India - Pakistan Crisis

[theflyingpig]

It would be wonderful if India invaded Pakistan.

 

[RabidMongoose]

I don't think that 'unilateral action' means full scale war, but perhaps smaller operations or strikes within Pakistani territory. If Pakistan cannot control its rogue elements to any degree, then perhaps such actions will now be considered to be justified under the laws of war.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: daniel49
whom do I believe Pakistan or India.
Hmmm not much of a contest there.

It's not about believing India or Pakistan. It's about believing common sense.

I think that for most people, common sense is against Pakistan.

 

[crisscross]

Did you even read my post about a PAKISTANI news channel Geo News interviewing the captured terrorist Kasab's father who accepted on camera that Kasab is his son? The Pakistani ex-Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif just talked about how Kasab's village has been blocked and no access has been given to reporters who want to go there.

 

[crisscross]

Originally posted by: tvarad

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
India can go ahead and attack Pakistan.

They will have to accept that their 15 major cities will be nuked out ruins.

Pakistan is going to lose no matter what in a war. Unless they can lightning blitz the Indian army into nothingness, they have no chance in a conventional war. However, the game changes drastically when India knows that it's 15 major cities will be nuked. This is nothing but posturing.

The Pakistani army is populated by a bunch of cowards. Whenever their monkey tactics of tweaking the elephants tail have elicited a response, like in 1965, 1971, 1999 what have they done? Either they've turned tail, surrendered en-masse or plain dropped their trousers and showed their a*ses for the whupping to come.

Your bravado doesn't amount to squat.

:thumbsup:

71 was a missed opportunity really, we should have just bombed the shit out of Pakistan too bad Nixon was after us to back down, if we had done that then there would have been no Taliban, Al Qaeda or 9/11.

 

[Aimster]

Both the Indian army and Pakistan army suck

why? o they are the same freaking people divided by religion.

 

[alchemize]

I think if Indians weren't mainly Hindu they would have already wiped Pakistan off the map.

 

[GroundedSailor]

Originally posted by: alchemize
I think if Indians weren't mainly Hindu they would have already wiped Pakistan off the map.

Just curious, what makes you state that?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Ozoned
Must really suck, living in such a pathetic shit-hole, huh?

Jerkiest post I've seen in a long time, and that's saying something.

Oh, how cute. I have a stalker.

Reading a thread and pointing out the jerkiest post in a long time does not make a stalker.

It does, however, make you more of a jerk to respond with an attack lie.

The Pakistani army is populated by a bunch of cowards. Whenever their monkey tactics of tweaking the elephants tail have elicited a response, like in 1965, 1971, 1999 what have they done? Either they've turned tail, surrendered en-masse or plain dropped their trousers and showed their a*ses for the whupping to come.

Your bravado doesn't amount to squat.

Never call out a military as 'cowards' in a situation where you're trying to avoid nuclear war. What kind of idiocy is that?

Militaries are good at using violence when they shouldn't to prove they are willing to, especially when baited. Of course it proves nothing good.

The issue of 'toughness' is pretty idiotic in discussing militaries. I almost never see any accounting for things like 'the odds' in the discussions, either; which military faces a stronger foe and which faces a weaker foe, which has better gear and training and resources protecting it (call in an air strike when the enemy shows up) and which is armed with little more than cloth to wear and a gun if that. We need to be dealing with how to avoid war, not how to use the childish accusations and name-calling about the manhood of the army to bait war to happen.

Show me someone who chooses not to serve in war that's not needed, and you have shown me someone far better than someone who 'proves' their 'toughness'.

IMO, most people who have gone to war are not that different. Some have more training than others, some have more options than others, some have a cause they beleive in more than others (if some crazy US president said he was going to have more US soldiers get killed in a plan for them to prove themselves by fighting just as the terrorist forces do, without tanks or armor, as a public relations exercise, and that unit was seeing huge casualties, if you did not believe in that cause enough to serve in it, would that make you a coward or sensible?) Some are in more desparate situations than others (defending their homes). But the people are not that different IMO, and the 'toughness' issue is far less important than their willingness to use violence irresponsibly.

Would you be more proud of a US military unit who DID a My Lai massacre, or one that refused to? More proud of a Pakistani who is 'tough' by killing in a terrorist act or fighting in a Taliban military unit, or one who doesn't kill because it's wrong?

Throwing around reckless accusations about the army being 'pussies' is not only irresponsible but imbecilic IMO. I know it's human nature to want your side to be 'tough' and to trash the enemy - it's happened for thousands of years and there's a reason for NFL rules against 'displays' after touchdowns - but they're not helpful, especially when the stakes are war, and we need people to worry more about more important and real issues and try to fight the war mentality.

Christopher Hedges wrote a book about the psychology of societies who go into 'war fever' militarism, and how terrible the efffects are. You should read it.

It's called "War is a Force That Gives Us Meaning".

Here's a short article he wrote on the topic:

War and conflict have marked most of my adult life. I have been in ambushes on desolate stretches of Central American roads, locked in unnerving firefights in the marshes in southern Iraq, imprisoned in the Sudan, beaten by Saudi military police, deported from Libya and Iran, captured and held for a week by Iraqi Republican Guards, strafed by Russian Mig-21s in central Bosnia, shot at by Serb snipers and shelled with deafening rounds of artillery in Sarajevo that threw out thousands of deadly bits of iron fragments. I have seen too much of violent death. I have tasted too much of my own fear. I have painful memories that lie buried most of the time. It is never easy when they surface.
And yet there is a part of me that remains nostalgic for war's simplicity and high. The enduring attraction of war is this: Even with its destruction and carnage it gives us what we all long for in life. It gives us purpose, meaning, a reason for living. Only when we are in the midst of conflict does the shallowness and vapidness of our lives become apparent. Trivia dominates our conversations and increasingly our news. And war is an enticing elixir. It gives us resolve, a cause. It allows us to be noble. And those that have the least meaning in their lives-the impoverished refugees in Gaza, the disenfranchised North African immigrants in France, even the lost legions of youth that live in the splendid indolence and safety of the industrialized world-are all susceptible to war's appeal.

WAR AS CULTURE
I learned early on that war forms its own culture. The rush of battle is a potent and often lethal addiction, for war is a drug, one I ingested for many years. It is peddled by myth makers -historians, war correspondents, filmmakers novelists and the state-all of whom endow it with qualities it often does possess: excitement, exoticism, power, chances to rise above our small stations in life, and a bizarre and fantastic universe that has a grotesque and dark beauty. It dominates culture, distorts memory, corrupts language and infects everything around it, even humor, which becomes preoccupied with the grim perversities of smut and death. Fundamental questions about the meaning, or meaninglessness, of our place on the planet are laid bare when we watch those around us sink to the lowest depths. War exposes the capacity for evil that lurks just below the surface within all of us.
And so it takes little in wartime to turn ordinary men into killers. Most give themselves willingly to the seduction of unlimited power to destroy, and all feel the peer pressure. Few, once in bottle, can find the strength to resist.
The historian Christopher Browning noted the willingness to kill in Ordinary Men, his study of Reserve Police Battalion 101 in Poland during World War ll. On the morning of July 12, 1942, the battalion was ordered to shoot 1800 Jews in the village of Jozefow in a day-long action. The men in the unit had to round up the Jews, march them into the forest and one by one order them to lie down in a row. The victims, including women, infants, children and the elderly, were shot dead at close range.
Battalion members were offered the option to refuse, an option only about a dozen men took, although more asked to be relieved once the killing began. Those who did not want to continue, Browning says, were disgusted rather than plagued by conscience. When the men returned to the barracks they "were depressed, angered, embittered and shaken." They drank heavily. They were told not to talk about the event, "but they needed no encouragement in that direction."

WAR AS MYTH
The most recent U.S. conflicts have insulated the public and U.S. troops from both the disgust and pangs of conscience. The Gulf War-waged from bombers high above the fray and reported by carefully controlled journalists-made war fashionable again. It was a cause the nation willingly embraced. It exorcised the ghosts of Vietnam. It gave us heroes and the heady belief in our own military superiority and technology. It almost made war fun. And the chief culprit was, as in many conflicts, not the military but the press. Television reporters happily disseminated the spoon-fed images that served the propaganda effort of the military and the state. These images did little to convey the reality of war. Pool reporters, those guided around in groups by the military, wrote once again about "our boys" eating packaged army food, practicing for chemical weapons attacks and bathing out of buckets in the desert. It was war as spectacle, war, if we are honest, as entertainment. The images and stories were designed to make us feel good about our nation, about ourselves. The families and soldiers being blown to bits by iron fragmentation bombs just over the border in Iraq were faceless and nameless phantoms.
The moment I stepped off an Army C-130 military transport in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, to cover the Persian Gulf War, I was escorted to a room with several dozen other reporters and photographers. I was told to sign a paper that said I would abide by the severe restrictions placed on the press. The restrictions authorized "pool reporters" to be escorted by the military on field trips. Most of the press sat in hotel rooms and rewrote the bland copy filed by the pool or used the pool video and photos. I violated this agreement the next morning when I went into the field without authorization. The rest of the war, most of which I spent dodging Military Police and trying to talk my way into units, was a forlorn and lonely struggle against the heavy press control.
The notion that the press was used in the war is incorrect. The press wanted to be used. It saw itself as part of the war effort. Most reporters sent to cover a war don't really want to go near the fighting. They do not tell this to their editors and indeed will moan and complain about restrictions. The handful who actually head out into the field have a bitter enmity with the hotel room warriors. But even those who do go out are guilty of distortion-maybe more so. For they not only believe the myth, feed off of the drug, but also embrace the cause. They may do it with more skepticism. They certainly expose more lies and misconceptions. But they believe. We all believe. When you stop believing you stop going to war.
I knew a Muslim soldier, a father, who fought on the front lines around Sarajevo. His unit, in one of the rare attempts to take back a few streets controlled by the Serbs, pushed across Serb lines. They did not get very far. The fighting was heavy. As he moved down the street, he heard a door swing open and fired a burst from his AK-47 assault rifle. A 12-year-old girl dropped dead. He saw in the body of the unknown girl Iying prostrate in front of him the image of his own 1z-year-old daughter. He broke down. He had to be helped back to the city. He was lost for the rest of the war, shuttered inside his apartment, nervous, morose and broken. This experience is far more typical of warfare than the Rambo heroics we are fed by the state and the entertainment industry. The cost of killing is all the more bitter because of the deep disillusionment that war usually brings.

WAR AS CRUSADE
The disillusionment comes later. Each generation again responds to war as innocents. Each generation discovers its own disillusionment-often at a terrible price.
"We believed we were there for a high moral purpose," wrote Philip Caputo in his book on Vietnam, Rumor of War. "But somehow our idealism was lost, our morals corrupted, and the purpose forgotten."
Once again the United States stands poised on the threshold of war. "We go forward," President George W. Bush assures us, "to defend freedom and all that is good and just in the world." He is not shy about warning other states that they either stand with us in the war on terrorism or will be counted as aligned with those that defy us. This too is a crusade.
But the war on terrorism is different in that we Americans find ourselves in the dangerous position of going to war not against a state but a phantom. The crusade we have embarked upon in the war on terrorism is targeting an elusive and protean enemy. The battle we have begun is never-ending. But it may be too late to wind back the heady rhetoric. We have embarked on a campaign as quixotic as the one mounted to destroy us. As it continues, as terrorist attacks intrude on our lives, as we feel less and less secure, the acceptance of all methods to lash out at real and perceived enemies will distort and deform our democracy.
And yet, the campaign's attraction seems irresistible. War makes the world understandable, a black-and-white tableau of them and us. It suspends thought, especially self-critical thought. All bow before the supreme effort. We are one. Most of us willingly accept war as long as we can fold it into a belief system that paints the ensuing suffering as necessary for a higher good; for human beings seek not only happiness but also meaning. And tragically, war is sometimes the most powerful way in human society to achieve meaning.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Aimster
Both the Indian army and Pakistan army suck

why? o they are the same freaking people divided by religion.

We're all the same freaking people divided by religion. It's about time more people realized they are members of the human race more than of any nation.

Would you somehow behave so much better if you had the identical government, threats, education, and other attributes as the memberrs of the Indian and Pakistani armies?

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: alchemize
I think if Indians weren't mainly Hindu they would have already wiped Pakistan off the map.

regarding your signature:
Is that kinda like the stuck on you twins of movie fame or you got others in mind?

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: daniel49
whom do I believe Pakistan or India.
Hmmm not much of a contest there.

It's not about believing India or Pakistan. It's about believing common sense.

My common sense says half your nation is intent on killing someone else, so I would have trouble trusting a Pakistani for the time of day at this point.:clock:

If Pakistan were to change so would my opinion.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: GroundedSailor

Originally posted by: alchemize
I think if Indians weren't mainly Hindu they would have already wiped Pakistan off the map.

Just curious, what makes you state that?

Hinduism is passive. Hence the whole Ghandi thing

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: alchemize
I think if Indians weren't mainly Hindu they would have already wiped Pakistan off the map.

regarding your signature:
Is that kinda like the stuck on you twins of movie fame or you got others in mind?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0096320/

Except they are both Danny DeVito.

 

[tvarad]

Originally posted by: Aimster
Both the Indian army and Pakistan army suck

why? o they are the same freaking people divided by religion.

Spoken like a true illiterate. In most countries in the area, including Pakistan, Bangladesh, Burma, Indonesia etc.. the minute they got their independence, the army poked their nose into politics and started running the country. In China, the army just an extension of the political setup.

The Indian army is one of the few third-world armies that has studiously avoided entangling itself in the politics of the country. There is so much to be said for that.

Sometimes people's ignorance never ceases to amaze me.

 

[Zebo]

I'm surprised the Religion of Peace hasn't come up in this thread which dominates the whole conflict. From a hush hush looking the other way of their militants to outright support materially and intelligence that their 'brothers' need to carry out all these attacks.

 

[venkman]

I'm surprised India and Israel don't form a strong alliance to battle against Palestine and Pakistan. It seems like the two countries are in very similar situations (democracies fighting crazy, govt sponsored religious nuts) and their militaries could compliment each other.

 

[tvarad]

Craig234:

"Never call out a military as 'cowards' in a situation where you're trying to avoid nuclear war. What kind of idiocy is that?"

You have obviously never read the history of the Pakistani army. They've had a long history of starting a fight but never being around to finish it. I hesitate to call them an army because an army is there to defend a country. From almost since inception, these guys have wantonly put their country in harm's way time and again to protect their interests.

Their history probably includes a record for capitulation: in 2001 it took one phone call from Colin Powell and about 24 hours for a 180 degree turn from supporting the Taliban/Al Qaeda terrorists to become a "frontline" state against terrorism.

As far as their nukes is concerned, what use are they now for them? Their country is being eaten alive from within by the terrorists that they themselves nurtured and they live on hand-outs. What is there to defend? It's only their false sense of pride built up on a warped sense of history that keeps them going. And that can only take you so far.

 

[The Green Bean]

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: daniel49
whom do I believe Pakistan or India.
Hmmm not much of a contest there.

It's not about believing India or Pakistan. It's about believing common sense.

My common sense says half your nation is intent on killing someone else, so I would have trouble trusting a Pakistani for the time of day at this point.:clock:

If Pakistan were to change so would my opinion.

So it's now us that is calling for the other side to be nuked into oblivion? :disgust:

Most of the Indian massacres against the Kashmiri muslims pass the news without any uproar. Nobody notices their brutal crimes against humanity.

 

[The Green Bean]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: GroundedSailor

Originally posted by: alchemize
I think if Indians weren't mainly Hindu they would have already wiped Pakistan off the map.

Just curious, what makes you state that?

Hinduism is passive. Hence the whole Ghandi thing

http://www.google.com.pk/searc...&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a

 

[tvarad]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: daniel49
whom do I believe Pakistan or India.
Hmmm not much of a contest there.

It's not about believing India or Pakistan. It's about believing common sense.

My common sense says half your nation is intent on killing someone else, so I would have trouble trusting a Pakistani for the time of day at this point.:clock:

If Pakistan were to change so would my opinion.

So it's now us that is calling for the other side to be nuked into oblivion? :disgust:

Most of the Indian massacres against the Kashmiri muslims pass the news without any uproar. Nobody notices their brutal crimes against humanity.

How many Punjabi generals were tried for the slaughter of millions of Bangladeshis in 1971? Or for foisting the murderous Taliban on the hapless Afghans? The day of their reckoning is fast approaching.

 

[Whitecloak]

no no no. the pakistanis are unfairly being picked on by the big bad indians.

 

[Zebo]

No group has suffered from Islam like the Hindus. It is really amazing that so few Indian-Americans seem to know the history of their own ancestors and of what the Muslim conquest did to India and is still doing to Hindus in places like Northern India, Bangladesh and Pakistan itself.

 

[The Green Bean]

Originally posted by: Zebo
No group has suffered from Islam like the Hindus. It is really amazing that so few Indian-Americans seem to know the history of their own ancestors and of what the Muslim conquest did to India and is still doing to Hindus in places like Northern India, Bangladesh and Pakistan itself.

The Hindus of Pakistan protested against the banning of the Jamatuddawa.

Pakistan?s minorities also protested yesterday for the charity, reported GEO Television. According to the news channel, about 300 people from the Hindu and Christian communities demonstrated in Hyderabad, just north of Karachi. GEO noted, ?Bhai Chand, a Hindu community leader, said Pakistani government restrictions recently imposed on Jamaat-ud-Dawa threatened their livelihood because the charity has set up a network of water wells in the desert.? He told the network, ?The charity would always come to help us?I do not buy it that they are terrorists when they have always been helping us even though we are not Muslims,?

Some of you Americans have been filled with hate against us muslims. To hell with calling yourselves secular. You hate us because of our religion. And not because of what you know about it. You hate us because of what your media tells you. Oppressors live short lives.

 

[The Green Bean]

Dawn reported that investigators from the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation ?have concluded after interrogating the lone captured suspect, Ajmal Amir Kasab, that the Inter-Services Intelligence is not involved in the Mumbai attacks.? The news agency added, however, ?The sources said that FBI investigators had also reached a conclusion that the attackers had come to Mumbai from Pakistan. The plan was hatched in Pakistan and terrorists were provided necessary training by Laskar-e-Toiba, according to the investigators.?

Now even your intelligence agencies are saying the Indians are lying. But maybe you believe the Indians more because of your hatred against us.