No announcement yet.

What has eaten Pakistan??

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    What has eaten Pakistan??

    It is the army!

    Dont shout corruption. Corruption is all over. Italy is more corrupt than Britain, but has a bigger economy. China is corrupt, ask a Chinese. But has 10% + growth last 10 yrs. Chiang Kai Shek and Suharto were corrupt. But their nations prospered during the rule. This is because these rulers corrupt or whatever, had right priorities.

    It is the army which eats up 23% of budget and alongwith 52% debt repayment, 75% money goes down the drain in unproductive ventures (long back it was reverse, army ate up around 50% but slowly debt started up)

    Country is reduced to half but the strenght of military has further increased.

    Now if u have army, wars are inevitable. Armies are raised to make wars and they have to prove their utility. Now these wars can not be won. (i posted interesting article 'Pakistan's wars for ceasefire' paki air martial during 65 war. He describes how wishful thinkings lead to misadventures in Pakland.) If u have wars, u can claim defence is necessary and get further money.

    If western countries did not keep funding Pakistan, it would have collapsed or rationalized long ago.

    Get rid of the army because it uses too many resources?

    Tell you what ZZ, write to Vajpayee and tell him that he should get rid of the Indian army. Once you have done that come back and we can talk.


      Indian army eats less than 10% of the budget. Lower than world average. Lower than China or Pakistan, if you want to compare. That is a reasonable level and they are maintaining it.

      The external debt servicing is also pretty low in India. There is a possibility of internal debt trap. But that is different issue.

      Who is going to attack pak? Taliban or India? In fact according to ur own newspapers each war is initiated by pakistan, surprising including that in 71. In fact only country that Pakistani army has been successful in attacking has been Pakistan itself.

      And now u have nuclear weapons and missiles and blah blah. Your foreign misisters threaten to send it at drop of the hat. So where is problem in reducing conventional forces?

      [This message has been edited by ZZ (edited October 20, 1999).]


        Pakistan is much smaller country than India so your percentage argument is a waste of time. Even so, much less is spent on weapons or army than by India.

        Paul Beaver of Janes's Defence Weekly describes Pakistan army as of high calibre, concentrating more on quality than quantity.

        With hindu nationalist government in power it would be stupid of Pakistan to weaken it's army. Remember, before nuke test by Pakistan, Indian politicians were crowing about re-taking Pakistan by force. Only the might of the Pak army armed with nuke-tipped Shaheen missiles were enough to persuade hindu govt of any mis-guided adventurism.


          Chinese economy is much bigger and China claims Arunachal Pradesh, still our percentage expenditure is lower.

          The point is now that u have nukes and missiiles and so on why are u spending same amount on conventional wars. According to you shaheen and nukes have threatened Hindu nationalists. Mind u, according to u they were going to attack Pakistan despite it has such a high caliblre army. So if u have nukes, army is redundunt at least for defence.

          If u continue to spend 75% on non-productive ventures (debt servising +defence), musharraf or anyone can not bring any change.

          [This message has been edited by ZZ (edited October 20, 1999).]


            If we can get over the debt issue the army expenditure is acceptable, after all we have to protect ourselves from the nut cases from over the Indian border. Wasn't it Khurrana who said after the nuclear blast by India "Pakistan should name the place and time where it wants to fight India". The same Khurrana wasn't to be heard after the blasts by Pakistan. So you see ZZ to keep these nut cases from across the border in line we have to prepare.

            [This message has been edited by ehsan (edited October 20, 1999).]


              Why will debt get settled? Who will settle it? Why should world pay for Pak's ambitious nuclear and missile program where missiles can now reach malasia? All reasons that are going in funding or resheduling are negative. If Pakistan is not given some money to survive, they will create trouble, maybe they will collapse and taliban will take over and so on. So a little oxygen will be given time and again to keep patient alive. But given reputation of patient, he will not be allowed to recover. The fear will be that this guy will create much more trouble then.

              Given that u have nukes and missiles, none is going to attack u. But the army as an institution has become so strong that none can reduce expediture there.

              The budget is budget of deficit. Entire revenue is spent on debt + defence. For the rest of the things, money is borrowed, which has to be paid next year and so on.

              [This message has been edited by ZZ (edited October 20, 1999).]


                ZZ said;

                The budget is budget of deficit. Entire revenue is spent on debt + defence. For the rest of the things, money is borrowed, which has to be paid next year and so on.
                Well this is true, but because we have a fanatical hindu neighbour with dreams of Akhand Bharat we have no choice but to spend on army. Wars are still won on the ground despite all the advances in missile technology. If India really wants peace and to reduce army then it should allow a plebiscite in Kashmir (after withdrawing the 700,000 troops) then we can talk of spending less money on arms.

                Until then we will get by just as we are doing. A free nation with people who aren't afraid to discuss the short-comings of their country unlike the Indians who hide their true feelings about their own dung heap nation.


                  I do not understand last paragraph. You have put a bunch of abuses but do not make sense when put together.

                  OK, coming back to India, Pakistan or no Pakistan, Indian defence expenditure is not going to get less than 9-10% which is there today? That is in fact lower than world avg.

                  If India had such dreams of annexing Pakistan, why they did not at least annex Bngladesh which was militarily possible in 71?

                  It is not a question if India wants peace and if it will accept all ur maximalist demands. Question is there is no way in which u can spend money on anything else unless u get out of debt + defence rut. So it is you that needs it, not India.

                  And if u want to go the way you do now, dont blame leaders for not producing results. None can produce results with these constraints.


                    Who said that the world should pay our debt. That coming from you is a bit rich as in the early 1980's the US wrote the then biggest cheque to write off India's debt. But than you would not remember that as India can do nothing wrong in your eyes. We will pay our own debts, not go begging like your nation did than. At the same time we have to keep our vigilance at its height as we have to look out for the nutcases from across the border. When humans take over there than we will be able to lower our guard. Till than nothing doing.


                      Well.. situation is going to lead to second default of Pakistan (first was in 72) whether is nawaz or musharraf.

                      My point was that present political leadership in Pak can not be blamed. They simply do not have money to do anything. All the money is spent by the army.


                        Pakistan is much richer than most people think, only they don't know how to manage their accounts.

                        Fata Morgana