Survival of the Fittest

re: #196

...ouch, don`t do that S Mohammad...that`s gotta hurt big time...even if he can put on a brave face...hahahah

sadna:
``IMO, Pakistanis who cynically support freedom movements in India do deserve to be called something very bad``
But tahmed is not one of those who has cynically supported such movements.

sadna #199 I see that you did not understand what I meant by ``have a nice day``. I could translate it into the language you are using, except I refuse to do that on chowk. I will therefore merely explain in plain english that what it means is ``end of discussion``.

You can now come back and tell me you knew that too, and you can also expose more of yourself on chowk by posting more abuse. No problem.

Re: Romair
``(Allegation that) Pakistan supports Al-Qaeda, which it doesn`t, but neither did Iraq....``
Let the following fact speak for itself:
All the member-countries of the UN except Saddam`s Iraq and Musharraf`s Pakistan have banned Al Qaeda, the organisation headed by Osama bin Laden. In March,2003, the Lahore police filed a case in the High Court against a doctor accused of collaborating with Al Qaeda. The High Court ruled the charge inadmissible even at the preliminary stage. It pointed out that Al Qaeda had not been banned in Pakistan as a terrorist organisation under the Anti-Terrorism Act and hence belonging to it or collaborating with it was not an offence. The Government said that by oversight it had not banned Al Qaeda and promised to do so immediately. It is yet to be done.
Cheers

dost mittar #192 you write ``I think that you are prejudiced against sadna and it shows. She is one of the most civilized, even though comabtive Interactor on chowk. ``

Yes indeedee. I see her civilized language in the last three posts she has addressed to me. And please dont tell me that these are provoked - she is a grown woman and knows exactly what she is writing.

As for my being prejudiced against her: I do consider her to write offensive notes about Pakistanis and to portray them the way she would like them to be portrayed (as terrorists and murderers or sympathizers of the same). If you dont believe me, read her post #200 below, where she hints at me ``implying`` support for these murderers even though that (as anyone who has been on chowk as long as your or she has been) is the opposite of the truth.

This attitude of insulting, abusing, and painting Pakistanis in negative stereotypes is quite appalling, I must say. How is she any better than the likes of urstruly (against whose unduly hostile attitudes I too am ``prejudiced`` I may add)?

dost-mittarji
Thanks, and pl. don`t expend any more of you valuable energies on this :).

IMO, Pakistanis who cynically support freedom movements in India do deserve to be called something very bad. One of my classmates lost a father and someone else I know of had one son killed and another son losing his hearing, innocent victims of `freedom movements helped by Pakistan`, and I don`t mean J&K.


In this context or any other, I don`t care what self-important Pakistanis like tahmed think of me. tahmed has to learn to be content with the fact that his compatriots help kill and maim innocent Indians. He insults me and MY dead compatriots by implying that I must offer those Pakistani cowards good language as well to go with the dead Indians. To me thats shows he is a real m---.

If the USA decides to attack and destroy a third world country, there is nothing much that country can do. It should now be obvious the USA does not need the help of anyone, and that it is more than willing to break all international laws in doing so. In fact, there are people on this site cheering such actions.

What would happen if the USA decided to attack Pakistan? I doubt it will happen, because it is not in the US interests, but lets say it did happen:

- The people of 189 out of 192 countries in the world would be against it. In Iraq`s case 190 out of 192 were against it. The people India, Israel and USA would support such an attck. Indians for obvious reasons. Israelis to get rid of nukes, and the Americans because the USA would be able to, through its propoganda machinery, be able to convince them that an attack is required.

- The reasons given could be the same as Iraq: Pakistan has WMDs, which it does. Pakistan supports Al-Qaeda, which it doesn`t, but neither did Iraq. Pakistan is a dictatorship, which is only slightly true now, but it kind of is. Pakistan is not in any violation of UN resolution, but something about passing nuclear technology could be created and put on Pakistan`s name. Pakistan needs to be liberated. This last one can be applied on any country, and is thus the blanket reason, when all other reasons fail.

- After that some Pakistani, ``intellectuals`` would be brought on talk shows, stating that they want Pakistan attacked for its own benefits. There are quite such individuals on this site, who have supported an attack on Iraq, under the same logic, so they would be readily available.

- The USA would be able to coerce around the same number of states to support an attack on Pakistan, as it was able to coerce, for an attack on Iraq.

- China would veto a UN resolution. But I don`t know whether France and Russia etc. would take as strong a stance as they did against Iraq. Primarily because Pakistan does not have any oil contracts to offer. And France and Germany have a large Arab voting population, but no Pakistani population.

- India would offer military bases and soldiers, as would Afghanistan.

- It would be impossible for the US to launch a successful ground invasion, without losing thousands of its own soldiers. So they would have to launch an extremely massive air attack. In the range of what they did in the first Gulf War, i.e. aircraft bombing Pakistani cities for seven hours daily, without stopping.

- Pakistan`s air defence missiles etc. are quite good, so the US would have to lauch high altitude attacks, after taking out the Pakistan Air Force aircraft. This would result in great errors and huge collateral damage.

- Finally with Pakistan`s civilian and military infrastructure destroyed, the US would instruct the Indian army to move in and take over. It would not want to risk too many of its own soldiers in a ground war.

- The Muslim Ummah (is there even such a concept) wouldn`t do anything. It didn`t do anything when India was about to attack recently, why would it take on the USA? Iran would probably be the only country that would assist Pakistan, since it has huge issues with the USA.

- Such events would put Pakistan at about the same stage as Iraq was after the first Gulf War, i.e. completely destroyed and helpless.

So this is how an attack would occur, if the US did decide to attack. There is nothing much Pakistan could do. Pakistan can take on all countries in the world, accept China and USA, in military combat. India` military is third in size and Pakistan has taken India on successfully.

One could argue that countries only attack other countries if they are threatened or if there is a legitimate reason to attack, or if the world agrees to it. But the recent attack on Iraq has turned this whole concept on its head. So the USA can just attack Pakistan in an attempt to, ``liberate`` it also. After all, it did attack Iraq, for no reason.

India is not USA and Pakistan is not Iraq, so India cannot attack Pakistan. That is true. However, even if Pakistan is not Iraq, USA is still USA. So under what argument could someone who is defending an American attack on Iraq, not support an American attack on Pakistan.

I cannot see the above happening, only because the USA has no interest in attacking Pakistan. But if somewhere along the lines, it did develop such an interest, well the above is what would happen. The American military budget is now greater than the military budget of rest of the world combined. It can erase almost any country (including European countries, which have tiny armies as compared to Pakistan`s) in a heartbeat.

Pakistan`s defence lies neither in India, nor in the freedom fighters, nor in the Muslim Ummah. Infact these are three places where Pakistan`s defence should never be. Pakistan`s defence lies in the following areas:

1. Strong economy: This is a must. It is more important than the Constitution, than elections, than religion, than anything else. According to Farid Zakaria of Newsweek fame, countries only become true democracies if they become ecnomically strong first. I agree. Strong economy will bring in national cohesion etc.

Strong economies always attack other coutries, they rarely get attacked themselves.

2. Nuclear detterence: This is the only thing that has saved Pakistan from an Indian attack. And it is the only thing that is allowing Pakistan to not raise its military budget, while India is raising its by leaps and bounds, to a point where its conventional forces are now disproportionately larger than Pakistan. Pakistan`s conventional military is now too small to defend against an Indian attack. India`s military budget is now on its way to reaching $20 billion. Pakistan`s has been at around $2.8 billion for quite a few years.

Nuclearly armed countries have never been attacked in history, by any military.

3. China: China, and not the Ummah nor France nor UN etc. is Pakistan`s trump card. China needs Pakistan desparately, and vice-versa. There is no way China can allow Indian influence or US influence in Pakistan. It will then be surrounded. So for practical reasons, China will always defend Pakistan.

China`s economy will be the same size as the USA`s in 25 years. American, and even some Indian companies, are desperately trying to get a share of this market.

Pakistan needs to fully tilt towards China. Start teaching Chinese. All defence contracts should be with China and not with the USA or Europe. Construction, economy etc. needs to be slowly linked with China. Labor needs to be trained to be able to work in China. Entrepreneurs need to be sent into China, etc.

So far the only place Pakistan has been able to do this successfully is in defence. Pakistani military develoopment is now closely linked to China, due to the various USA military sanctions ove the years. This needs to happen in all industries.

The USA does not need Pakistan and will discard it. China desparately needs Pakistan and will always remain an ally. This of course, does not mean Pakistan should piss-off the US in the process. It only means, Pakistan needs to disassociate itself from any dependencies on the USA.

4. The only part of the Muslim Ummah Pakistan should be concerned with are Iran, Afghanistan and Bangladesh. It needs to have excellent relationships with any govt. in these countries and with its people. This is slowly starting to happen. But the relations shouldn`t have gotten this bad to begin with. These countries are Pakistan`s natural allies. They need Pakistan, probably more than Pakistan needs them. They are not the natural allies of India (neither is China).

So an economically strong, nuclear power, with extremely strong and mutually beneficial economic and military ties with China, and excellent relations with Iran, Afghanistan and Bangladesh, and good relations without any dependencies with USA, is the international geo-political vision that Pakistan should have.

tahmed#198
One of the characteristics of m--- Pakistanis like you seems to be to tell other people they `had a low class upbringing`.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Sadna: You write ``You are a m--- Paki. ``

As I said, foul language on chowk reflects the kind of individual the poster is and the type of upbringing of that individual. And nothing more. I shall not respond to your post in your language.

Have a nice day.

PS: Dost Mittar - Please dont bother to provide me with any more explanations concerning why Ms. Sadna is quite innocent, and is merely provoked into referring to Pakistanis with abusive language.

ferozk #190 Time will indeed tell whether which one of us is right. I hope you will agree though that it would be better that I am right (and Iraq and the middle east becomes a better place as a result of US intervention) and that you are wrong in your pessimism. Yes??

tahmed:
I think that you are prejudiced against sadna and it shows. She is one of the most civilized, even though comabtive Interactor on chowk. I dont know how you came to the conclusion that she felt the `m` word was cool. If she did, she would have used the complete word and not just `m` which would have been intelligible ONLY to those who had read the complete word in the post to which it was addressed.

soysauce #179 If Iraq had an elected government rather than an incredibly brutal and rapacious dictator, it would have been different. The US should have taken him out in 1991 in fact - but recall that it was working within the UN mandate at the time and with a broad coalition that limited its role to the goal of kicking Iraqis out of Kuwait. And Saddam clearly took Kuwait for personal gain (power, money). Bush on the other hand put his re-election in jeopardy by doing what he knew had to be done. I think history will demostrate that despite his awkward manner of speech that is easy to ridicule by smooth talking intellectuals the world around, he has in fact demonstrated strong leadership at a very difficult time for the US and the world after 9/11.

Re: bbabu, #185

“Pakistan will be In the line of fire of America if it exports WMD/missile technology or if it supports any kind of Islamic militants abroad.”

Precisely. As long as Pakistan is able to convince America that Pakistan’s nukes are India-specific only and it needs them for its own security, America does does not care about it. So far America has bought this logic from Pakistan, and India with its war-mongering threats to Pakistan and its declaration of “wiping Pakistan out” has played in Pakistan favor for America to ignore Pakistan’s nukes.

If two idiots want to kill each other and it does not affect America, America does not give a damn.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts