Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Pakistan Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: all pakis read this!!
eggfooyoung    8/27/2006 8:46:35 AM
your western masters make some intresting comments here about the 65 war which you have been brainwashed to beleive you won. Role of the US The Pakistan army also grew in size, strength and influence because of assistance from the US. In 1953, the US, in its efforts to build a bulwark south of the Soviet Union, signed several military agreements with countries in the region, including Pakistan. Large sums of money and military supplies started arriving and continued to do so until the second India-Pakistan war in 1965. Initially, the civil and military bureaucracies worked as partners, but since General Ayub Khan's first period of martial law in 1957, the civil service has played second fiddle. The bureaucrats provide the brains, as it were, to the army's brawns, in running the country. General Khan's so-called decade of development saw stability and growth. But the defeat in the 1965 war led to the army's invincibility being challenged by an increasingly vocal opposition. This became a surge after his protege, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, deserted him and established the Pakistan People's Party. In 1969, protests spearheaded by students led to a second takeover - by General Yahya Khan, the army chief. Inner contradictions His efforts to restore democracy and introduce a universal adult franchise showed up Pakistan's inner contradictions. The majority-province of East Pakistan elected a party demanding provincial autonomy to what should have been a clear majority in Pakistan's legislature. The refusal by Mr Bhutto and the army to accept this led to violent resistance in East Pakistan. General Zia-ul Haq helped the US against the Soviets in Afghanistan This led to a military crackdown, civil war, Pakistan's military defeat and the emergence of Bangladesh. The dishonour and shame suffered by the army has never been forgotten. However, failings by Mr Bhutto allowed the army a way back to power. His increasingly authoritarian rule gave rise to growing political opposition, giving the army a handle. Mr Bhutto's ousting in 1977 and execution in 1979 showed the army's capacity to topple elected leaders. Mr Bhutto, ironically, was himself partially responsible for restoring the military's influence. He deployed the army and the air force to fight a feudal-tribal-Marxist guerrilla force in Balochistan Province. And he encouraged young PPP cadres to join the force as officers, although this was not looked upon by senior generals particularly favourably. E-mail this to a friend Printable version MUSHARRAF'S PAKISTAN Speaking out Taleban leader in Pakistan Haji Omar talks to the BBC Madrassas question Taleban challenge Cartoon row Battle for Balochistan Bin Laden's lair? BACKGROUND President Musharraf profile Profile: PM Shaukat Aziz Powerful military Sunni-Shia schism Militant Islamic groups Views on Sharia NUCLEAR LEAK SCANDAL Black market bombs The scientist who confessed BBC WORLD SERVICE BBC RELATED INTERNET LINKS: Pakistan government The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites TOP SOUTH ASIA STORIES Pakistan rebel death sparks riots Jaffna evacuation ferry arrives Team vindicated, Pakistanis say | News feeds
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
chupooey       8/27/2006 10:12:13 AM
well it is certainly one way of looking at it, but there may be many other. one recent example is the middle east conflict which both sides claim to have won and not only these sides but many intellectuals back the claims of both sides, not to forget even section of israelian people demanding resignation from PM and defense minister. the bottom line is, war is war, loosers are all those families who are victom at both sides and winnners are none. people will continue to have opposite claims no matter even ten future wars take place between pakistan and india. I see this conflict as inability of the so called leaders on both sides, which make loud claims but their output is approaching towrds zero.
Quote    Reply