8 ms·

IN Pakistan army decides and is the real ruler. Elections are only a face to appear as a democratic sate. In fact Pakistan elite (including army higher ranks) j

IN Pakistan army decides and is the real ruler. Elections are only a face to appear as a democratic sate. In fact Pakistan elite (including army higher ranks) just is there to milk the country and build estates outside (West/UAE/etc).

wozniacki 3y ago
Isnt it also true that no democratically elected or coup-installed Prime Minister in Pakistan's history has ever successfully completed a single full term in office, ever since their independence[1]? And if that is true, isn't Pakistan a glorified tin-pot republic, thats democracy only on paper & manages to stay alive at the mercy of the propping-up prowess of U.S. and U.K., to act as a lily pad[2] of sorts in the region? [1] Every time the gov’t topples (no Pakistani Prime Minister has completed 5 years in office), corruption/looting reaches even higher levels… …to replenish and grow the bounty that was paid to buy out votes in elections and in the parliament. Sad, but v familiar to Pakistanis. 12:08 PM · Apr 9, 2022 https://twitter.com/bznotes/status/1512870199338287106 https://twitter.com/bznotes/status/1512870199338287106 [2] Cooperative security location https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative_security_location https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative_security_location
- lainga 3y ago
  Funny way to express the $65 billion of FDI that China's put into Pakistan, along with joint development of the JF-17 and 47% of China's arms exports as a whole, isn't it? Or has the near-total cut in US military aid to Pakistan over 2018-2022 been a delayed coup de grace, and should we expect the country to implode at any minute?
  - kranke155 3y ago
    Nobody can afford Pakistan to implode I think. The fact they have nuclear weapons is like a giant blackmail file on the entire world.
user3939382 3y ago
[flagged]
- notpushkin 3y ago
  Your point being?..
- chihuahua 3y ago
  If the U.S. was the real ruler in Pakistan, I think Pakistan would not have supported the Taliban in Afghanistan the entire time U.S. troops were in Afghanistan. And they would not have been sheltering Osama bin Laden in Abbotabad, less than 1 mile from the Pakistan Military Academy.
  - user3939382 3y ago
    My guess is there are factions internally
  - fakedang 3y ago
    Why not play both sides of the same coin? Every country does that. Eg: US during Iran-contra affair.
scotty79 3y ago
This dynamics is the underlying principle of every democracy. Only the sophistication of the civilian facade differs. If you want to see how fast things show their true colors stop paying "your" soldiers. When it happens due to breakdown of government-nation relationship coup or military pacification of civilians is imminent.
- rightbyte 3y ago
  > ... every democracy ... If you want to see how fast things show their true colors stop paying "your" soldiers. Laying off soldiers and officers have been quite common in democracies. It is not really a problem. I guess it is mainly a problem if there is social unrest to begin with and the layoffs are a spark and maybe not done in an orderly manor.
  - scotty79 3y ago
    Laying off some soldiers is ok when done by soldiers. The problem with social unrest is that government loses capability of collecting taxes and stops paying all soldiers and the military can't have that.

wozniacki 3y ago

Isnt it also true that no democratically elected or coup-installed Prime Minister in Pakistan's history has ever successfully completed a single full term in office, ever since their independence[1]? And if that is true, isn't Pakistan a glorified tin-pot republic, thats democracy only on paper & manages to stay alive at the mercy of the propping-up prowess of U.S. and U.K., to act as a lily pad[2] of sorts in the region? [1] Every time the gov’t topples (no Pakistani Prime Minister has completed 5 years in office), corruption/looting reaches even higher levels… …to replenish and grow the bounty that was paid to buy out votes in elections and in the parliament. Sad, but v familiar to Pakistanis. 12:08 PM · Apr 9, 2022 https://twitter.com/bznotes/status/1512870199338287106 https://twitter.com/bznotes/status/1512870199338287106 [2] Cooperative security location https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative_security_location https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative_security_location

lainga 3y ago
Funny way to express the $65 billion of FDI that China's put into Pakistan, along with joint development of the JF-17 and 47% of China's arms exports as a whole, isn't it? Or has the near-total cut in US military aid to Pakistan over 2018-2022 been a delayed coup de grace, and should we expect the country to implode at any minute?
- kranke155 3y ago
  Nobody can afford Pakistan to implode I think. The fact they have nuclear weapons is like a giant blackmail file on the entire world.

user3939382 3y ago

[flagged]

notpushkin 3y ago
Your point being?..
chihuahua 3y ago
If the U.S. was the real ruler in Pakistan, I think Pakistan would not have supported the Taliban in Afghanistan the entire time U.S. troops were in Afghanistan. And they would not have been sheltering Osama bin Laden in Abbotabad, less than 1 mile from the Pakistan Military Academy.
- user3939382 3y ago
  My guess is there are factions internally
- fakedang 3y ago
  Why not play both sides of the same coin? Every country does that. Eg: US during Iran-contra affair.

scotty79 3y ago

This dynamics is the underlying principle of every democracy. Only the sophistication of the civilian facade differs. If you want to see how fast things show their true colors stop paying "your" soldiers. When it happens due to breakdown of government-nation relationship coup or military pacification of civilians is imminent.

rightbyte 3y ago
> ... every democracy ... If you want to see how fast things show their true colors stop paying "your" soldiers. Laying off soldiers and officers have been quite common in democracies. It is not really a problem. I guess it is mainly a problem if there is social unrest to begin with and the layoffs are a spark and maybe not done in an orderly manor.
- scotty79 3y ago
  Laying off some soldiers is ok when done by soldiers. The problem with social unrest is that government loses capability of collecting taxes and stops paying all soldiers and the military can't have that.