What's new

Yeah man, let’s go to Yemen!

Cheetah786

PDF VETERAN
Joined
Aug 23, 2006
Messages
9,002
Reaction score
-3
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
So much noise and yet so little knowledge. It’s rather amusing to see so many Pakistanis celebrating the Parliament’s resolution to remain neutral in the Yemen conflict. They are cheering Pakistan’s decision not to send its troops to fight on the side of the Saudis against the Houthi rebels.

However, most probably by the time this column goes into print, Pakistan would have sent at least some troops to Saudi Arabia. And this would be the correct thing to do.

What is required at the moment is not false bravado about one being a proud and independent nation that takes its own decisions without any coercion from a foreign power; or that these decisions are taken to serve our own national interest.

A broud bakistani, Nadeem F. Paracha tells us that we need to support our brothers and beat up on the Houthis … or does he?
Indeed this is the right of every sovereign country. But if one is to think logically and rationally and (in this case) even spiritually, then one is bound to realise that sending our troops to Saudi Arabia is very much in our national, geopolitical, financial, seismological and gastronomical interest.

There are at the moment about 1.3 trillion Pakistanis working in the Gulf States. One third of these are taxi drivers, and the rest are daily-wage labourers. But these do not matter as much as do the 3.2 million Pakistani doctors, engineers, teachers, bankers and professional shoppers who are also there.

They not only send back approximately 5.7 billion dollars daily (and sometimes hourly) to Pakistan, they also come back armed with the superior scientific, economic, academic and mystical knowledge that the Gulf states and Saudi Arabia are enriched with.

From the Gulf States and Saudi Arabia, Pakistanis learn the virtues of religious and racial tolerance, economic equality, intellectual freedom and the socially healthy binding qualities of modern-day sports such as camel-racing and pigeon-hunting.

Now imagine what would happen if Pakistanis find it tough to visit, live or work in Saudi Arabia or in any of the smaller but equally progressive and enlightened Gulf States?

Can you imagine the kind of economic, scientific, intellectual and transcendental cost we, as a poor, backward third world South Asian nation, will have to pay? Can you imagine, or does one have to ask again, can you imagine? Imagine it. Can you? Imagine?

It’s not just about the fact that most of these states have oil and are very rich. It’s also about how rich they are in the fields of education, culture, arts, sports and spirituality. But yes, the economic aspect too must be taken into account by a poor backward South Asian country like Pakistan.

One must remember how Saudi Arabia has been bailing us out from serious economic crises ever since 711AD; we should remember how much our economy is dependent on the business opportunities that the Gulf States offer us. You must remember. Can you? Remember?

If we consider all this we are bound to realise that such facts easily outweigh views based on malicious rumours that spitefully claim that the Saudis and the Gulf States have for long been providing funds to militant networks in Pakistan.

Yes, such funds do come in from there. But they are almost entirely raised to help Pakistan build beautiful, air-conditioned places of worship; intellectually vibrant seminaries; peaceful and charitable evangelical outfits that produce deeply spiritual leaders who spread the message of love, peace and tolerance; and rolling, lush oases lined with giant date-palm trees and serene houbara bustard sanctuaries and long catwalks and glitzy jewellery shops. All very spiritually and scientifically satisfying.

So you see, it’s just not about oil and the kind of wealth the Gulf States and Saudi Arabia are blessed with. One must suggest that a lot of Pakistanis spend time in trying to see the issue in a more objective and strategic manner and not treat it cynically or worse, as something to do with us exhibiting some spine.

What’s the use of a spine if it loses its marrow? Imagine. Can you? Imagine? A spine without marrow? Now ask: Where do we get this marrow from? And the answer is: Riyadh! Abu Dhabi! Sharjah! Jeddah! Dubai Mall!

What are we without these? Yes, they behave like our bosses, but they’re our brotherly bosses. Our historical, cultural and economic fibre, fibre optic and fibreglass are deeply weaved with the ways, waves and the future well being of our brotherly bosses.

We have absolutely nothing in common with the historical, cultural and economic fibre, fibre optics and fibreglass of Iran and Turkey. So why bother pretending that these two are equally important to us? They are not. No Pakistani drives a taxi in Tehran and Istanbul. And that’s a fact.

I do hope and wish that common sense and logic shall prevail in the government, the Parliament and the armed forces, and by the time this column goes into print, we would have removed our troops who are fighting a meaningless war against their fellow countrymen in Waziristan and send the troops to fight shoulder-to-shoulder with our Saudi and Gulf brotherly bosses.

Published in Dawn, Sunday Magazine, April 19th, 2015
 
This is moderately funny but pointlessly ends up making the wrong point.
Pakistan would have sent at least some troops to Saudi Arabia.
This is the crux of the argument, this is the basis for this entire sarcastic and satirical article - that troops are being sent to Saudi Arabia. Obviously, the author doesn't agree with this, as indicated by the following paragraph;
What is required at the moment is not false bravado about one being a proud and independent nation that takes its own decisions without any coercion from a foreign power; or that these decisions are taken to serve our own national interest.

Indeed this is the right of every sovereign country. But if one is to think logically and rationally and (in this case) even spiritually, then one is bound to realise that sending our troops to Saudi Arabia is very much in our national, geopolitical, financial, seismological and gastronomical interest.
The issue is: all this implies that sending a few troops in a symbolic and support role to Saudi Arabia somehow reduces our independence, national pride and somehow does not serve our national or geopolitical interest. This is the wrong thing to imply, simply because it's incorrect.

Every ''proud and independent nation that takes its own decisions without any coercion from a foreign power'' has allies that it supports from time to time. By denying to deploy in Yemen we've already defied any coercion.

This article does do a good job mocking the mullah crowd though, was worth reading for that but its point is still wrong.
 
Can't believe that pot smoking idiot is still writing.
 
This is moderately funny but pointlessly ends up making the wrong point.

This is the crux of the argument, this is the basis for this entire sarcastic and satirical article - that troops are being sent to Saudi Arabia. Obviously, the author doesn't agree with this, as indicated by the following paragraph;

The issue is: all this implies that sending a few troops in a symbolic and support role to Saudi Arabia somehow reduces our independence, national pride and somehow does not serve our national or geopolitical interest. This is the wrong thing to imply, simply because it's incorrect.

Every ''proud and independent nation that takes its own decisions without any coercion from a foreign power'' has allies that it supports from time to time. By denying to deploy in Yemen we've already defied any coercion.

This article does do a good job mocking the mullah crowd though, was worth reading for that but its point is still wrong.

The issue is simple, we are in big doo=doo as we speak because of previous government's habit of fighting other people's wars. We should pay attention to our own and let others worry about there.
 
The issue is simple, we are in big doo=doo as we speak because of previous government's habit of fighting other people's wars.
It's a lot more complicated than that. Participating in Afghanistan (80s) was bad but not participating was an even worse option as not only would we have the Soviet Union encircling us, we'd also have lost the support of the US.

The US would've then proceeded to use Pakistani territory anyways, and the Taliban would've formed regardless. The only difference might be that Pakistan could have a cleaner image in the international community , but even that is doubtful given the power of propaganda.

A similar thing can be said about Pakistan being involved in post-9/11 Afghanistan.

Anyhow, Pakistan isn't fighting in Yemen. It is only consoling Saudi Arabia by vowing to protect their borders. Therefore, there is no reason for the author to worry and so unsuccessfully try to make this point.
 
There are at the moment about 1.3 trillion Pakistanis working in the Gulf States. One third of these are taxi drivers, and the rest are daily-wage labourers. But these do not matter as much as do the 3.2 million Pakistani doctors, engineers, teachers, bankers and professional shoppers who are also there.

They not only send back approximately 5.7 billion dollars daily (and sometimes hourly) to Pakistan, they also come back armed with the superior scientific, economic, academic and mystical knowledge that the Gulf states and Saudi Arabia are enriched with.

So there are 4.5 million Pakistanis in gulf countries? This is huge. And from latest figures it seem they will send back around $12 billion to Pakistan this FY.
 
This guy ****ed numbers. So there are 4.5 million Pakistanis in gulf countries? This is huge. And from latest figures it seem they will send back around $12 billion to Pakistan.
What he did to those numbers was intentional. I don't think he had accuracy in mind when writing this, given that he also says:
There are at the moment about 1.3 trillion Pakistanis working in the Gulf States.
 
So there are 4.5 million Pakistanis in gulf countries? This is huge. And from latest figures it seem they will send back around $12 billion to Pakistan this FY.

I'am well aware of the remittance sent back to Pakistan by overseas Pakistanis. But what you are not aware of is the loss of $100 billion and counting to our economy , because of Pakistan fighting other people wars. Billions/ year loss of FDI because of security situation in Pakistan.
 
It's a lot more complicated than that. Participating in Afghanistan (80s) was bad but not participating was an even worse option as not only would we have the Soviet Union encircling us, we'd also have lost the support of the US.

The US would've then proceeded to use Pakistani territory anyways, and the Taliban would've formed regardless. The only difference might be that Pakistan could have a cleaner image in the international community , but even that is doubtful given the power of propaganda.

A similar thing can be said about Pakistan being involved in post-9/11 Afghanistan.

Anyhow, Pakistan isn't fighting in Yemen. It is only consoling Saudi Arabia by vowing to protect their borders. Therefore, there is no reason for the author to worry and so unsuccessfully try to make this point.

You could have struck a deal with the Soviets on Afghanistan and left America out of it
 
You could have struck a deal with the Soviets on Afghanistan and left America out of it
Sure, we could have. But it wouldn't have done us any good. Like I said, the US would've proceeded to use our territory anyways, only they'd be doing it without our consent, meaning that their insurgents would have to be anti-Pakistan too since Pakistan would have also become 'a stooge of the Soviet Union'. Therefore, and an insurgency like the TTP would've stated all the way back then.

Supporting or dealing with the Soviets wasn't in our geopolitical interest anyways since no amount of dealing over Afghanistan would've made them abandon their influence over it or revoke their support for India - and that was before we had a Nuclear deterrent, so Pakistan risked being encircled in case of a conventional war.
 
Sure, we could have. But it wouldn't have done us any good. Like I said, the US would've proceeded to use our territory anyways, only they'd be doing it without our consent, meaning that their insurgents would have to be anti-Pakistan too since Pakistan would have also become 'a stooge of the Soviet Union'. Therefore, and an insurgency like the TTP would've stated all the way back then.

Supporting or dealing with the Soviets wasn't in our geopolitical interest anyways since no amount of dealing over Afghanistan would've made them abandon their influence over it or revoke their support for India - and that was before we had a Nuclear deterrent, so Pakistan risked being encircled in case of a conventional war.

a little detail - you would not gotten paid. Pakistani elites would never miss a chance to get free money.

how can america move millions of dollars in weapons undetected through Pakistan ?

The India-Soviet alliance was dormant in the late 1970s. India-Pakistan had a reasonably friendly relationship
 
a little detail - you would not gotten paid. Pakistani elites would never miss a chance to get free money.
Pakistan lost way more money than it gained. If the elites wanted to profit, it's a lot easier and more profitable to eat the internal economy. Geopolitics was the main concern; money was a side-effect.

how can america move millions of dollars in weapons undetected through Pakistan ?
Who said anything about undetected? It'd be detected alright. The hard part would be stopping it.

It would have been a lot harder for the US proxies to actually win without Pakistan's support, no doubt, but do you think that would've stopped the US from trying?
The India-Soviet alliance was dormant in the late 1970s.
The Indo-Soviet cooperation treaty was signed in the 1970s. Whatever do you mean by ''dormant'', the reality was quite the opposite. The west was beginning to eye India and the Soviets poured more money and weapons to counter that. The relations were in no way 'dormant'.
India-Pakistan had a reasonably friendly relationship
You mean during and after the 1971 war? Yeah, sure :sarcastic:
 
Pakistan lost way more money than it gained. If the elites wanted to profit, it's a lot easier and more profitable to eat the internal economy. Geopolitics was the main concern; money was a side-effect.


Who said anything about undetected? It'd be detected alright. The hard part would be stopping it.

It would have been a lot harder for the US proxies to actually win without Pakistan's support, no doubt, but do you think that would've stopped the US from trying?

The Indo-Soviet cooperation treaty was signed in the 1970s. Whatever do you mean by ''dormant'', the reality was quite the opposite. The west was beginning to eye India and the Soviets poured more money and weapons to counter that. The relations were in no way 'dormant'.

You mean during and after the 1971 war? Yeah, sure :sarcastic:

It is not clear how Americans could arm the Afghans without Pakistan's help. While the Pakistani state is not very strong they are capable of rounding up folks and putting them behind bars. Keep in mind Americans were thrown out of Iran in 1979

I am sure there was bad blood after the 1971 war. that might be an understatement. India-Pakistan relations were relatively good during the period 1974-1980.

What weapons did the Soviets pour during 1972-1980 ? Name any major weapon system that was acquired from the Soviets
 
What weapons did the Soviets pour during 1972-1980 ? Name any major weapon system that was acquired from the Soviets
Your knowledge of history must be weak if you don't know that.

India began purchasing T-72s directly from the USSR at a considerably low cost and acquired its first few T-72s in 1978. This was followed by another 700 T-72s a few years later.

In response to India looking to purchase the Jaguars from the UK and Mirage from France in 1979, The Soviets offered India MiGs at low prices with very favourable terms. The Soviets then sent their Air Chief to Delhi and by 1981 India had signed a deal worth a few Billion USD with a concessionary repayment rate, spread out over 17 years. It included MiG 23s and 25s.

And don't forget small-arms, BTRs,BMPs, T-55s, Mi8s and many, many more. All this is available on the internet, Wikipedia is a good place to start but SIPRI Trade Registers is even better.
 

Back
Top Bottom