Pakistan - India, once more
-
The points to be notes are: -Pakistan is the only one that has continuously called for a solution to this conflict OTHER than war. -Pakistan has already stated it will not INITIATE war. -The fundamental problem in the region is the occupation of Kashmir by India. If India ends its occupation, the resistance to their oppression will end. -Kashmir is not a part of India; no one recognizes it as such except India. -To say that the problems between India and Pakistan are a result of the latter’s aggression and the former’s desire only to protect itself is an oversimplification and is misleading. -More than 50 years ago, the UN demanded that India allow the Kashmiris to hold a plebiscite to decide their own status. Such a plebiscite has yet to happen. - Indian leader J Nehru himself promised a plebiscite in Kashmir. Still his successors have been avoiding it since then. - Pakistan does not want Kashmir. Pakistan wants a plebiscite in Kashmir. - Pakistan wants international force/observers to monitor the situation in Kashmir. India strongly opposes the idea. Why? Ammar There is a difference in knowing the path and walking the path.
Ammar wrote: Pakistan wants international force/observers to monitor the situation in Kashmir. India strongly opposes the idea. Why? This is simple: Observers do not stop terror attacks, but interfere with convential army retaliation. When a small group of terrorists plan and execute attack, observers can not do a thing. They don't have spies, they don't want to fight (see srebrenica case). However, if army plans an operation, it collects forces. The observers immediatelly notify everyone, and the terrorist run away. However, all this is not important, the real issue is international pressure. When terror groups violate agreements, they don't care observers blame them. If a country is blamed, the results can be very serious. Assymentrical solutions are worthless.
-
Ammar wrote: would love to hear from anyone who contradicts this story. Whoever does so should provide me the proof (well-known media links etc). I won't contradict it, but I can give you an alternant perspective: The U.S. judiciously assist the freedom fighters of Afghanistan to defeat an overt Soviet invasion. When the threat has passed the U.S. bows out gracefully so as not to be viewed as the new invaders. If the U.S. had done nothing and let the Soviets take over we would have been condemned, if we had stayed to managed the situation after the defeat of the USSR we would have been condemned. There is absolutely nothing that the U.S. could have done which we would not be condemened for by you. You guys really need to start taking responsibility for you own problems, or quit complaining about our solutions when we apply them. You can't have it both ways. "There's a slew of slip 'twixt cup and lip"
Stan Shannon wrote: You guys really need to start taking responsibility for you own problems, or quit complaining about our solutions when we apply them. You can't have it both ways. Now if this doesn't embody the USian arrogance I don't know what does. There is an old Chinese saying "If you save someones life you are responsible for his/hers welfare" (or something along those lines). USA invited themselves into this war, and it had nothing to do with compassion. USA recognized a potential military problem with getting the USSR closer to the US allies and the US airbases stationed there. It seems you are trying to make this into something like "We saved the poor people that couldn't save themselves against the USSR" (even that anyone in the USSR military would tell you they had a hell of a time fighing the Afghanis in their own backyard) "and then we had to silently withdraw to leave that people to rebuild their country. What, we're leaving literally tons of weapons? See nothing, hear nothing, say nothing!". Perhaps the USA should think a little bit further than the next election period or the next (3-month?) fiscal period? If the USA is inviting themselves to any war, like every US president has done in modern history, they perhaps should also realize that they have to clean up the mess they are leaving behind. If they are leaving one million AK-47's with enough ammo to kill more people than you'd like to think of in the hand of pawns, you'd have to be as stupid as a ringworm to not realize that will create one hell of a problematic situation. Looking at it this way, USA not cleaning up after themselves (quite obvious, but it needs to be said again and again until even USians understand this is the modus operandi of their government), one could even argue that USA has been an active part in creating the problems. Now it's your time to pitch in with some completely irrelevant national pride and "Ultra-capitalism solves all problems, Microsoft is good, Bush is intelligent and CIA has never overthrown any foreign governments to put their own much worse dictators in their place to remove anything that could once have been called human rights". I can only say: Yeah, right. Maybe you should have a look at what Amnesty International things of the USA before you take your carriers to start wars all over the planet. But, hey, this must be what the USian public wants, you claim it to be a democracy after all. Then it's only statisti
-
Stan Shannon wrote: You guys really need to start taking responsibility for you own problems, or quit complaining about our solutions when we apply them. You can't have it both ways. Now if this doesn't embody the USian arrogance I don't know what does. There is an old Chinese saying "If you save someones life you are responsible for his/hers welfare" (or something along those lines). USA invited themselves into this war, and it had nothing to do with compassion. USA recognized a potential military problem with getting the USSR closer to the US allies and the US airbases stationed there. It seems you are trying to make this into something like "We saved the poor people that couldn't save themselves against the USSR" (even that anyone in the USSR military would tell you they had a hell of a time fighing the Afghanis in their own backyard) "and then we had to silently withdraw to leave that people to rebuild their country. What, we're leaving literally tons of weapons? See nothing, hear nothing, say nothing!". Perhaps the USA should think a little bit further than the next election period or the next (3-month?) fiscal period? If the USA is inviting themselves to any war, like every US president has done in modern history, they perhaps should also realize that they have to clean up the mess they are leaving behind. If they are leaving one million AK-47's with enough ammo to kill more people than you'd like to think of in the hand of pawns, you'd have to be as stupid as a ringworm to not realize that will create one hell of a problematic situation. Looking at it this way, USA not cleaning up after themselves (quite obvious, but it needs to be said again and again until even USians understand this is the modus operandi of their government), one could even argue that USA has been an active part in creating the problems. Now it's your time to pitch in with some completely irrelevant national pride and "Ultra-capitalism solves all problems, Microsoft is good, Bush is intelligent and CIA has never overthrown any foreign governments to put their own much worse dictators in their place to remove anything that could once have been called human rights". I can only say: Yeah, right. Maybe you should have a look at what Amnesty International things of the USA before you take your carriers to start wars all over the planet. But, hey, this must be what the USian public wants, you claim it to be a democracy after all. Then it's only statisti
Mike Nordell wrote: USA invited themselves into this war, and it had nothing to do with compassion. USA recognized a potential military problem with getting the USSR closer to the US allies and the US airbases stationed there. Nothing potential about it. It was very real. A government every bit as evil as NAZI Germany was attempting to firm up it's Southern flanks. We took prudent measures to ensure that did not happen. Mike Nordell wrote: It seems you are trying to make this into something like "We saved the poor people that couldn't save themselves against the USSR" (even that anyone in the USSR military would tell you they had a hell of a time fighing the Afghanis in their own backyard) "and then we had to silently withdraw to leave that people to rebuild their country. What, we're leaving literally tons of weapons? See nothing, hear nothing, say nothing!". Perhaps the USA should think a little bit further than the next election period or the next (3-month?) fiscal period? If the USA is inviting themselves to any war, like every US president has done in modern history, they perhaps should also realize that they have to clean up the mess they are leaving behind. If they are leaving one million AK-47's with enough ammo to kill more people than you'd like to think of in the hand of pawns, you'd have to be as stupid as a ringworm to not realize that will create one hell of a problematic situation. I agree with you, we should have cleaned up the mess. My point is that to do that we would have had to maintain a long term military occupation on the area. That would have been interpreted by you and everyone else as an act of imperial aggression. And hence used as an excuse to hate the U.S. and blow up the WTC. I fully agree we could have handled things better, but regardless of what we did our actions would be interpreted negitively. So, I reiterate, either solve your own problems or quit complaining about our solutions. No one is perfect. Mistakes will be made. Mike Nordell wrote: Now it's your time to pitch in with some completely irrelevant national pride and "Ultra-capitalism solves all problems, Microsoft is good, Bush is intelligent and CIA has never overthrown any foreign governments to put their own much worse dictators in their place to remove anything that could once have been called human rights". OK. Ultra-capitalism is far superior to any alternative. Microsoft ain't so bad. Bush ain's so
-
Mike Nordell wrote: USA invited themselves into this war, and it had nothing to do with compassion. USA recognized a potential military problem with getting the USSR closer to the US allies and the US airbases stationed there. Nothing potential about it. It was very real. A government every bit as evil as NAZI Germany was attempting to firm up it's Southern flanks. We took prudent measures to ensure that did not happen. Mike Nordell wrote: It seems you are trying to make this into something like "We saved the poor people that couldn't save themselves against the USSR" (even that anyone in the USSR military would tell you they had a hell of a time fighing the Afghanis in their own backyard) "and then we had to silently withdraw to leave that people to rebuild their country. What, we're leaving literally tons of weapons? See nothing, hear nothing, say nothing!". Perhaps the USA should think a little bit further than the next election period or the next (3-month?) fiscal period? If the USA is inviting themselves to any war, like every US president has done in modern history, they perhaps should also realize that they have to clean up the mess they are leaving behind. If they are leaving one million AK-47's with enough ammo to kill more people than you'd like to think of in the hand of pawns, you'd have to be as stupid as a ringworm to not realize that will create one hell of a problematic situation. I agree with you, we should have cleaned up the mess. My point is that to do that we would have had to maintain a long term military occupation on the area. That would have been interpreted by you and everyone else as an act of imperial aggression. And hence used as an excuse to hate the U.S. and blow up the WTC. I fully agree we could have handled things better, but regardless of what we did our actions would be interpreted negitively. So, I reiterate, either solve your own problems or quit complaining about our solutions. No one is perfect. Mistakes will be made. Mike Nordell wrote: Now it's your time to pitch in with some completely irrelevant national pride and "Ultra-capitalism solves all problems, Microsoft is good, Bush is intelligent and CIA has never overthrown any foreign governments to put their own much worse dictators in their place to remove anything that could once have been called human rights". OK. Ultra-capitalism is far superior to any alternative. Microsoft ain't so bad. Bush ain's so
Stan Shannon wrote: I agree with you, we should have cleaned up the mess. My point is that to do that we would have had to maintain a long term military occupation on the area. I think that's jumping to conclusions. Would it really have been a "long term military occupation" when what would have been needed would be a (small) force left behind that had as its stated clear and only (and only is key) goal to bring back the lion share of the weapons the USA in the first place "injected" into the conflict? I don't think so. Please. the U.S. is the first world super-power to avoid a major military confrontation with any other super power in history. The same can be said for the former USSR, China and India. However, USA is also the first to jump right into any military conflict (war) with any military power they can muster (even nukes as has been proven) to force their POV through (or to save face when a US president f*cks someone or any other national problem is starting to get too much media coverage). That is not something you (fortunately) can accuse any other super power of nowadays. The days are over when USA can excuse military interventions (i.e. starting or participating in wars) with lame excuses like "You shut up, we saved you during WWII.". That's just the ways of an 7-8 year old bully, and that bully is about to realize life is a bit more complicated. European powers have started every global conflagration in history. That is indeed true, and thankfully none of'em ever have reached the status of "super power" in the way the USA has the ability to eradicate all what used to be known as life on this planet over and over again - and then have weapons to spare! But does that excuse USA's behaviour of killing thousands of innocents just because US engineers can't make engines that needs less than 4 gallons/minute (exaggerated to make the point that US oil needs makes USA think they can wage war on countries on the other side of the planet)? THeir politics have resulted in millions of deaths and the rise of the most evil political systems ever devised (Fascism, Communism, Socialism). First, you actually think the USian government(s) politics hasn't killed millions and yet millions of people in the last 100 years? AFAIK USA is the most violent and willing-to-kill country on this planet at the moment (and has so been for quite some time). The worst problem is that there is no larger or stronger bully in th
-
Nish - Native CPian wrote: What does your nick mean? /me hits Nish on the head with a rolled-up newspaper. :mad: Its my name. :) It means one who develops. And I am into software developing business. :cool: Imagine that. :) Ammar There is a difference in knowing the path and walking the path.
Oh wow - that is one hell of a cool name! ____________________ David Wulff hu·mour Pronunciation Key (hymr) n. & v. Chiefly British Dave's Code Project Screensaver and Wallpaper page.
-
Ammar wrote: Pakistan has already stated it will not INITIATE war. That's so nice of pakistan. Running a proxy war for 12 years with India it says that it will not initiate a war. It's a known fact that Pakistani army aids the terrorists. During Kargil war there were pakistani soldiers captured and killed. So to say that they will not initiate a war is just crap. Ammar wrote: Pakistan is the only one that has continuously called for a solution to this conflict OTHER than war. India has been calling for no WAR since 1971 inspite of the fact that they won 1971 war. Pakistan is calling for a no war solution because a war this time is going to destroy Pak. Pak just wants to show of some that they are on the right side. Ammar wrote: The fundamental problem in the region is the occupation of Kashmir by India. If India ends its occupation, the resistance to their oppression will end. Fundamental problem is that leaders in both the countries have made people in each country to hate each other for their own selfish reasons. I saw in a documentary how the Pakistani education system is broken down. Due to the lack of such edication system all your mullah's and imams are just exploiting the masses. Atleast in India you would hear some voices asking people to get along with Pakistan but I don't think you will hear the same in Pakistan. Anyway it is very unfortunate that so many things have gone wrong in history (for about 1000 years not just the 50 odd years) that lead to all this crisis and we can't change history. The question is is their any solution now. There would be a solution is Pakistan stops terror first. India has said that India is more than willing to talk. Local Kashmiris want peace. Kashmir was very peaceful for a long time and people never wanted freedom or join Pakistan. The whole thing started because of certain religious fundamentlists and their desire for power. The purely Kashmiri freedom fighters are surrendering and want peace. There are so many foreign terrorists from Arabs, Sudan, Afghan, Pakistan who are fighting in Kahmir. Frankly, this tells that it is not a freedom movement. Unfortunately, I don't see terror being stopped any time soon. Because Pakistan wanted money for US it supported US war against terrorism even though Taliban was a creation of Pakistan. They can't do the same thing with India. Stephen Cohen pointed out there will be no war and there would be no peace. But t
Hi Rama, I must tell you that within this thread another discussion sprouted between Stan Shannon and Mike Nordell. Do read their comments here Rama Krishna wrote: Fundamental problem is that leaders in both the countries have made people in each country to hate each other for their own selfish reasons. You are so right. I fully agree with you on this one. Rama Krishna wrote: Due to the lack of such edication system all your mullah's and imams are just exploiting the masses. Atleast in India you would hear some voices asking people to get along with Pakistan but I don't think you will hear the same in Pakistan. You are right to a little extent here. Mullah's are exploiting masses... but those people are from villages and such places. In cities, the literate mass do not war and they do not want to fight with India (and I belong to this class). What you saw in that documentary is only one side. Believe when I say this that India has friends in Pakistan. And you dont hear about them is because media does not want you to know about them. Media tells you only what they want to tell you, and not what you need to know. :) Rama Krishna wrote: There would be a solution is Pakistan stops terror first. India has said that India is more than willing to talk. In my opinion, General Musharraf is the man from whom you can get peace. Though he is a military official but he is the one who can help India to find a suitable solution. And you may read it in newspapers these days that India has clearly said that there is no way they can sit for a talk. Lets hope both leaders talk at Almaty. Rama Krishna wrote: Kashmir was very peaceful for a long time and people never wanted freedom or join Pakistan. Dont say people. The ruler of Kashmir signed the document to be with Indaia. People never got a chance to express their opinion. That is why plebiscite is important to solve this issue. And thats my opinion. Rama Krishna wrote: even though Taliban was a creation of Pakistan. Dear Rama, how can you be so naive? Read my comments here. It was not Pakistan. If you know some background, you should also know that it was US who trained Afghanis and Pakistanis during
-
Ammar wrote: would love to hear from anyone who contradicts this story. Whoever does so should provide me the proof (well-known media links etc). I won't contradict it, but I can give you an alternant perspective: The U.S. judiciously assist the freedom fighters of Afghanistan to defeat an overt Soviet invasion. When the threat has passed the U.S. bows out gracefully so as not to be viewed as the new invaders. If the U.S. had done nothing and let the Soviets take over we would have been condemned, if we had stayed to managed the situation after the defeat of the USSR we would have been condemned. There is absolutely nothing that the U.S. could have done which we would not be condemened for by you. You guys really need to start taking responsibility for you own problems, or quit complaining about our solutions when we apply them. You can't have it both ways. "There's a slew of slip 'twixt cup and lip"
Stan Shannon wrote: The U.S. judiciously assist the freedom fighters of Afghanistan to defeat an overt Soviet invasion. First of all, why US interferes in other country's affair? And for a moment lets assume that US wants to help everyone using its military, then why US is not using its force to solve the Israel-Palestine and Kashmir issue? I tell you why. Because India and Israel can stand upto US and can look into its eyes and say "Sit... good dog!" Stan Shannon wrote: You guys really need to start taking responsibility for you own problems, or quit complaining about our solutions when we apply them. One thing I dont understand is why US invites itself to the conflicts world over thinking others need it, even if others dont! There is a difference in knowing the path and walking the path.
-
Mike Nordell wrote: USA invited themselves into this war, and it had nothing to do with compassion. USA recognized a potential military problem with getting the USSR closer to the US allies and the US airbases stationed there. Nothing potential about it. It was very real. A government every bit as evil as NAZI Germany was attempting to firm up it's Southern flanks. We took prudent measures to ensure that did not happen. Mike Nordell wrote: It seems you are trying to make this into something like "We saved the poor people that couldn't save themselves against the USSR" (even that anyone in the USSR military would tell you they had a hell of a time fighing the Afghanis in their own backyard) "and then we had to silently withdraw to leave that people to rebuild their country. What, we're leaving literally tons of weapons? See nothing, hear nothing, say nothing!". Perhaps the USA should think a little bit further than the next election period or the next (3-month?) fiscal period? If the USA is inviting themselves to any war, like every US president has done in modern history, they perhaps should also realize that they have to clean up the mess they are leaving behind. If they are leaving one million AK-47's with enough ammo to kill more people than you'd like to think of in the hand of pawns, you'd have to be as stupid as a ringworm to not realize that will create one hell of a problematic situation. I agree with you, we should have cleaned up the mess. My point is that to do that we would have had to maintain a long term military occupation on the area. That would have been interpreted by you and everyone else as an act of imperial aggression. And hence used as an excuse to hate the U.S. and blow up the WTC. I fully agree we could have handled things better, but regardless of what we did our actions would be interpreted negitively. So, I reiterate, either solve your own problems or quit complaining about our solutions. No one is perfect. Mistakes will be made. Mike Nordell wrote: Now it's your time to pitch in with some completely irrelevant national pride and "Ultra-capitalism solves all problems, Microsoft is good, Bush is intelligent and CIA has never overthrown any foreign governments to put their own much worse dictators in their place to remove anything that could once have been called human rights". OK. Ultra-capitalism is far superior to any alternative. Microsoft ain't so bad. Bush ain's so
-
Stan Shannon wrote: I agree with you, we should have cleaned up the mess. My point is that to do that we would have had to maintain a long term military occupation on the area. I think that's jumping to conclusions. Would it really have been a "long term military occupation" when what would have been needed would be a (small) force left behind that had as its stated clear and only (and only is key) goal to bring back the lion share of the weapons the USA in the first place "injected" into the conflict? I don't think so. Please. the U.S. is the first world super-power to avoid a major military confrontation with any other super power in history. The same can be said for the former USSR, China and India. However, USA is also the first to jump right into any military conflict (war) with any military power they can muster (even nukes as has been proven) to force their POV through (or to save face when a US president f*cks someone or any other national problem is starting to get too much media coverage). That is not something you (fortunately) can accuse any other super power of nowadays. The days are over when USA can excuse military interventions (i.e. starting or participating in wars) with lame excuses like "You shut up, we saved you during WWII.". That's just the ways of an 7-8 year old bully, and that bully is about to realize life is a bit more complicated. European powers have started every global conflagration in history. That is indeed true, and thankfully none of'em ever have reached the status of "super power" in the way the USA has the ability to eradicate all what used to be known as life on this planet over and over again - and then have weapons to spare! But does that excuse USA's behaviour of killing thousands of innocents just because US engineers can't make engines that needs less than 4 gallons/minute (exaggerated to make the point that US oil needs makes USA think they can wage war on countries on the other side of the planet)? THeir politics have resulted in millions of deaths and the rise of the most evil political systems ever devised (Fascism, Communism, Socialism). First, you actually think the USian government(s) politics hasn't killed millions and yet millions of people in the last 100 years? AFAIK USA is the most violent and willing-to-kill country on this planet at the moment (and has so been for quite some time). The worst problem is that there is no larger or stronger bully in th