgic and military programs, at the cost of neglecting social infrastructure. He would have only Pakistan 'bare its neck' and say 'go ahead and hit us'. You need to read S-2's post again, since you clearly didn't get his point, and his point was solely directed at Pakistan, not some general commentary on the virtues of nations reducing military spending to invest in social infrastructure.

The comment about the moon and Gorskov, despite endemic poverty, was to point out to S-2 that India had done much the same, yet there was no criticizm on that count from him. Had his post been more general in referring to all nations suffering from social problems, yet spending large amounts on military and strategic programs, I would not have had an issue with his comments.

As far as I see (and I can't claim to read his mind), his comment was on the futility of trying to match India gun for a gun and the effect it is having on Pakistani society. He never praised India's social infrastructure.

This thread is about Pakistan after all and may be he was just sticking to the topic. Using a broad brush would only dilute the topic!

Secondly, S-2 bias came through quite clearly starting from his first post in this thread that I responded too - and I pointed out where in my comments. He initiated the generalizations, not me.

Well, it is between you guys. Frankly I did not see any bias or attempt at ridicule. He was brutally frank and that's about it.

I feel you were a touch more sensitive and that is your prerogative.

It isn't that hard to insert the word 'some' when referring to a group of people, whether Pakistanis, Indians or members of this forum, lest everybody get painted with the same brush.

I agree and always try to do that. It may also be inferred from the context when one is talking of people on the forum.

Frankly if someone is not adding the "some", it doesn't necessarily lead to the conclusion that you have drawn here. I have been accused of the same earlier without ever intending to do that.

My feedback is: Don't always assume the worst, don't go looking for the meaning between the lines all the time. Sometimes we can take people at their word and on a forum you don't lose much even if it was naive to do that.

 

[S-2]

A Pakistani started this thread using an article by a Pakistani. Kasrkin provided another article- by a Pakistani, Feroz Hassan Khan.

"You need to read S-2's post again, since you clearly didn't get his point, and his point was solely directed at Pakistan, not some general commentary on the virtues of nations reducing military spending to invest in social infrastructure."

What's your point? I didn't couch my opinions behind some generalization of nations? While discussing reading comprehension, let's also look at this comment by Khan again-

"Under a rational assumption, the logical course for Pakistan would be to come to terms with the status quo power of India. But Pakistan is psychologically unwilling to accept India's superiority and political dominance. It can accept primacy—but not hegemony. Strategic culture demands a “never say die" attitude of acceptance of strategic defeat—and subservience remains a non-option."

Nothing general there either. Seems clear whom he's talking about. Should I be less so? A.M., perhaps you are offended by my prose?

"He would have only Pakistan 'bare its neck' and say 'go ahead and hit us'."

Ah, you ARE offended by my prose. Powerful and offensive words, they. Or rather, powerful ideas so compelling to provoke your knee-jerk reaction. And THAT makes me prejudiced? Never mind that Khan suggests "rational" and "logical" behind the notion of accepting hegemony. He, however, is Pakistani. Free pass for him. Not so for myself.

Now MY words included "strategem". My phrases included "strategic time-out". Both ignored or not understood by you. If not understood, neither did you bother to explore for clarification.

You're so far off the mark as to be embarassing. Stop it as it's personally offensive and undeserved. Starving children and illiterate women from Pakistan don't make policy. My comments, however shocking in tone, are clearly not directed to them nor do I bear any of those unfortunates ill-will. Indeed, they'd be the beneficiaries of my thoughts. People like you make policy. It is to the likes of you that my comments are directed and nowhere is there an EXPLICIT nor IMPLICIT hint of prejudice against the people of Pakistan.

Prejudice? Go explore the rape thread here.

No attempt to rope the title in. It makes clear that a gang rape HAPPENED. Done deal. No attempt to uncover the manipulation of quotes by CaptainO3. No attempt to separate accusations from "facts". Not by a mod one. Prejudice? Eager for some event to deflect attention, we had folks even using it to justify Mumbai- after the fact. We had others asserting "facts", including a mod.

Any accusations of prejudice? None, nada, zilch.

Now back off altogether or explore my intent and THEN make a case against my suggested strategem-but not me- if you can.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

S-2,

Your initial comment:

"There's a great interest here in nukes and chinese jets and defending honor, etc. All couched in a need, it seems, for near-immediate reward.

Little interest in the elementary school education of a child and what may arise from lighting THAT spark in a couple of decades."

This was my response:

"...the implication (as I read it) that many of the members here have no desire to have the government invest in social infrastructure, is incorrect."

And here is your response dripping with sarcasm, and essentially reiterating the original comment:

"Oh, I think that you're wrong. I'm sure it's SOMEWHERE in everybody's mind. Tough to say you don't wish for a child's education. Most would look like uncaring, insensitive fools- correct?..."

..."Maybe that child who needs a school and three squares a day to fill the hole in his belly might move up the priority list a tad. I doubt so otherwise unless the rest of us choose to subsidize your misplaced ambitions."

Your intent is pretty clear, there is no misunderstanding on my part. You could have chosen to clarify you position after my first response, instead you resorted to the above.

Ah, you ARE offended by my prose. Powerful and offensive words, they. Or rather, powerful ideas so compelling to provoke your knee-jerk reaction. And THAT makes me prejudiced?

The issue is not your prose - my reasons for calling you 'prejudiced' relate to your comments in the beginning. This aspect of your post I merely disagree with as being a naive and foolish idea, and I addressed it as such in my response to you then. The idea of Pakistan merely allowing an enemy that did it irreparable harm in 1971 free reign to do so again is absurd, and to justify that absurdity you offer the rod of 'universal outrage'.

Now MY words included "strategem". My phrases included "strategic time-out". Both ignored or not understood by you. If not understood, neither did you bother to explore for clarification.

Neither of those specifically had any bearing on my criticism of you as 'prejudiced'. The first you chose to once again launch into sarcastic tripe about Pakistan and its 'priorities', which in the context of your earlier comments was essentially a continuation of remarks disparaging Pakistanis.

The second, a strategic time out, is meaningless, given that the Indo-Pak relationship is bad NOW, without any disputes resolved and without any trust established. If there was a time for maintaining deterrence, now would be it. A strategic time out with some of the major disputes resolved, not even all, might make more sense.

 

[S-2]

"There's a great interest here in nukes and chinese jets and defending honor, etc. All couched in a need, it seems, for near-immediate reward.

Little interest in the elementary school education of a child and what may arise from lighting THAT spark in a couple of decades."

Anytime you wish, Mr. Moderator, we can do an itemized search for these respective subjects and the relative enthusiasm embraced by such.

You've many eager to USE nukes. Comes up enough to be, evidently, accepted without fear of ban. How prejudical is that?

I see that you've steered WAY clear of Mr. Khan's comments that I highlighted. Well, I've addressed yours. Do so for mine. Does this Pakistani author get a pass not available to the yank. He certainly was logica, rational, and SPECIFIC in his identification. Crystalline even.

I'm not prejudiced but I'm certainly beginning to think that you carry more than a tad of the demon seed given how my nation's hands STILL drip in blood. Want blood? I'd be happy to lay a litany of bucketfulls at your doorstep in numbers that would spin your head.

But you know that.

Good enough for Mr. Khan then it's certainly good enough for me as you itemized your point of concern to Vinod 2070. I itemized my reply.

You're way off the mark. You owe me a retraction and we'll move on from there. Or you could BAN me for being so prejudicial. If you're so convinced, then walk the walk. Otherwise apologize and DROP IT.

 

[fatman17]

My feedback is: Don't always assume the worst, don't go looking for the meaning between the lines all the time. Sometimes we can take people at their word and on a forum you don't lose much even if it was naive to do that

cant argue with this!

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

You're way off the mark. You owe me a retraction and we'll move on from there. Or you could BAN me for being so prejudicial. If you're so convinced, then walk the walk. Otherwise apologize and DROP IT.

Whatever, you had more of this drivel in the counterinsurgency thread:

we've likely lost this generation. Look here and, for sheer perverse entertainment, read the likes of waraich66, hasang20, and dabong1. They're gone and there are too, too many of similar ilk here and elsewhere. What's that bode for the next twenty years? How many imans would it take to reach not just those already incarcerated but all the others that functionally should be for their (and OUR) safety? How many imans are there that I can trust to represent the greater good and do so?

Is this poisonous momentum impossible to arrest in the near-term? If so, then I'd likely advocate punative war of the most onerous type followed by salting the barren earth left behind to start over at some undetermined date in the distant future.

...I know THAT can be done and personally like the ominous warning to potential fellow-travellers derived from such. If both time and resources are at a premium then rendering much of this region to a latter-day Carthage might be what we're left.

And from our last exchange on a forum elsewhere:

That says it all. We're at war with the Pashtus and, quite probably, Pakistan. I suggest punitive exigency as appropriate. We glaze the region, salt the ground and render it uninhabitable.

I am not mistaken S-2.

As for a ban, you can be as prejudiced as you want, that doesn't break any 'rules'. There are some Pakistanis who fit in that category as well, but unless you go around swearing and making racist remarks about Pakistanis or other nations, faiths, ethnicities, I see no reason to curtail your posting privileges, nor at any time during our exchange have I sought to project myself as a 'moderator'.

But, I have said my piece and am done with this particular subject.