Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A Billion dollar arms package to Pakistan

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    The US does
    To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
      SCAF kept a low profile in the beginning. it was only after the situation started to become untenable that they became more apparent. I did not have a problem when he came to power, it was a fair election. But Morsi made plenty of mistakes along the way. It just made it easier for his opponents to sink him. he lost the support of the people. I doubt he would have been ousted as early otherwise. he did not play well with the bureaucracy which is a much older institution than the MB.

      $5 billion ? they were already $40 billion under. if the economy was allowed to collapse then the IMF could have stepped in and put in conditions that made reform possible. This is how India got out of the hole. Implemented some WB/IMF recommendations. hard to oppose reform politically when you're in a predicament.

      Egypt has the same population as Turkey yet its economy is a quarter the size.
      It's hard to take an accurate measure of support when nearly every media outlet is controlled by people that were opposed to your rule. Not to mention that there were massive Pro-Morsi demonstrations, short term memory, I suppose. The anti-Morsi demonstrations were mostly comprised of two former opponent-parties that cooperated to remove Morsi. Both were media darlings with their media and military ties.

      The reforms the IMF wanted were engineered to destabilize Morsi - they knew that there was no way he could implement them. Furthermore, he did enact several recommendations, just not all, namely cutting subsidies on wheat and fuel. Which, IIRC, Sisi didn't enact until the massive gulf cash inflow and an IMF loan.

      As far as relations go, the world could have had a truly democratic Arab nation. One that was willing to work with the world powers. Morsi was even highly cooperative and motivated to work with the Israelis because he saw the extremists in Sinai as dangerous to both his presidency and Egypt. Domestically, he repealed Mubarak's laws on freedom of the press and he sought to route a corrupt judiciary full of Mubarak appointees.

      Mubarak may have left, but Tantawi never did. Save for his "resignation" and appointment as a "special advisor" to Morsi. Tantawi picked Sisi, make no mistake he would have ended up president if wasn't so well known as Mubarak's real power base for decades.
      "We are all special cases." - Camus

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
        You're saying these helicopters cannot be used for anti insurgency operations ?
        No I'm saying some components are not required, and that's a part of what I am said, not all.

        Comment


        • #49
          I think 8 Chinese submarines will have more of an impact

          New Chinese Submarines to Pakistan | Popular Science
          Chimo

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
            I think 8 Chinese submarines will have more of an impact

            New Chinese Submarines to Pakistan | Popular Science
            Sir, how much of an impact can it make as compared to the Scorpene and the Akulas?
            Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles! || Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain! || I am a far left millennial!

            Comment


            • #51
              See the murky waters report.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Squirrel View Post
                It's hard to take an accurate measure of support when nearly every media outlet is controlled by people that were opposed to your rule. Not to mention that there were massive Pro-Morsi demonstrations, short term memory, I suppose. The anti-Morsi demonstrations were mostly comprised of two former opponent-parties that cooperated to remove Morsi. Both were media darlings with their media and military ties.
                Did you put much stock in the Tamarod movement ?

                Mobilised nearly 180k people against Morsi

                The reforms the IMF wanted were engineered to destabilize Morsi - they knew that there was no way he could implement them. Furthermore, he did enact several recommendations, just not all, namely cutting subsidies on wheat and fuel. Which, IIRC, Sisi didn't enact until the massive gulf cash inflow and an IMF loan.
                It would be a slow process.

                As far as relations go, the world could have had a truly democratic Arab nation. One that was willing to work with the world powers. Morsi was even highly cooperative and motivated to work with the Israelis because he saw the extremists in Sinai as dangerous to both his presidency and Egypt. Domestically, he repealed Mubarak's laws on freedom of the press and he sought to route a corrupt judiciary full of Mubarak appointees.
                yes this is why i went the regime despite what the naysayers said. Where it would or could lead. Arab sceptics were doubtful they would even complete their term.

                The way it was carried out has alienated the Islamists from participating in democratic movements. it makes them more authoritarian if they want to hold onto power.

                The real tragedy in Egypt was there seems to be an imperative of destroy your opposition or be destroyed by them. This means more time is spent fighting than actually doing anything meaningful.

                Mubarak may have left, but Tantawi never did. Save for his "resignation" and appointment as a "special advisor" to Morsi. Tantawi picked Sisi, make no mistake he would have ended up president if wasn't so well known as Mubarak's real power base for decades.
                Cutting of the head but leaving the deep state intact always carried a risk that if he could not deliver then they would step in. But cleansing the deep state like was done with the Baath party in Iraq is no solution either.

                The only legitimacy the army could have was if the people were behind them otherwise it would backfire.

                My source for understanding Egypt at the time was was Nathan Brown.
                Last edited by Double Edge; 11 Apr 15,, 15:36.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                  Of course the US can complain. What's stopping her?
                  Double standards.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    "A double standard is not only a reality for all countries, it's a necessity." - M21Sniper.

                    Case in point vis-a-vi your example. India has nukes but is demanding that Iran sticks to her obligations under the NPT and not withdraw from the NPT.
                    Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 13 Apr 15,, 11:41.
                    Chimo

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                      "A double standard is not only a reality for all countries, it's a necessity." - M21Sniper.

                      Case in point vis-a-vi your example. India has nukes but is demanding that Iran sticks to her obligations under the NPT and not withdraw from the NPT.
                      Well to be fair, India didn't sign the NPT, Iran did.
                      Last edited by DarthSiddius; 13 Apr 15,, 17:49.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by DarthSiddius View Post
                        Well to be fair, India didn't sign the NPT, Iran did.
                        Iran is allow to withdraw from the NPT. The double standard is that India is arguing for Iran to stay within the NPT instead of arguing for Iran's right to leave the NPT.
                        Chimo

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                          Iran is allow to withdraw from the NPT. The double standard is that India is arguing for Iran to stay within the NPT instead of arguing for Iran's right to leave the NPT.
                          Not sure what GoI's view on Iran withdrawing from the NPT is, but wouldn't that compel Israel to escalate? How's that good for Iran or the region?

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by DarthSiddius View Post
                            Not sure what GoI's view on Iran withdrawing from the NPT is,
                            There isn't. India's view is non-prolioferation and that means Iran should stay within the NPT.

                            Originally posted by DarthSiddius View Post
                            but wouldn't that compel Israel to escalate? How's that good for Iran or the region?
                            It would mean a US lead war against Iran.
                            Chimo

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                              There isn't. India's view is non-prolioferation and that means Iran should stay within the NPT.
                              Isn't India's policy more towards absolute Non-Proliferation? The fine print essentially being total disarmament worldwide (a pipe dream I am sure the Indian policy makers know)

                              "India has also been discussed in the context of nuclear apartheid. India has consistently attempted to pass measures that would call for full international disarmament, however they have not succeeded due to protests from those states that already have nuclear weapons. In light of this, India viewed nuclear weapons as a necessary right for all nations as long as certain states were still in possession of nuclear weapons. India stated that nuclear issues were directly related to national security."

                              Arguments for and against proliferation #India, Wikipedia

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Oracle View Post
                                I understand your point about strategic needs, however for every terrorist killed in Pakistan, 2 more probably are recruited by the same entity. How long do you think US can sustain this policy vis-a-vis Pakistan? It's also not about Pakistan messing with US (they can't), it's about that one lone bomber slipping in through checks and causing mayhem in US. After the Brighton hotel bombing, the IRA had a message for M. Thatcher - Today we were unlucky, but remember we only have to be lucky once. You will have to be lucky always.
                                We're hoping the terrorists would target the Pak army for being the "lap dog of the decadent imperialists" instead of targeting the "decadent imperialists" directly.

                                Didn't someone recently attack a Pakistan military school or something? See my point?
                                "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X