Confusion: Purposeful or not.

[gazoomartian]

lols sawal theek hou ga tou jawab bhi theek hou ga na, jub sawal he gandum hou ga tou jawab tou chana milay ga na, have you heard Fouzia Wahab's statement in which she said civilian govt has no control over Pakistan foreign policy.

Is she still alive? lol

That proves that civ govt is incompetent so army has to do their job

 

[bons]

DEAR MEMBERS
For the past few weeks I have been reading threads posted by some members aiming to either confuse people or just because the thread poster is confused in his/her mind and just perpetrating the same because they have access to internet and some free time.

My question to all those members/readers is as follows, please take the time to answer, it will make it clear to all of us how we think and maybe help to clear some doubts also.

All those members who are so vehemently and constantly calling on Army to shoot the drones, or stop US agents from entering the country, or do this and do that. But they do not stop at this and go on to call the Army names(which by the way only reveals their thinking).

Q- What do you want the Army to do? Choose your option, please.

1- Do you want the Army to over ride and defy the civilian governments orders, because it is now the civilian government that is now in control and they have to call the shots?. Please understand that Army can only do what the Prime minister authorises to do in terms of the final goals.

2- Do you want the Army to follow the orders of the civilian government because that is what the democracy is about?

These are the only two options lets see how much thinking have you put into your demands.

I would go with option #2
........with an addition that Army should also stop dictating the foreign policy to the civilian government and should not directly deal with Americans. Army is 100% responsible for the drone attacks and it is now their duty to stop them, peacefully or forcefully. Cheif of army staff's duty is not to give statements condemning the drone attacks. They must stop them forcefully. Are we spending major chunk of our budget on our armed forces only for such statements?

 

[Star Gazer]

The Army is NOT under the civilian control and never has been.

They refused to allow the ISI to come under govt. control by bringing it under the ministry of interior. Ofcourse Abdul Rehman Malik is an idiot who doesn't command any respect yet the fact of the matter is that the Army defied the civilain government.

The Army refuses to allow itself to be held accountable by the elected parliament. They do not allow the defense budget to be discussed in any open forum and neither give details of expenditures. They do not allow the Public Accounts committee to look into the accounts and practices of army backed commercial entities even case in point the NLC container scam. Google it.

So the whole premise of your questions is flawed.
The Army is a state within a state and the generals look at the rest as 'bloody civilians' who need to be kept inline with a 'danda'.

Please read my question. It is not based on any premise it is a hypothetical question posing to you guys to answer depending on what should be done and as yet none of the members who are so vociferous against the Army even understood it what to answe it. This proves my point that it is easier to criticize and call names but it is very hard to sit down with a cool head and try to understand the text without allowing personal bias and preconcieved ideas to confuse the issue.

What do you think, if none of you guys can be clear enough to answer a simple question do you seriously think any one can take your criticism for any thing other than emotional outburst of superficial and immature thoughts?.

 

[Star Gazer]

I would go with option #2
........with an addition that Army should also stop dictating the foreign policy to the civilian government and should not directly deal with Americans. Army is 100% responsible for the drone attacks and it is now their duty to stop them, peacefully or forcefully. Cheif of army staff's duty is not to give statements condemning the drone attacks. They must stop them forcefully. Are we spending major chunk of our budget on our armed forces only for such statements?

Thank you for being clear and decisive. I appreciate your abilities and believe me this is my option too.

 

[awan4ever]

Please read my question. It is not based on any premise it is a hypothetical question posing to you guys to answer depending on what should be done and as yet none of the members who are so vociferous against the Army even understood it what to answe it. This proves my point that it is easier to criticize and call names but it is very hard to sit down with a cool head and try to understand the text without allowing personal bias and preconcieved ideas to confuse the issue.

What do you think, if none of you guys can be clear enough to answer a simple question do you seriously think any one can take your criticism for any thing other than emotional outburst of superficial and immature thoughts?.

How very kind of you to term another persons opinion as immature, superficial and emotional when everything I have said is based on hard truths which you want to avoid and would rather have sit on the back burner. My opinion is emotional I will agree with that but it can only be termed immature and superficial if you debunk what I have said as total falsehood. If however there is truth in my 'allegations' then I believe the premise of my opinion is anything but superficial and immature.
I dont have any soft spot for the army as I see it as a bigger problem than the politicians so you can label me a traitor or a CIA/Mossad/RAW agent and also a Takfiri/munafiq/kaffir like every other army fanboy/girl but please, immature and superficial have to be justified by hard facts which prove that the Army is an angelic institution and has no hand in us being in a crappy state of affairs today.

If your argument is that 'ofcourse there are a few bad sheep in every organization' well then the 'few' who have never been accountable have ripped our social fabric to shreds by promoting a myopic and ill-planned strategic depth theory in Afghanistan which has back fired in such a grand fashion that not only have we not been able to achieve strategic depth but we are close to losing a big chunk of our own land to dis-illusioned people who increasingly believe that our own Army has sold us out.

So in conclusion if all that satisfies you is an answer to your hypothetical question then yes the army should be under the civilian governments because that is what the CONSTITUTION says and no bloody general has the right to abrogate the constitution at his personal whims. It wasnt a politician that ended up losing half of the country, it was a goddamned general so the army should have their heads bowed in shame and they should shut the **** up and do their jobs of protecting the borders and not worry about how people elect their rulers because if the Indians can learn to make it through the tumultuous democratic process to become a leading nation of the world so can we. The bloody generals dont have to come and teach us how to live our lives.

 

[Star Gazer]

١-سب سے پہلے نمبر پر تو یہ پراکسی فساد کی پالیسی ختم کریں. اور سب دراندازی بند کر کے پاکستان کی جغرافیائی سرحدوں کا دفاع کریں.جو مجاہدین بناے گئے ہیں، انکی 'معاشرتی بحالی' کی جائے. اور انکی نرسریوں یعنی مدرسوں کے نصاب سے فرقہ ورانہ نفرت ختم کی جائےاور تکفیری عناصر کو لگام دی جائے

٢- اپنی کرپشن، توسیع پسند پالیسیاں اور اللے تللے بند کر کے سارا پیسہ عوام کی تعلیم، صحت، سائنس، ٹیکنالوجی وغیرہ پر خرچ کریں.اپنے پروردہ سیاستدانوں، جاگیر داروں، صنعتکاروں وغیرہ کو اس 'ٹوپی ڈرامے' سے رخصت دی جائے اور صحیح اور مخلص لوگوں اور قانون کی مطلق حکمرانی پر مبنی حکومت قائم کی جائے. اور اگر کوئی سویلین حکومت وغیرہ کی طرف سے رکاوٹ کی بات کرنا چاہتا ہے تو حقیقت یہ ہے کہ پاکستان کا کوئی بھی ادارہ، فوج کے ایک جوتے کی مار بھی نہیں ہے. یہ بات میں دن میں دس بار دیکھتا ہوں

یہ بیس، پچیس سال ان پر عمل کر لیں. اسکے بعد پھر چاہے افغانستان کی اندھی گہرائیوں میں 'جخ' ماریں، یا کہ کشمیر و انڈیا فتح کرتے رہیں، مجھے کوئی اعتراض نہیں. سارے طاقتور ممالک دنیا میں کمزور ممالک پر یہی تجربات کرتے پھر رہے ہیں

Lecture is good but again there is no method of how to achieve tis. In the absence of a plan this s only I -want.

 

[Star Gazer]

How very kind of you to term another persons opinion as immature, superficial and emotional when everything I have said is based on hard truths which you want to avoid and would rather have sit on the back burner. My opinion is emotional I will agree with that but it can only be termed immature and superficial if you debunk what I have said as total falsehood. If however there is truth in my 'allegations' then I believe the premise of my opinion is anything but superficial and immature.
I dont have any soft spot for the army as I see it as a bigger problem than the politicians so you can label me a traitor or a CIA/Mossad/RAW agent and also a Takfiri/munafiq/kaffir like every other army fanboy/girl but please, immature and superficial have to be justified by hard facts which prove that the Army is an angelic institution and has no hand in us being in a crappy state of affairs today.

If your argument is that 'ofcourse there are a few bad sheep in every organization' well then the 'few' who have never been accountable have ripped our social fabric to shreds by promoting a myopic and ill-planned strategic depth theory in Afghanistan which has back fired in such a grand fashion that not only have we not been able to achieve strategic depth but we are close to losing a big chunk of our own land to dis-illusioned people who increasingly believe that our own Army has sold us out.

So in conclusion if all that satisfies you is an answer to your hypothetical question then yes the army should be under the civilian governments because that is what the CONSTITUTION says and no bloody general has the right to abrogate the constitution at his personal whims. It wasnt a politician that ended up losing half of the country, it was a goddamned general so the army should have their heads bowed in shame and they should shut the **** up and do their jobs of protecting the borders and not worry about how people elect their rulers because if the Indians can learn to make it through the tumultuous democratic process to become a leading nation of the world so can we. The bloody generals dont have to come and teach us how to live our lives.

Have the courage to just answer the question in clear terms.Obviously you do not know what you are talking about therefore you can write paragraphs but can not committ to an answer.

 

[awan4ever]

Have the courage to just answer the question in clear terms.Obviously you do not know what you are talking about therefore you can write paragraphs but can not committ to an answer.

So in conclusion if all that satisfies you is an answer to your hypothetical question then yes the army should be under the civilian governments because that is what the CONSTITUTION says and no bloody general has the right to abrogate the constitution at his personal whims.

I already did 'show the courage' to answer your question.

You just didnt care to read it.