The only thing that will save Pakistan is a complete disassociation with radical Islam. That, more education and less corruption. Godspeed.
Eric Schmidt's thoughts about Pakistan
71–80 of 119 posts
Re: Eric Schmidt's thoughts about Pakistan
#72British Pakistani here. Schmidt has not seen Pakistan for what it really is - a cesspool of corruption and poorly educated people. Pakistan has two major problems. Primarily, education of the people ... what good is a democracy if people cannot understand the democratic system - nor see past the public visage and look deeply into what kind of person a political candidate is. This poor education leads Zardari (a corru…
"This poor education leads Zardari (a corrupt politician who has ties to the murder of Murtaza Bhutto) only coming to power due to a three way effect of a sympathy vote (assassination of Benazir Bhutto), bribery and threats to people who work on his land (he is one of the largest land owners in Sindh). Nowhere else in the world would a criminal become the president of a nation."
No it's not. I won't go further.
Re: Eric Schmidt's thoughts about Pakistan
#73British Pakistani here. Schmidt has not seen Pakistan for what it really is - a cesspool of corruption and poorly educated people. Pakistan has two major problems. Primarily, education of the people ... what good is a democracy if people cannot understand the democratic system - nor see past the public visage and look deeply into what kind of person a political candidate is. This poor education leads Zardari (a corru…
Reading Schmidt I got the same feeling I get when reading Bill Gates talk about the teacher's unions: there's a lot of diplomatic-talk going on.
I think Schimdt is smart enough to see the truth. He's just playing the role of "diplomatic reporter" for the crowd. His calculus is probably that it's better to be very shy about exposing the truth and hope for change in the long run. It does not make sense to antagonize the people you will have to be working with in the future. Better to praise them slightly, acknowledge a few flaws that are non-controversial in nature, and express some sort of vague hope for the future.
Might work. Might not.
Re: Eric Schmidt's thoughts about Pakistan
#74British Pakistani here. Schmidt has not seen Pakistan for what it really is - a cesspool of corruption and poorly educated people. Pakistan has two major problems. Primarily, education of the people ... what good is a democracy if people cannot understand the democratic system - nor see past the public visage and look deeply into what kind of person a political candidate is. This poor education leads Zardari (a corru…
Corruption is everywhere. Pakistan is hardly different. Even in the UK you'll find corrupt politicians or entrepreneurs. Perhaps they are less so (or simply better at it?) but this simply won't stop any time soon. Education is an issue but only in the long term. Assuming Pakistan managed to overcome several of its other problems, uneducated would become Pakistan's most important resource. Uneducated people are what m…
"Corruption is everywhere. Pakistan is hardly different. Even in the UK you'll find corrupt politicians or entrepreneurs. Perhaps they are less so (or simply better at it?) but this simply won't stop any time soon."
You can't even begin to compare the corruption of North countries and South countries. The level of corruption in U.K. is far less, with surely bigger impact on the world because of the power of U.K. in the world than what you can find in a country like Pakistan or Nigeria.
In short, yes corruption is everywhere that in itself is not an argument.
Re: Eric Schmidt's thoughts about Pakistan
#75Earlier quoted context omitted.
With regards to your other points, I have nothing to add. Regards Turkey - I'm not disagreeing, but I must point out that Turkey wouldn't have gotten to where it is except for a freak chance in getting Ataturk who specifically modeled the country to be viable to enter Europe; that process is being reversed gradually by the those elected in power today. Turkey is where it stands precisely because Ataturk decided that…
> I'm not disagreeing, but I am pointing out that Turkey really wouldn't have gotten there for a freak chance in getting Ataturk who specifically modeled the country to be viable to enter Europe, and that process is currently being reversed gradually by the those elected in power. I see where you're coming from but when you look into it the whole thing isn't so clean cut. Ataturk was obviously the singularly biggest…
Thanks for adding detail, and suggesting a book for further reference.
While continuing to be numinous about the backers, it can be pointed out that there are also backers who can easily fund a movement further towards an even more pro-Islamic agenda. Not that I am arguing that this will happen or not.
I understand your point on the CHP losing its relevance, but partly that was also because the AKP tapped into the hitherto sidelined but more populous communities in Turkey, who are more pro-Islam. Correct me if I am wrong. These matters tend to always be intricate once you reach a certain level of magnification, so I am sure there are further factors at work behind the AKP's rise.
edit: removed redundant line on financial backers, cleared position a bit.
Re: Eric Schmidt's thoughts about Pakistan
#76Earlier quoted context omitted.
When reading such things, we should try to imagine what Pakistan is facing in its remote areas. The coalition forces messed things up in the area. Why was Bin Laden was in Pakistan? Several Pakistanis regions bordering Afghanistan live in a legally or de-facto quasi-autonomy. They are tribal by nature (be it their name or not) and since the war in Afghanistan started, they are facing deep changes in their power struc…
Do you have any supporting references for thinking it is just funny that ISI et al support terror groups, mainly for use against India? It is easy to infiltrate the militarised border to go into Indian Kashmir for the terrorists? The Pakistani military REALLY tries to stop the infiltrators...? :-) And so on. I'm not an expert, but I need good references or I'll think you're a troll or writing propaganda.
Where did I mention India exactly?
Re: Eric Schmidt's thoughts about Pakistan
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you have any supporting references for thinking it is just funny that ISI et al support terror groups, mainly for use against India? It is easy to infiltrate the militarised border to go into Indian Kashmir for the terrorists? The Pakistani military REALLY tries to stop the infiltrators...? :-) And so on. I'm not an expert, but I need good references or I'll think you're a troll or writing propaganda.
Where did I mention India exactly?
I misunderstood your defence of supporting groups that do terrorism against other countries. It was just too weird.
(And when discussing Pakistan's terror support, it is hard not to talk about the groups infiltrating Kashmir.)
Re: Eric Schmidt's thoughts about Pakistan
#78Earlier quoted context omitted.
At least the western countries don't build and finance terror networks to attack neighbours. And so on. Are you serious? "In Nicaragua, the National Guard was a militia and a gendarmerie created during the occupation of that country by the United States from 1909 to 1933. It became notorious for human rights abuses and corruption under the regime of the Somoza family." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_(Nic…
I wrote neighboring countries. There is also a difference -- granted, sometimes quite small in civil wars -- between terror/guerilla. (Besides, most any case is from the cold war.) Also, if a country is the biggest terror sponsor on the planet, like Iran, I don't exactly feel sorry as long as civilians aren't targeted. Edit: To be obvious, terror is worse for western governments, since they need to win elections. The…
In my opinion the "biggest terror sponsor" has to be the US and other "leading" European countries such as my own: France. All recent large-scale wars have been perpetrated by these countries and what's worse on the very name of freedom and for the ultimate good of human beings (except when it was a revenge, but I'd forgive America for that one quite easily even though it's one of the biggest recent mess).
Ahmadinejad has Fuck-You-Power (as in Fuck-You-Money) and he uses it. He doesn't need any Western government and doesn't care putting up with international sanctions. Whether he is doing good any good to his own country is another matter entirely.
I don't subscribe to the Western theory that Iran as a whole is a threat to anything. They see nuclear technology as both a mean to assert their military supremacy and as a way to overcome their energy issues so they go for it regardless of what other countries think of it. Right now, Nuclear weapons are still used by "strong" countries to impose their supremacy.
Look at Israel. That problem is unmanageable. I strongly believe that if Iran had Nuclear power, Israel would play much lower profile in the region and discuss equitably how to settle the issues over there.
A couple of things I wish to add: the balance of power must shift. Nobody likes living in a world that is biased toward a small group of "leading" countries. Nuclear power is like the instant disruption factor in the balance of power. An alternative is a slow and painful fight between countries such as what happens between Israel and their neighbouring countries.
Re: Eric Schmidt's thoughts about Pakistan
#79Earlier quoted context omitted.
Corruption is everywhere. Pakistan is hardly different. Even in the UK you'll find corrupt politicians or entrepreneurs. Perhaps they are less so (or simply better at it?) but this simply won't stop any time soon. Education is an issue but only in the long term. Assuming Pakistan managed to overcome several of its other problems, uneducated would become Pakistan's most important resource. Uneducated people are what m…
I think you have to understand that corruption in the UK and in Pakistan are likely two different things. In the UK corruption, any corruption is about Greed. In Pakistan and similar countries not all corruption is about greed, it's about an alternative system of taxation. Your average police officer, or fireman or customs official probably gets paid a tiny amount of money per month maybe $30-$50. But as an official…
> In Pakistan and similar countries not all corruption is about greed, it's about an alternative system of taxation.
What exactly is this "auxiliary taxation" about besides greed? It's not like the money they collect is used for the greater good.
Re: Eric Schmidt's thoughts about Pakistan
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I wouldn't ever go to a Muslim country because some rich dude said it's quite alright. Wow, I'm amazed that this comment can take top spot on HN. How does this even happen? There are plenty of 'muslim countries' that are perfectly fine. Jordan, Turkey, Morocco, Dubai and Oman strike me as immediately safe 'muslim' places to go to. Millions of tourists go to these places every year and are fine. The problems in Paki…
In turkey, you will be thrown in jail simply for dissent - http://www.npr.org/2012/01/26/145844105/for-turkish-journali... In Morocco, a court ordered a teenager to marry her rapist. She killed herself. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/03/moroccan-teenage... The Dubai Sheikh torture clip is infamous now. Amazing how you can torture a guy and not go to jail if you're a Sheikh. We know about this specific incid…
So what? It isn't better in the US, it's just more acceptable to you.