kashmir

[athithi]

Yes, Red Dawn is absolutely correct about the Muslim extremists in China. In fact, when the war against terrorism started General 'Pervert' Musharraf visited China and lectured the Muslims of China that they should be loyal to the country in which they are living Talk about friggin' hypocrisy :|

According to a CIA report, China has always tried to suppress India's growing influence in the region. There are some very powerful issues between India and China ranging from border disputes in Kashmir/Arunachal Pradesh/Sikkim, transfer of missiles and technology to Pakistan, encouragement of Maoist extremists in Nepal, India's support for Tibet and asylum that it provides for Tibetians (the Dalai Lama lives in India), dumping goods of Chinese goods in India and a full laundry list of disagreements.

Indian politics is infected with Chinese financial aid to the Communist Parties in India and that is what really gets my goat :

But if China were ever to get too agressive with India, we could always count on Russia's support. If the U.S would only see China for the communist dicatorship and Pakistan for the military dictatorship that they each are, India would happily support the U.S on a lot of other global issues.

While the Indian military is not quite a match for the Chinese army, India holds a slight edge on the seas. With China's long shore, India could do some serious damage if it really wanted to. It would probably still lose an all out war with China.

 

[BDawg]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Chinese don't have the same hangups with Asian Muslims like the Russians did

I have heard that China actually does have some problems with Muslim extremists in North Western China.

What I'm talking about is China has sided with Pakistan before. They don't have the same problem with the Pakistani/Afghani friendship that the Soviets had.

But if China were ever to get too agressive with India, we could always count on Russia's support. If the U.S would only see China for the communist dicatorship and Pakistan for the military dictatorship that they each are, India would happily support the U.S on a lot of other global issues.

I don't know if Russia can help now. They have enough problems with their own country as it is.

I think we see Pakistan as a military dictatorship. Unfortunately, the have a border with a country we wanted to beat the hell out of, India didn't. Therefore, we have to make friends with them to get at the Taliban. I don't think Musharraf is as extremist as alot of the Islamic fundamentalists though.

 

[kulki]

I must agree with a few points made by bdawg. It does seem like Gen Pervez is trying him bit to control the terrorists and now the situation is so outta control that even he cannot really control them if he wanted to. India and US should be willing to give him some time to carry out his plans. Also by not willing to talk to pervez Indians seem like the unreasonable and bully to most people today.

 

[athithi]

This is a tricky one - hypothetically, if the U.S had a problem with Jordan, would they still make a deal with Palestine if Arafat promised support to the U.S? I have heard of the phrase 'set a thief to catch a thief' But this is stretching things a bit far! Musharraf is in no way going to help the U.S catch ObL!

The Pakistan-Al Qaeda nexus...

The real border that delineates civilization and barbarism in South Asia lies somewhere along the Indus Valley.

 

[athithi]

Originally posted by: kulki
I must agree with a few points made by bdawg. It does seem like Gen Pervez is trying him bit to control the terrorists and now the situation is so outta control that even he cannot really control them if he wanted to. India and US should be willing to give him some time to carry out his plans. Also by not willing to talk to pervez Indians seem like the unreasonable and bully to most people today.

kulki, Musharraf was the architect of the Kargil war of 1999. He hates India passionately and would never do anything to achieve peace in the region. The Kargil war was started right after the Indian Prime Minister travelled on a peace mission to Pakistan - it was called the Lahore Bus Diplomacy. The Pakistan Armed forces refused to to even provide the basic Guard of Honor to the Indian PM. Whereas when we invited Musharraf to Agra (we dealt with the bastard even after he stabbed us in the back the first time :| ) he was accorded the status of a visiting Head of State. He left the talks insulting the Indian Prime Minister in India. Why would we have any faith in this character?

Just answer this - why didn't the U.S give more time to negotiate with Mullah Omar? After all, Afghanistan promised to hand over bin Laden to a third country!

 

[BDawg]

Originally posted by: athithi
This is a tricky one - hypothetically, if the U.S had a problem with Jordan, would they still make a deal with Palestine if Arafat promised support to the U.S? I have heard of the phrase 'set a thief to catch a thief' But this is stretching things a bit far! Musharraf is in no way going to help the U.S catch ObL!

Uh...we haven't gotten bin Laden yet, but the Pakistanis did capture Abu Zubaydah for us.

 

[BDawg]

Originally posted by: athithi


Just answer this - why didn't the U.S give more time to negotiate with Mullah Omar? After all, Afghanistan promised to hand over bin Laden to a third country!

Because we don't want anyone else to get bin Laden. We want him ourselves so we can try and fry him.

 

[athithi]

My 100th post

BDawg, that's not convincing enough! The U.S could have negotiated some more with the Taliban to convince them to hand over bin Laden to the U.S directly! They didn't do it because they knew it was impractical and they knew that the American public would be enraged if they did something so stupid. It's very much the same with India. If anything, we are being far more patient with Musharraf than the U.S was with the Taliban. You may not fully understand why, but the ISI is India's Taliban.

 

[Lucky]

Originally posted by: athithi
My 100th post

BDawg, that's not convincing enough! The U.S could have negotiated some more with the Taliban to convince them to hand over bin Laden to the U.S directly! They didn't do it because they knew it was impractical and they knew that the American public would be enraged if they did something so stupid. It's very much the same with India. If anything, we are being far more patient with Musharraf than the U.S was with the Taliban. You may not fully understand why, but the ISI is India's Taliban.

Bah, they were just stalling for time.

 

[kulki]

well athithi,
if we were to go by ur arguement it then seems that
either pakistanis will have to dramatically change their policies of exporting terror which IMHO is very unlikely
or Indians wage a war like US did
but remember India is no US and pakistan is no Afganistan.
Millions of people will die. I read that cnn reported it could be as much as 17 million.
Is a democratically elected govt willing to sacrifice 17 million civilians for the same of kashmir?
Why dont they just give that land to pakistanis and finish this problem once and for all. After all u really cant reason with lunatics. I agree that letting go of kashmir is extremely humiliating but isnt it better than loosing so many people and destroying the Indian economy along with it. After all I believe that India has more to lose than pakistanis in this war. Pakis have no future really but Indians could emerge as a wealthy country in the next 20-25 years time.

 

[athithi]

Thanks, kulki, I am heartened that you feel so optimistic about India. I too wish the Kashmir problem would just go away. But if we start giving to the bullies and fanatics of this world where do we stop? India is very justified in holding out against Pakistan and opposijng its proxy war in Kashmir. As long as India is in the right, I think it should do everything possible to stop Pakistan in its tracks. For many years we tried peace, but no one listened. Only when our leaders started threatening of war did the U.S publicly reprimand Musharraf and ask him to reign in the extremists. Clinton did it once before with Nawaz Sharif and prevented an all out war in '99. India is confident that Bush can do the same, if not with greater effect, to Musharraf. India does not wish a destabilized Pakistan. But then again, India cannot let a destabilizing Pakistan create havoc across the border either.

As for the question about losing millions, when it comes to a war of good vs evil, it does not matter if one innocent is killed or a million as long as good wins. This is grossly over-simplifying the issue, but at its very core it boils down to whether the will of free men and women or the will of religious fanatics will prevail. There, India stands fully in the corner of good.

 

[BDawg]

Originally posted by: athithi
My 100th post

but the ISI is India's Taliban.

I suppose you could say that everyone has an Taliban. For some, shyness may be a Taliban. For others, lack of education may be a Taliban. But for us, the Taliban is a large ugly man who wants to kill us!

Oh wait...that's supposed to be El Guapo. My bad.

 

[kulki]

well I was researching the issue of session and I read a few websites claiming that even though the amaerican constitution does not say so explicitly a state can legally secede from the USA. What does Indian constitution say about session?
Also according to another website UN ordered for a plebescite AFTER beloved patriot forces left kashmir. But this was way back in 1950's. Clearly there must have been some period of time when there were no pakis in kashmir. How does govt of India justify not having had a plebescite?
Also I hear reports that pervez wants a UN force or a neutral force to patrol the LoC. Why dosent the Indian govt agree to this?

 

[athithi]

Originally posted by: kulki
well I was researching the issue of session and I read a few websites claiming that even though the amaerican constitution does not say so explicitly a state can legally secede from the USA. What does Indian constitution say about session?
Also according to another website UN ordered for a plebescite AFTER beloved patriot forces left kashmir. But this was way back in 1950's. Clearly there must have been some period of time when there were no pakis in kashmir. How does govt of India justify not having had a plebescite?
Also I hear reports that pervez wants a UN force or a neutral force to patrol the LoC. Why dosent the Indian govt agree to this?

I am not sure what the Indian constitution says about secession - but considering that India's Constitution is largely borrowed from the U.S', I wouldn't be surprised if our Federal Government took a similar vew of the secession of states. I know for a fact that in the '50s and '60s there was a movement in my home state of Tamil Nadu to secede from India and create a greater Tamil Eelam with the Tamils of northern Sri Lanka. Strange, isn't it? I am from Tamil Nadu and yet I passionately argue about sticking with India. Maybe India is doing something right here

Pakistan and India gained their freedom on the 14th and 15th of August, 1947 respectively. If I am not mistaken, Pakistan invaded Kashmir sometime in October of that year. In the first Indo-Pak war, India pushed back the Pakistani forces to the point which is demarcated as the Line-Of-Control today. This has been the status quo ever since. Tell me how can India hold a plebescite under these circumstances?

Like I mentioned earlier, the United States has had a vested interest in Pakistan in the past and hence India never fully trusted the U.S to be impartial when it came to Kashmir. No international force would come in without the blessing of the U.S and that being the case, India preferred to settle this issue bilaterally. All things being equal, India has a better stake to Kashmir and hence prefers to keep it that way. With the recent shifts in international alliances, I guess India feels a little more comfortable with U.S intervention in the issue. Hopefully, something good will come of it.

 

[handoverfist]

Originally posted by: BDawg

Originally posted by: BlueApple
Lots of info on it -- From BBC
Readers ?'s answered by BBC correspondents
Q&A: Kashmir dispute

(FYI, Britain is the best place to get Indian food! YUM!).

Actually, India is the best place to get Indian food, imo

 

[lawaris]

Originally posted by: handoverfist

Originally posted by: BDawg

Originally posted by: BlueApple
Lots of info on it -- From BBC
Readers ?'s answered by BBC correspondents
Q&A: Kashmir dispute

(FYI, Britain is the best place to get Indian food! YUM!).

Actually, India is the best place to get Indian food, imo

don't tell him !

I haven't posted here but he looks like an idiot !!

 

[handoverfist]

Originally posted by: lawaris

don't tell him !

I haven't posted here but he looks like an idiot !!

Yes, Chinese food in Iowa is better than that found in China itself

 

[BDawg]

Originally posted by: handoverfist

Originally posted by: BDawg

Originally posted by: BlueApple
Lots of info on it -- From BBC
Readers ?'s answered by BBC correspondents
Q&A: Kashmir dispute

(FYI, Britain is the best place to get Indian food! YUM!).

Actually, India is the best place to get Indian food, imo

I trust the British health code more than I ever would the Indian.

Yes, Chinese food in Iowa is better than that found in China itself

Have you ever had Chinese food in China? It's not the same stuff you get here. I pick the American Chinese food...less dog.

I haven't posted here but he looks like an idiot !!

And I look like an idiot why? Because I post information from impartial sources that differs from what you think?

 

[handoverfist]

Originally posted by: BDawg

[/b][/i]

I trust the British health code more than I ever would the Indian.

Have you ever had Chinese food in China? It's not the same stuff you get here. I pick the American Chinese food...less dog.

You said Britain was the best place to get Indian food, you never said anything about not getting sick from the food Though, that's hardly the case. The appearance may not be as extravagant as that in Britain, but the taste is far superior. And yes I have tasted REAL Chinese food from China. Tastes much better than this americanized crap...

 

[Pennstate]

While this is a bit OT, here is a good paper, writen by a USMC lt. col on China's kashmir claim with India.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1984/CJB.htm

It's long

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

BDawg why must you be in disagreement with everyone here. Oh wait, your probably a Muslim.

 

[BDawg]

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
BDawg why must you be in disagreement with everyone here. Oh wait, your probably a Muslim.

I don't think I'm in disagreement with everyone here...and even if that were true, it doesn't make me wrong. If everyone here thinks the sky is green, what color is it?

And yeah, I'm a muslim, you got me on that...

Which part of wanting to give Kashmir it's independance makes me hate Hindus and love Muslims?

Which part of what you say makes you a dumbass? All of it.

 

[oslama]

Muslims can not co-exist as a minority with other religions (ie phillipines, russia and china and when they are in the majority they tend to supress/brutalize the other religions.

 

[Nefrodite]

Originally posted by: oslama
Muslims can not co-exist as a minority with other religions (ie phillipines, russia and china and when they are in the majority they tend to supress/brutalize the other religions.

well yes, unless they have a powerful secular leader that snuffs out islamic fundamentalism, like in turkey.

 

[lawaris]

Originally posted by: Nefrodite

Originally posted by: oslama
Muslims can not co-exist as a minority with other religions (ie phillipines, russia and china and when they are in the majority they tend to supress/brutalize the other religions.

well yes, unless they have a powerful secular leader that snuffs out islamic fundamentalism, like in turkey.

yeah ..that's very true: everywhere there is a problem in the world today ... you will find a muslim hand !:|

Why is it that these people cannot co-exist with others ?

Croatia , Middle East , Afghanistan , India , Sri Lanka ( though on a smaller scale ) , Bangladesh , Chechenya ...... the list goes on .....

Did I leave any troubled region of the world ?

and BD should I just assume that since you are posting some information ... it should be true .... and forget what I saw backin India ( I lived there for 25 years !