Pakistan, Kuwait discuss expanded defence pact: report

[peagle]

I wish you had followed your own advice instead of going off on a rant against strawman arguments that at least I did not make.

I only said India generally avoids formal military alliances. The treaty with the Soviet Union was the exception that proves the rule. It was signed in August 1971, which was after the Indian government and generals had already fully planned the war in East Pakistan and was meant for the limited purpose of providing defensive insurance against American and Chinese involvement. in that war. Importantly, the treaty was not renewed after it served its purpose and the succesor treaty with Russia left out security guarantees, even though Russia was still India's main security partner at that time.

Of course, India are not non-aligned and they have close defence relationships with America, France, Israel , Russia ( though at a smaler scale than before) and increasingly Japan, Australia and UAE, but they have stayed away from formal treaty-based alliances with any of them. The agreements they have signed do not have any security guarantees or mutual defence clauses.

Now, you're just being dense, this is just beyond absurd.

A. Either you knew the information beforehand and still made your original ignorant comment. Or,
B. You made an effort to read up, but still choose to make the same ignorant comment.

Both are absurd.

What is "tend not to" or "generally avoids"? These are meaningless terms
These are ignorant terms from persons who don't have the capacity to understand and argue their own perspective so fall back on the usual Pakistani line of "self loathing randi rona".
When it comes to Pakistan, it's all our fault. When it comes to others, just take a easy position because you're simply incapable of defending anything purposely. Just fight amongst yourselves because its far easier to fight your own with silly moralistic arguments, facts can go to hell. I am sorry but i find this approach pitiful. It's high time we stop this.

Let's break down your claims and arguments, point by point. Please do not get into repetitive nonsense.

"Tends not to" or "Generally avoids" are meaningless here. You don't go around signing defence or military treaties willy-nilly, so generalities do not apply. Such treaties are something either you do or you don't, if you do then "tend not to", or "generally avoids" do not apply. I generally try no to work on Sundays, or i tend to avoid eating meat, these are general statements. I cannot say i tend not to stab people if i have only stabbed once or twice in life. In some situations, either you have or you have not.
In this case, India has, on multiple occasions. So your statement is false, it's untrue, it's wrong, it's a falsehood.

India signed the 20 year treaty, I had not realised till now that they had actually renewed the very same treaty in 1991, before the Soviet Union was dissolved. The 1993 treaty was a revision of that treaty because the Soviet Union failed to exist.
Up till 1991, india had existed for 44 years, out of which for 20 years it had a formal defence treaty, which was renewed for another 20 years, so by 2011 India would have existed for 64 years, and it would have spent 40 years, nearly two third of its existence in a formal defence treaty with a Superpower.
So "tend not to" or "generally avoids" are meaningless terminologies. Designed to convey false information because it distorts the reality.

First, the purpose of the treaty does not matter, what matters is it was signed.
Secondly, Such comprehensive treaties are not signed on a whim, they take months, or even years to negotiate.

Third, 1971 war was effectively with West Pakistan. In 1971, India had a population of 548 million, West Pakistan had an estimated population of 58 million. That's a population difference of 9.5 times. So india did not have the guts to attack a nation that's 9.5 times smaller, going through an active civil war, where even the military personal are in revolt, it had to sign a defence pact with a super power. Friggin ridiculous bunch of clowns.
Furthermore, East Pakistan is nearly 2000km away by air, and nearly 5000km away by sea, both routes take you across indian spaces.
If China and USA did not come to the aid of Pakistan in 1965 war, there was zero chance of that happening in 1971, especially since Pakistan was under continuous American sanctions since the 1965 war, they were only lifted in 1982.
1982 because Pakistan was under multiple layers of sanctions and it took a while before then could be lifted after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

India has received far more help then Pakistanis realise, all we know are public narratives, even our historian are bunch of fools who are incapable of teaching our public real facts. Thank god for the age of internet.

Besides the Soviets, as i have already mentioned India has been busy signing various military agreements with America.
If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

Its relationships with Japan and Australia are defensive in nature, Australia didn't just approve the sale of Uranium to india for nothing. UAE is a tiny fly of 1 million people with a big ego, high on black gold. Despite what people think, they were not interested in any defence treaty with india, people make lots of claims, but it is interested in strong relationships where it can enjoy full benefits without losing the Muslim brotherhood cookie.


Please let's stop presenting lazy interpretations where we stab ourselves in the foot and on occasion in the back.

 

[Master Chief]

Mercenary is a noble profession , Swiss were mercenaries once , they built their country from the income generated by them... those who complain that no one invested billions and trillions, no one comes for holidays in Pakistan or gets degrees from Pakistan blah blah should know that nothing significant comes through charity.....you got to be like a magnet to draw in what you want and not like a repellent that unfortunately you are.

Talk to me in 3 years, as suggested in the original post to which you responded.

I am happy to bet you a coke that those running Pakistan will not build your country with their "mercenary earnings" as the Swiss once did theirs. My humble prediction is that Pakistan will remain Pakistan and India will remain fully empowered against us, while Arabs remain unwilling to sacrifice the hindutva cash cow and Pakistani leaders remain happy to take your country's earnings and run. In any event, I suspect someone with your truly magnetic personality will do just fine in such a world.

 

[Owaiz]

Now, you're just being dense, this is just beyond absurd.

A. Either you knew the information beforehand and still made your original ignorant comment. Or,
B. You made an effort to read up, but still choose to make the same ignorant comment.

Both are absurd.

What is "tend not to" or "generally avoids"? These are meaningless terms
These are ignorant terms from persons who don't have the capacity to understand and argue their own perspective so fall back on the usual Pakistani line of "self loathing randi rona".
When it comes to Pakistan, it's all our fault. When it comes to others, just take a easy position because you're simply incapable of defending anything purposely. Just fight amongst yourselves because its far easier to fight your own with silly moralistic arguments, facts can go to hell. I am sorry but i find this approach pitiful. It's high time we stop this.

Let's break down your claims and arguments, point by point. Please do not get into repetitive nonsense.

"Tends not to" or "Generally avoids" are meaningless here. You don't go around signing defence or military treaties willy-nilly, so generalities do not apply. Such treaties are something either you do or you don't, if you do then "tend not to", or "generally avoids" do not apply. I generally try no to work on Sundays, or i tend to avoid eating meat, these are general statements. I cannot say i tend not to stab people if i have only stabbed once or twice in life. In some situations, either you have or you have not.
In this case, India has, on multiple occasions. So your statement is false, it's untrue, it's wrong, it's a falsehood.

India signed the 20 year treaty, I had not realised till now that they had actually renewed the very same treaty in 1991, before the Soviet Union was dissolved. The 1993 treaty was a revision of that treaty because the Soviet Union failed to exist.
Up till 1991, india had existed for 44 years, out of which for 20 years it had a formal defence treaty, which was renewed for another 20 years, so by 2011 India would have existed for 64 years, and it would have spent 40 years, nearly two third of its existence in a formal defence treaty with a Superpower.
So "tend not to" or "generally avoids" are meaningless terminologies. Designed to convey false information because it distorts the reality.

First, the purpose of the treaty does not matter, what matters is it was signed.
Secondly, Such comprehensive treaties are not signed on a whim, they take months, or even years to negotiate.

Third, 1971 war was effectively with West Pakistan. In 1971, India had a population of 548 million, West Pakistan had an estimated population of 58 million. That's a population difference of 9.5 times. So india did not have the guts to attack a nation that's 9.5 times smaller, going through an active civil war, where even the military personal are in revolt, it had to sign a defence pact with a super power. Friggin ridiculous bunch of clowns.
Furthermore, East Pakistan is nearly 2000km away by air, and nearly 5000km away by sea, both routes take you across indian spaces.
If China and USA did not come to the aid of Pakistan in 1965 war, there was zero chance of that happening in 1971, especially since Pakistan was under continuous American sanctions since the 1965 war, they were only lifted in 1982.
1982 because Pakistan was under multiple layers of sanctions and it took a while before then could be lifted after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

India has received far more help then Pakistanis realise, all we know are public narratives, even our historian are bunch of fools who are incapable of teaching our public real facts. Thank god for the age of internet.

Besides the Soviets, as i have already mentioned India has been busy signing various military agreements with America.
If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

Its relationships with Japan and Australia are defensive in nature, Australia didn't just approve the sale of Uranium to india for nothing. UAE is a tiny fly of 1 million people with a big ego, high on black gold. Despite what people think, they were not interested in any defence treaty with india, people make lots of claims, but it is interested in strong relationships where it can enjoy full benefits without losing the Muslim brotherhood cookie.


Please let's stop presenting lazy interpretations where we stab ourselves in the foot and on occasion in the back.

I "generally" ignore personal insults in rants, but your post is a perfect example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

 

[RescueRanger]

Less history lessons please.

 

[maxpane]

if we got a chance in something we go back to history like women and then taunt them how badly they treat us why we ahould help them bla bla bla instead of looking at present and to look how to get it done for better future

 

[peagle]

I "generally" ignore personal insults in rants, but your post is a perfect example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Dude, you're a clown.
You have done nothing but discuss personal, and be repetitive, simply incapable of having a reason based logic discussion. That's the epitome of Dunning-Kruger effect, maybe go back and watch the video again, since you seem incapable of reading.
It's friggin tragic seeing self loathing randi rona amongst Pakistanis on a daily basis.
Like I said, a clown.

 

[peagle]

Talk to me in 3 years, as suggested in the original post to which you responded.

I am happy to bet you a coke that those running Pakistan will not build your country with their "mercenary earnings" as the Swiss once did theirs. My humble prediction is that Pakistan will remain Pakistan and India will remain fully empowered against us, while Arabs remain unwilling to sacrifice the hindutva cash cow and Pakistani leaders remain happy to take your country's earnings and run. In any event, I suspect someone with your truly magnetic personality will do just fine in such a world.

Hey bro, I think i disagree with you but i am not sure why lol, too many inferences in your statement.
Could you please expand a little so that i may decide if in fact i disagree or not.

 

[Master Chief]

Hey bro, I think i disagree with you but i am not sure why lol, too many inferences in your statement.
Could you please expand a little so that i may decide if in fact i disagree or not.

Brother, no problem if we disagree at all. I have merely predicted trouble down the road with our current approach, but I am happy to acknowledge that I don't know the details of the various deals being touted. Personally, I have always agreed that KSA is the right partner for us, one who can actually exert leverage on our behalf in exchange for the services of our military. Financial benefits and military technical development that are being discussed are indeed welcome but the possibility of political leverage over our existential enemy to the east is what should be preferentially pursued. KSA can - in theory - bring such leverage to bear.

Perhaps Kuwait is a bridge too far in this context and would become more trouble than they are actually worth?

On that note, as a national discourse, we need to use the language of constructive partnerships that can truly evolve with time, rather than simple deal-mongering which implies bartering at some corner market stall. We're better than we give ourselves credit for and we should strive in the same way.

I have read various forum responses hitherto specifically regarding the Kuwait question and I can but hope I'm wrong and others are right on this one.

 

[peagle]

Brother, no problem if we disagree at all. I have merely predicted trouble down the road with our current approach, but I am happy to acknowledge that I don't know the details of the various deals being touted. Personally, I have always agreed that KSA is the right partner for us, one who can actually exert leverage on our behalf in exchange for the services of our military. Financial benefits and military technical development that are being discussed are indeed welcome but the possibility of political leverage over our existential enemy to the east is what should be preferentially pursued. KSA can - in theory - bring such leverage to bear.

Perhaps Kuwait is a bridge too far in this context and would become more trouble than they are actually worth?

On that note, as a national discourse, we need to use the language of constructive partnerships that can truly evolve with time, rather than simple deal-mongering which implies bartering at some corner market stall. We're better than we give ourselves credit for and we should strive in the same way.

I have read various forum responses hitherto specifically regarding the Kuwait question and I can but hope I'm wrong and others are right on this one.

I generally don't like disagreeing with you, it's a personal preference. Although i do prefer your previous incarnation, the new version is far too lenient for my liking lol

I agree with the broad direction of your point and argument. But, as in all things it's the minor details that derail the message.

I would prefer not to use terms like services, it's demeaning, mutual benefit isn't about providing services, its purely about being mutually beneficial. Plus we have other reasons for being protective of Saudi Arabia, this coming from a life long atheist, but those reasons do exist, and rightfully so.
So, please avoid terms like services. Pakistan has never served anyone, and i am happy to engage with anyone who thinks otherwise, not based on narratives but raw facts.

I would also have to disagree on the leverage aspect, Pakistan has never required leverage against anyone and certainly not India. Facts speak for themselves, although i recognise the narrative says otherwise, it's a hollow narrative, facts matter.
However, friends and allies are important, everyone needs friends and allies. Only recently America, some may say so-called superpower but it is factually the most powerful country in the world that was crying about friends and allies not helping.

So, having friends and allies need not be about for sake of leverage against a country we have dealt with on multiple occasions and under far more difficult circumstance. But, it is rightful that we demand rightful approach by friends and allies. demanding and expecting support is different from outright seeking leverage, practically it amounts to the same thing, but words matter.

Regarding the minnows, I agree, they do not deserve the same attention, but attention they do deserve. Even the president of America courts them for their investments.
Rather then short term outcomes, if the return is investment, better trading relationships and creating a better environment for Pakistani workers and giving preferential treatment to Pakistani labour, over others, then yes, they should be catered to as they ask and we have the full capacity to do that.


I have long held the view that it was the Afghanis constant infighting which resulted in the Gulf labour force changing from Pakistani heavy to indian heavy. Before the 1980s it was the Pakistani workforce which built those nations, after the 1980s their attention turned to india. This needs to be reversed or a fair balance created.

Couple of years ago i came across two interviews which confirmed my view. One by an indian ex ambassador to Saudi Arabia, the second a PhD scholar. Both confirmed that the Arab states used the Afghan wars to get rid of their extremist elements, especially because of the Mecca siege, which had scared the Arab rulers. Furthermore, because Pakistan was helping Afghanis fight the Soviets it created an environment for extremist elements which they wanted to keep out, so doors were slowly shut to Pakistani workforce and the centre of gravity moved elsewhere.

We can and should aid them, if that is their true desire, as partners, but to the appropriate benefit of both parties.
Investment, trade, and labour force, even if it requires replacing Indian workers with Pakistani workers.