I was just wondering… throughout the 1980s and 1990s, Pakistan has been saying that we are not supporting Kashmiris in their fight except morally and politically. We have been lying.
Was that a good strategy?
Re: Just a thought
^^ that is called politics my friend.
During afghan and soviet war america kept on denying its involvement and now the world knows that it was Zia ul haq and america who began to use islam just to get rid of soviet, it was in their personal interest back then, and same with the kashmir issue, it was in personal interest back then. Pakistan couldnt afford to get into another war and couldnt even afford to lose kashmir, so according to my limited knowledge it was the best strategy back then.
Ps. i dont even think the jihad done in kashmir was haram in anyway.
Re: Just a thought
I was just wondering because 'Kashmir Issue' was the reason for us to feed the large army we have. We have been denied education, health and infrastructure because of that. Post-1940s was the age of economics. You are strong if you are strong economically and not necessarily militarily (e.g. Japan).
I was just wondering... throughout the 1980s and 1990s, Pakistan has been saying that we are not supporting Kashmiris in their fight except morally and politically. We have been lying.
Was that a good strategy?
providing such support as well as lying about were both not only bad strategies but also proved disastrous for Pakistan.
providing such 'support' created the jihadi monster that has now turned itself on Pakistan and
lying about it has completely destroed any credibility in the eyes of the world
I was just wondering... throughout the 1980s and 1990s, Pakistan has been saying that we are not supporting Kashmiris in their fight except morally and politically. We have been lying.
Was that a good strategy?
Supporting terrorism in Kashmir was a bad strategy from a practical point of view because that diverted funds from development of the country to the Pak army and terrorists in Kashmir. Despite that, the situation in Kashmir is still what it was in 1947 but the Pak economy has gone downhill since then.
Re: Just a thought
The only credible answer I get is that Indian intention of controlling the water resources in Kashmir had to be stalled.
Re: Just a thought
^ you can always order bottled water
^ and you can always eat cake when you run out of bread...............:D
**
so how many bottles will it take to water your plants?..............:)
^ you can always order bottled water
really???
Re: Just a thought
It would have been a good strategy if not for 911 and Kargil.
Supporting terrorism in Kashmir was a bad strategy from a practical point of view because that diverted funds from development of the country to the Pak army and terrorists in Kashmir. Despite that, the situation in Kashmir is still what it was in 1947 but the Pak economy has gone downhill since then.
How much of the funds were diverted?
*How badly has the Pakistani economy deteriorated since 1947? *
Please provide authentic economic statistics and indicators.
How much of the funds were diverted?
*How badly has the Pakistani economy deteriorated since 1947? *
Please provide authentic economic statistics and indicators.
I dont need to provide statistics to prove the obvious, and even if I do you will dispute based on its source, vintage or if nothing else works divert the arguement towards how India's economy has also deteriorated.
I am sure you are smart enough to realize the truth in my post without me quoting data that you will dispute anyways.
I dont need to provide statistics to prove the obvious, and even if I do you will dispute based on its source, vintage or if nothing else works divert the arguement towards how India's economy has also deteriorated.
I am sure you are smart enough to realize the truth in my post without me quoting data that you will dispute anyways.
If there was any truth in your post, I wouldn't be arguing. And, yes you do need to provide statistics. I hope you know the definition of going downhill (deteriorate). You are saying that the Pakistani economy has always experienced negative growth in all sectors & all indicators have been declining, since 1947; and, all development funds have been diverted to develop the army instead. Please do provide the authentic statistics (i.e. WB, IMF, preferrably SBP's ES48').
Those are your words, not mine. But I am sure you are smart enough to understand what I meant so anyways…
Enjoy !!
That is the definition of going downhill. There is nothing else that could be understood from that statement.
You should be posting comparative figures from 1947 - 2008, showing a deteriorating economy, not a link to a 7,000 word essay. Moreover SAAG is an Indian think-tank, not any economic organization, and they are likely to show bias. I failed to understand how an Indian think-tank would have more knowledge of the Pakistani economy than SBP or international organizations such as WB/IMF.
Moreover SAAG is an Indian think-tank, not any economic organization, and they are likely to show bias. I failed to understand how an Indian think-tank would have more knowledge of the Pakistani economy than SBP or international organizations such as WB/IMF.
LOL...I knew this was going to be your response, but I tried anyways...
LOL...I knew this was going to be your response, but I tried anyways...
And I knew that you were going to post some unauthentic sources like a self-made Indian website or a think-tank. The fact is that there are dozenz of reports available on the internet from IMF/WB/SBP and other credible sources, that compare the Pakistani economy from 1947-48 to 2005-08. But I know you will never use those.
And I knew that you were going to post some unauthentic sources like a self-made Indian website or a think-tank. The fact is that there are dozenz of reports available on the internet from IMF/WB/SBP and other credible sources, that compare the Pakistani economy from 1947-48 to 2005-08. But I know you will never use those.
I am sure they do not publish the figures for money spent on Kashmir projects. The thing I am sure about is that Pakistan's military has been too large for the population and area, given the 'enemy' status of India.
And I knew that you were going to post some unauthentic sources like a self-made Indian website or a think-tank. The fact is that there are dozenz of reports available on the internet from IMF/WB/SBP and other credible sources, that compare the Pakistani economy from 1947-48 to 2005-08. But I know you will never use those.
You are so pugnacious! I am sure none from your lineage was ever in army (Please don't ask me to elaborate this ironic line!). We are not discussing whether this Punjabi is providing statistics or not, the key issue is whether the support of terrorism in Kashmir was a smart move. India's growth rate is almost touching double figures and could have been better! Same is the case with Pak, it would also have been among the fastest developing nations across the world like China and India (rank 1 and 2 resp., should I provide proof?). Think sth other than illogically feigning to seek the evidence.