Ayaz another Indian Facilitator
- Thread starter Scholar1
- Start date
mubarik Shah
Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
Ayaz was noon's parliamentary member of NA. But due to conflict's of interest with noon he left the party and vacated his seat. I don't believe he has any ties with endia....
aliahmad297622
Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
India pakistan should be freind , USA canda every day trade $2 billion ( every day ) brotherhood best example with neabours peacfull environment
Last edited:
bhaibarood
Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
I guess video maker is ghaddar number1 .
Who gv you authority to call someone ghaddar?
Bharry ke tatoos pe ...lakh de ....
Stoo polishing yo generals boot Khansama!
Who gv you authority to call someone ghaddar?
Bharry ke tatoos pe ...lakh de ....
Stoo polishing yo generals boot Khansama!
Eyeaan
Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
Though I'm for zero nuclear option but here I have to differ. Ayaz is confusing the issue. The problem is the missile defense system of India. To stop the race or multiple-head missile systems both countries ought to agree to limit the scope of the defense system. A defenseless country, without a mutual and internationally guaranteed agreement, does not achieve peace or security but invites for a war. We need to negotiate with India regarding putting limits on defense - but would BJP government agree to that. Here issue is not akin to USSR-US detente - we have the same borders and the only way to limit the destruction is to limit the scope of the defense. In nuclear age, a better defense makes the potential war deadlier and deadlier bur does nor protects the country.
GreenMaple
Prime Minister (20k+ posts)
Sorry Pal, can't agree with you on this. Despite his shortcomings, Ayaz Amir still is a good sensible current affair analyst.
Ayaz said " where it ends"
you have 10 Nukes in one missile.
Should be enf , now spend money on common man not on deffence(Where there is no audit).
you have 10 Nukes in one missile.
Should be enf , now spend money on common man not on deffence(Where there is no audit).
Eyeaan
Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
As I said, ideologically and I’m for zero nuclear option and what is really enough is the total receding the danger of a nuclear conflict. However that requires a comprehensive treaty and understanding with the mutual consent of the people and the militaries involved. You cannot take the assessment of the military out of the equation for an agreement. Rather, such agreements are often between the militaries and the politicians have a limited input. If you recall, Pres. Reagan’s commitments with Gorbachev about number of warheads in Europe, as he returned back home the agreements were vetoed by the US military strategists and Gorbachev, later commented about the event that Pres. Reagan had no real authority to make such agreements and they knew it well.
Nuclear war/conflict has different logic and strategy. If between two opponents, one has option/hope to survive the attack she has an upper hand. Thus, to eliminate the chances of conflict, one should focus that no one has defense/survival ability from a nuclear strike. That has been the point of nuclear treaties between USA/USSR and vigorous opposition to SDI program or US. Lacking such a treaty the opponents must enhance the warheads and more over increase the uncertainty by making tall claims for the nuclear capability. I expect that the military are given opportunities to give their point of view and they should only be criticized later by the strategist.
When Ayaz Mir asks the question that what is enough, the answer is simple; at least Ayaz doesn’t know what enough is. Wars are the business of military. For wars and defense they exist and they are the one who decided or assess what ought to be the needs. I’m not trusting military and they should be asked questions and criticized but there is no point or gain when one resorts to political rhetoric except to generate unnecessary mistrust.
Here I should mention that all bureaucracies and especially the military over-estimate their needs and try to expand at the cost of other sector. That is a built-in flaw and internally unavoidable. There are ample examples and economic theories regarding this behavior of bureaucracies in all nations. Thus the politicians must have a keen eye on the working of military.
Here, if we are to avoid or criticize the nuclear wars, we should condemn the deployment of defense systems. That was my main point that Ayaz Mir’s criticism was misplaced though the other commentator was trying to pass his point. The military have right/duty to convey their viewpoint to the public because they are funded by the public. However they are not answerable to the public opinion and are answerable only to the constitutional duties which are trusted upon the institution and, perhaps, same is the case for police.
In nuclear conflict, the stakes are high. The ‘madman theory’ dictates that, lacking any clear agreement and mutual inspection of the warhead and regular accounting by the respective military, one should not trust one government or the other. There isn’t any goodwill or bleeding heart for such a conflict.
It is already a long reply but if you wish, I’ll make some point regarding your second observation on common people’s need vs the military needs – of course the answer ought to involve the real numbers and the nature of the defense strategies of two conflicting nations thus i avoid it.
