Reading Current Events

The latest developments in the south-east asia region have forced me to write something here. This situation is so grave and is so important for everyone in the world that I thought I will post this message and wait for the viewpoints from everyone else in NAO.

The situation in Kashmir has never been worse. India has never been the first to strike any other country, but India is talking war this time. And they are serious. What makes the situation worse is that the Indian subcontinent is the only part of the world where a nuclear war is today a serious possibility. All the ingredients are in place for a disastrous chain of miscalculations on the order of August 1914, when overarmed European nations blundered into World War 1.

India has up to 500,000 troops poised along the 2,900-kilometer (1,800-mile) border with Pakistan, in what experts say is the highest state of mobilization in 30 years. With the latest attacks on the military camp of Jammu, where 34 women and children died (mostly spouses and children of Indian military personnel), India has given strong indications that it is disappointed with the double standards of US in handling the War against terror. And they will take an action very soon. Till now US had been giving assurances to India that as soon as War in Afghanistan is over, and Osama is captured or killed, they will help India by asking Pakistan to stop cross-border terrorism. But, the terrorism continues and is going to increase more, as the ice on the Himalayas melts in the summer. Infiltrations from Pakistan to India are easier during summers.

If a war breaks out in that region now, the tragedy will not be in hundreds or thousands, but in millions. Pakistan has said that they will retaliate with nuclear weapons. Just day before yesterday I read in the news that Pakistan was going to use the nuclear option in 1999 during the Kargil War but Clinton intervened and asked Sharif to pull its troops back. The situation now might be out of control of Musharraf, because he doesn't control all the nuclear warheads or the terrorists anymore. ISI, Al-Qaida and the Taliban might have a few of the nuclear warheads, and if that is the case, it will be a disaster for everyone.

Article on 1999 Kargil War scenario when Pakistan wanted to use nuclear weapons against India:- click here.

Love is blind, but marriage is a real eye opener.

This post was edited by ReallyCoolDude on May 18, 2002.

My question is ......again.......where is the UN?? If Bush will listen to anything it is the UN. He needs their support.....Pakistan needs their support.......India needs their support.....

Nuclear weapons affect everyone on this planet.....

quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

UN won't intervene, because of the following historical events :-

Dec 31, 1947: A highly unconstitutional offer of plebiscite was made by Prime Minister Nehru in the U.N.
Jul 1948: Mohd. Zafrulla Khan, then the Foreign Minister of Pakistan and principal Delegate of Pakistan in the U.N. admits to the U.N. Commission for India and Pakistan that the Pakistani Army had been in Kashmir.
Aug 13, 1948: UNCIP adopts a resolution on Kashmir accepted by both India and Pakistan. Pakistan is blamed for the invasion of Kashmir and is instructed to withdraw its forces from Kashmir.
Jan 1, 1949: Amidst great tension, one minute before midnight, India and Pakistan concluded a formal cease fire agreement.
Jan 5, 1949: Almost a year after Nehru's offer of plebiscite, the UNCIP passes a resolution that states that, "The question of accession of the state of Jammu and Kashmir to India or Pakistan will be decided through the democratic method of free and impartial plebiscite". However, Pakistan has yet to comply with the earlier resolution and withdraw from the State. Also, Pakistan is now busy changing the demographic composition of the State.

So, unless Pakistan and China withdraw their forces from Kashmir, there is no plebiscite possible. And Pakistan will go down, but will never withdraw. So, its kind of a deadlock. U.N. or US don't have the guts to make Pakistan or China to ask them to withdraw from Kashmir. If this happens, then the plebiscite can take place.

If we suppose that they do withdraw, the plebiscite also will not help Pakistan or China, what it simply says is that the people of Kashmir have to vote to decide whether they want to become an independent country or join India, due to the history behind it. So, there is no option in the plebiscite about an option to join Pakistan. This is why Pakistan does not want to withdraw. Also, since 1949, Pakistan has changed the demographic composition completely. They have expelled the Hindus, Christians from the part they occupy, and have filled the state with Muslims, and non-kashmiris. So, a plebiscite does not make sense.

U.N. is not in a position to do anything, because constitutionally Kashmir is a part of India, and India can attack another country if their sovreignity is questioned.

Love is blind, but marriage is a real eye opener.

Besides I do not think UN can do anything against terrorism. They have not helped anyone affected by terrorism so far. US decided to take on Afghanistan without any help from UN. It is more of a question of terrorism in Kashmir then anything else.

There are over 100 terrorist camps based in Pakistan, where the terrorists are trained and then sent on missions to India or to Afghanistan or anywhere else in the world. They change the names of their organizations very easily. Taliban were also formed by Pakistan. Al-qaida is one of these organizations. And, what India would probably do is destroy these terrorist camps, but for doing so, it has to cross the border, as US did against Afghanistan. UN or US can not say no to it, as whatever India will do will be valid. What US wants is not to let this happen now, because their war against terror will be affected, Pakistan is a close ally for them, and they need Pakistan's help in tracking down Al-qaida. But, what US is not doing is realising that India can not keep on suffer against the terrorist attacks anymore. And they want the terrorist camps to be destroyed.

India has all the information about the terrorist camps, their exact location, and India provided the information to US during their strike against Afghanistan. India in that report had clearly mentioned the camps which were inside Pakistan and the ones which were inside Afghanistan (I remember a CNN report saying that US has got all the information about the terrorist camps in Afghanistan from India). US did not do anything against Pakistan, made it an ally, and did everything it could against Afghanistan. Al-qaida has not been harmed that much, because most of them came back to Pakistan, safely, and are continuing their work from within Pakistan.

I really doubt whether UN can do anything in this. It is for US to decide that if it really needs to win the war against terror, then it needs to strike against the camps in Pakistan, or let India take the initiative to do so. These camps are the heart and brain of all the terrorist activities going on anywhere in the world. Maybe US has some vision and is working towards it, and will definitely take some action against Pakistan, but can India wait till that point, and let its people die, let the terrorists attack its parliament and let them get away with it.

What is making India not take the military step against the terrorist camps on their own, is that they dont want to cross the line of control, and cause a war with Pakistan, ultimately resulting in a nuclear conflict.

One article which is a *must read* which talks about why both the countries are fighting, and why there are not much options apart from war is this.

I agree, a nuclear war is going to affect everyone on this planet, and this is a very dangerous situation, but it seems that both Pakistan and India have run out of their options. And, UN is in no position to help them out.

Love is blind, but marriage is a real eye opener.

(Sorry Martin, just one more post - an update to the current situation.)

Finally, UN listens to you GDW. This is the first time UN has given such a strong statement!

"...UN delivered a harsh blow to Pak’s Kashmir dreams today. UN pointed to Pakistan as the originator of terrorism in Kashmir and asked it to stop all cross-border terrorism immediately. It was issued soon after Pakistan had requested UN to intervene in the matter and to pressurize India to de-escalate the situation..."

More about the news can be read here.

BTW, India has stopped the war talks for now, and are going ahead with their plans of elections in that region so that a democratic elected government can take charge of the region. 1 million troops are still stationed neck-to-neck at the border, on either sides.

Love is blind, but marriage is a real eye opener.

This post was edited by ReallyCoolDude on May 24, 2002.

History behind the conflict (for those who do not know) :-

- When the British left India in 1947, India was divided into two countries. The muslim-majority Pakistan (split into two parts, one on the west, and one on the east side of India - called East Pakistan), and the secular India.
- The country was divided into several small kingdoms and colonies, and every leader or the king was given a choice to join either India or Pakistan during the partition.
- Kashmir, though was a muslim-majority state (there are other muslim-majority states in India too), was ruled by a Hindu king at that time. He did not want to join either India or Pakistan and wanted Kashmir to be an independent state.
- In 1949, Pakistan attacked Kashmir, and the Hindu king of Kashmir asked India for help, and signed the treaty to join India.
- India immediately sent its troops and foiled the bid from Pakistan to capture Kashmir, but the first line of control was formed at that time, and Pakistan occupied 1/2 of Kashmir at that point.
- 1965 - Pakistan attacks India, in operation code named, Gibraltar. The defeat of Pakistan results in the Tashkent Agreement between the two countries. Indian forces move back to the line of control giving back the regions they had occupied, to Pakistan.
- 1971 - Pakistani attack on India results in the third war between the two countries. Pakistan is completely defeated, over 90,000 of its men surrendered. India moves back again to the line of control.
- Later on, Pakistan gave 1/3rd of its part of Kashmir to China as a gift. (China had invaded India earlier, and India lost the war with China, i think it was 1962)
- 1989 - Pakistan by now realised that it can not gain control of Kashmir through either diplomatic or military means, so it starts terrorist activities across the border, a proxy war.
- Since, 1989, more then 500,000 people have died in the terrorist attacks in the state of Jammu and Kashmir.
- 1996 - Both India and Pakistan test nuclear weapons.
- 1999 - Pakistan attacks again - the Kargil War, and loses again. Both the countries on the verge of a nuclear war. Clinton intervenes and does not let Pakistan use the nuclear option.
- December 13, 2001 (12/13 attack), Indian parliament attacked by the terrorists' suicide bombers. India foils the attack, and after investigation finds out that they were members of Jaish-e-mohammed and Lashkar-e-toiba terrorist organizations, based in Pakistan. Asks US to ban these organizations, and asks Pakistan to stop terrorist activities. India also gives a list of top 20 most wanted terrorists hiding in Pakistan.
- Pakistan has not handed over a single person in that list, and has not brought down the militancy in that region.
- May 2002 - India talks war this time, saying it will strike first. Pakistan says it will use the nuclear option.

Love is blind, but marriage is a real eye opener.

This post was deleted by request of the author.

That is exactly my point. And, I fully agree with you. I just have one thing to say. Yes, indeed US is not a world cop, and should not act like one. Hence, if India decides to go on war with Pakistan, then it is strictly India's business, and US should not intervene. But, US OTOH, just because it wants the world not to enter into a nuclear conflict, does not support the idea and keeps on pressuring India to stay away from war. Well, whatever US did against Afghanistan, India has the same right to do against Pakistan. Then why not let them? Why hold them back?

If it comes to nuclear war well then so be it. You're not likely to get any sympathy on any war issues with me.

My earlier post was just to put forward the current situation. I had not put forward my point till now, just written what is the current situation. I don't want any sympathies regarding this. As an Indian, I am already biased and prejudiced. I want India to take firm action against all the terrorists, and attack Pakistan, destroy the terrorist camps. If that results in a nuclear war, let it be. Indeed it will be a big tragedy, but again, as i said, I am biased, and I want India to take the actions regardless of the consequences.

The only reason why India has not taken the step till now is because they are aware of the consequences, and are being pressurised by the US not to close the diplomatic doors. But, now the situation has reached a point, when, yesterday India told US directly that we are not happy with your promises, and even if it causes a nuclear war, we are going ahead. We know what is in the best interests of our country.

As you said Frank, the war against terror can not be fought alone by just one country, and every country has a right to respond to it, and it should. And, even though I know what the consequences are, I want that to happen..

Love is blind, but marriage is a real eye opener.

This post was deleted by request of the author.

Just to add to my previous reply..

The help which the US has promised India is not in doing the job which India should be doing, but when India does attack Pakistan to root out the terrorists, US would understand it and provide full moral support. And US wants to postpone this till the point they are done with Al-qaida in Afghanistan. After US goes away from that region or when they have completed the mission, India would launch similar attacks against the camps in Pakistan, and wants US to understand that what they are doing is right.

And, US does understand India's concern and the steps they want to take, but just because their opponents are nuclear, US doesn't let India to do what is right. I mean, if Pakistan did not have any nuclear war-heads, I am sure the US' war against terror would have long been shifted to Pakistan, and US would have probably attacked both Pakistan and Afghanistan together, and destroyed all the terrorist camps there. Similarly, IMO, if the Taliban had nuclear weapons, then US would have thought twice to attack Afghanistan immediately. They probably would have taken a similar route they have taken with Iraq, long duration of sanctions, political pressure etc.

Love is blind, but marriage is a real eye opener.

Frank:

If it comes to nuclear war well then so be it. People are so wrapped up in there bullshit arguments and disagreements that its about time somebody wakes these assholes up.

RCD:

I want India to take firm action against all the terrorists, and attack Pakistan, destroy the terrorist camps. If that results in a nuclear war, let it be.

Frank:

If nuclear warheads start screaming through the skies don't you think this will finally wake people up out of their coma's?

Am I the only one feeling sick when I read this??

I mean, for my taste you guys are a bit over the top here! For the sake of poor national prides you would accept a nuclear war?? I cant believe it! We're talking 'bout hundreds of thousands of deaths, billions affected by the consequences, not only in that region, but all over the world. Maybe you dont realize the actual consequences to the food chain, the climatic changes, whatever. What for? Just to "wake someone up"? You're talking bout it like exchanging latest football scores...

What about your baby girl, RCD?

After decades of construction my website is finally up an running: www.kkds.de

Well, just because our opponents are threatening to use nuclear weapons against us, we can not sit quiet, and not decide to retaliate when it's needed. It's not a matter of national pride, Martin, it's a matter of national security! Since they have nuclear weapons and have said that they will use them, shall we succumb to their unreasonable demands? And let them give a piece of our land?? I don't think so.

Just because we don't want our opponents to kill million people if there is a war, we can not let them kill 100s of them every day for the next century. There is no possible solution to this problem diplomatically. For the last 50 years, over 500,000 people have died. Sometimes, war is the only option. And, if India goes to war, it will not be to grab a piece of land, India will ony attack the terrorist camps, it will be Pakistan who will declare war on India for crossing the border, and it will be Pakistan who will use Nuclear Weapons. So, shall we fear them? And, not do what is right for the country?

I can not let my personal interests, like my attachment towards my daughter, come in between when it comes to national interests!

Love is blind, but marriage is a real eye opener.

Well, just because our opponents are threatening to use nuclear weapons against us

Of course its the opponent that's threatening you! Its a pity we haven't got a Pakstani here at NAO, wonder what his story might sound like...

I'm sorry, I dont know nothing about the true situation down there, so maybe I've got no right actually to talk about it, but still I doubt its THAT easy.

It's not a matter of national pride, Martin, it's a matter of national security! Since they have nuclear weapons and have said that they will use them, shall we succumb to their unreasonable demands? And let them give a piece of our land?? I don't think so.

Oh, come on, thats exactly the "Cold War" argumentation we had here in Central Europe for 40 years! I have grown up with it. And I cant hear it anymore! Thats nonsense, its about pride only! 'Dont give in whatever the opponent wants, it might be interpreted as weakness'. Go and read the MidEast thread again, and then come back and tell me "its a totally different situation, you cant compare it". But I *do* compare it! For its about exactly the same problem: two stubborn parties threatening each other with all they've got, and only one side dying seems to provide a permanent solution. Why? Because of too much pride to make compromises at all!
And I simply refuse to belief India is the good, Pakistan the bad guy. I cannot recall any conflict whatsoever when it was that easy (not even WWII).

After decades of construction my website is finally up an running: www.kkds.de

Martin, do you mean to say that there are some "good" terrorists and some "bad". What's going on in Kashmir is terrorism, and India has been fighting terrorism since 1989. From 1947 till 1989 Kashmir conflict still existed, and India and Pakistan have fought multiple wars over them, each time Pakistan attacking India, and then once losing the war, apologizing in the UN, and India back-tracking to the line of control everytime. What makes you feel that the point of view that I am putting is biased? If India decides to attack Pakistan to finish off the terrorist camps, and Pakistan threatens to India that they will nuke it, who is right, and who is wrong?

Martin, there is no such thing as "good terrorism". One can not brand or label terrorism as "fight for freedom" and make it legitimate. Whether its Kashmir or anywhere else in the world, the terrorists understand only one language, and that is killing - themselves and the innocent people. Afghanistan was not a terrorist state, the Taliban were not terrorists, the Al-Qaida were. What Afghanistan was doing was harbouring terrorists. That is why they were attacked by the US. What US did was right, any country that harbours terrorists should either stop doing it, or shall face the consequences.

Pakistan is doing exactly the same, in fact Taliban and most of the terrorist organizations started from Pakistan. Now, if a 9/11 can force US to bomb Afghanistan, shouldn't a 12/13 make India do the same. (12/13 was the date when Indian parliament was attacked by the terrorists - I am sure not many people will remember that). India still practices restraint, and since then have been trying to diplomatically handle the situation by asking Pakistan to stop cross-border terrorism. If Pakistan still continues to do so, shouldn't India go ahead and do exactly what US did to Afghanistan? No one wants another 9/11 to happen. And, to stop it if we are plunged into a nuclear war, then we should not be afraid, but go ahead. That is the only way we can prevent the world from further such atrocities. If we don't act now, they will continue performing more 9/11s and 12/13s.

Love is blind, but marriage is a real eye opener.

Love is blind, but marriage is a real eye opener.

Love is blind, but marriage is a real eye opener.

One more thing, my last statement in this thread:

What I really dont like about this discussion is the fact that a local conflict between two sovereign states becomes a platform to discuss worldwide terrorism!

There are no good and bad terrorists?

Right, but there are terrorists and humans. As I said before in some other thread, not everybody I *call* a terrorist is actually a terrorist!

Its all so advantageous to use this terrorism discussion for your local needs as well. Suddenly your all time enemy becomes a terrorist and so you hope to get the sympathy of the world.
I'm really sorry, but, RCD, I have to ask you for stopping this your national propaganda! This is not a discussion about opinions anymore, but just an enumeration of non verifiable wonnabe facts. I dont have to be a Pakistani to know that all your points are heavily flavoured by your nationalism, which is only natural, but makes it impossible to make it a serious discussion, because simply noone has got the true facts.

In fact I feel more and more uncomfortable reading your posts regarding this Idia/Pakistan situation, because there is noone who actually can put anything against it, so all your statements keep hanging in the air undissented.

There might even be lurkers around who start believing you!

Dont mean no offence, just feel uncomfortable with it!

After decades of construction my website is finally up an running: www.kkds.de

Martin, you got to allow me to write one more post from my side. Before shutting up on this thread, for good, I would like to make a few points clear:-

It was never my intention to do a national propaganda, if I wanted to do that I would have chosen a discussion forum which does not have any intelligent people around. I thought NAO has people who are interested in serious discussions, and I was just trying to put forward my point-of-view. Of course it will look biased and like a national propaganda when people on this forum don't have much knowledge about the history of the conflict and have never heard of the events in that region, and that is why I thought it was appropriate of me to provide the details of the history of the conflict.

Whatever I haev written in the forum till now, requires no proof from my side. Anyone is free to search for the details, facts, from various sources, and check for themselves. In fact, I feel that it is absurd that whenever an innocent person falls as a victim to an act of terrorism in my part of the region, we have to provide proof that it's a terrorist act, but if that happens anywhere else in the world, then it doesn't. Whatever happens in the south-east asia region, people just turn a blind-fold. A 9/11 requires no proof for US to attack Afghanistan, but a 12/13 requires a proof.

Suddenly your all time enemy becomes a terrorist and so you hope to get the sympathy of the world.

It's not that suddenly our all-time enemy has become a terrorist, but it's suddenly that people have begun to understand what terrorism is all about. If there was no 9/11 I am sure even that would have not happened. When innocent people anywhere else in the world are killed by the suicide bombers every day, it's okay because they are doing it for a "purpose", but if that happens in WTC, it's barbaric. Please, don't tell me that I am saying all this because I am biased because I am an Indian. Please get your facts right.

Please visit BBC, and CNN and read the articles yourself. Both BBC and CNN have been reporting from the Pakistan angle for over a decade now, and India has never received the true treatment from them, so you will get to see the picture what they had been putting over the last decade. you will still find that whatever I had written till date was 100% true as per their articles too. Neither have I distorted any fact nor I intended to do so. What started as a fight for freedom in that region decades ago, changed completely to militancy from last decade. And, the 900,000 people who have died in kashmir are not due to any freedom fighters, but due to the terrorist attacks out there. The militants operating in that region right now are not even Pakistanis, but members of the Al-Qaida, and other Afghanistani militant factions. Their agenda has completely changed from a separate Kashmir to a Islamic State. The local Kashmiri people have no say to what the militants want now.

Also, please visit www.dawn.com. This is the most popular local Pakistani daily newspaper. And, this has total pro-pakistani news. The articles, on this site are totally anti-India, so you will get to see Pakistan's viewpoint also. In fact, I am a regular reader of this website, because I do like to read about what do they have to say everytime India makes some allegations or when they do some finger-pointings. The columnists on The Dawn are highly educated and understand the situation pretty well.

One of this article clearly states what is going wrong with the Pakistani leadership -
"The terrorists it had created to support Afghanistan (Taliban) against the Soviets, and laskhar-e-toiba against India, have gone out of control now. They once were under Pakistan's international security intelligence (ISI's) control, but now they are completely out of control, and are funded by international organizations like the Al-Qaida.

Even Pakistan is suffering from terrorist attacks, most recent one being last week when dozens of french marines lost their lives in a hotel. And, this is all because Pakistan's PM is trying to support the US in their fight for the freedom, thus alienating it from the terrorists it is harbouring. Al-Qaida is deeply rooted into Pakistan now, and the recent attacks in India were against Pakistan's President Musharraf's wishes. Musharraf wants to control them, but now they are too independent to listen to him."

So, I seriously suggest that you please go thru the articles in dawn and other pro-pakistani camps, and please see for yourself whether whatever I had written was a propaganda or not. Yes, it's a pity that there is no Pakistani here, but I feel that even he too would have been biased because then he too would be doing a national propaganda, right? Please Martin, I thought we in NAO can seriously discuss things out here. Anyways, I guess this as my very last post on this thread. But, so far whatever we have discussed at least one thing is very clear to me, the terrorism in the rest of the world is terrorism, but the terrorism in my country is not!

Love is blind, but marriage is a real eye opener.

I guess, my previous posts were really long, as none read them fully. I had tried to give the history of the conflict. I will try to write this again not from an Indian perspective, but from a historical point of view, and why is there a conflict in that region. I am sure if there was a Pakistani on NAO, his views would be no different, as whatever I am writing here is not from an Indian perspective. I will try to break this post into 3 parts so that it doesn't become long.

- There was no Pakistan before 1947.
- Pakistan was created in 1947 as a homeland for Muslims. The Muslim-majority areas in Bengal and Northwestern India were carved out of British India to create this new country
- The claim to Kashmir by Pakistan is examined from a perspective of logic, and found to lead inevitably to war with India. This claim is based on the tenet that Muslim majority populations require separate statehood, but clearly this is a rule of thumb that can not and will not be acceptable in other regions of the world that have significant Muslim populations.
- The bottom line regarding Kashmir is that while Pakistan is fighting to gain territory for a nation that was founded upon this specious argument, India is defending its sovereign territory as the first line against progressive national dismemberment.
- If this issue cannot be resolved based on principle, then military parity between India and Pakistan will only ensure that Pakistan continues to aggress.

Love is blind, but marriage is a real eye opener.

- What is important is the rationale behind the creation of Pakistan. Either the Muslims of India need a separate homeland, or they don't.
- If they don't, then why should there be a Pakistan at all?
- If they do, then Muslim majority territories should become part of a Muslim nation. If so, why stop at Kashmir? Why not include the Muslim majority parts of other states of India? Why not include all cities and districts in India where Muslims form a majority?
- And Why should this logic be applied only to India (and Bosnia, Kosova, Sinkiang, and Chechnya)? Why not apply the same logic to Britain and the US?
- In fact, the issue can be taken further. If Muslims are granted separate statehood any time they become a majority in India, then they should be given such a status any time they do so in any other country (which is what they are already asking for in UK with their Islamic parliament).
- But by the same logic Christians should be allowed to create Christian states in any country if they wish, Hindus, Hindu states and so on. So too, blacks in America, or any minorities anywhere should be allowed to carve their majority districts into new states and countries.
- America fought a civil war to stop that. If that process were allowed to go on most countries would be partitioned.
- To those looking for the truth, the issues could not be clearer. Either Pakistan loses its rationale for existence, or India submits to progressive dismemberment and disintegration.
- That is the first issue to understand: both sides are fighting for their very survival.
- If you really want peace, you have to first understand, and then try to resolve this underlying cause behind the conflict. Either Muslims can co-exist with others in a secular democracy, or they need a separate country based on Islamic laws. The only opinions that matter on this issue are those of Muslims themselves. If they choose the latter, then there will be conflict until one side is victorious and the other is vanquished.

Love is blind, but marriage is a real eye opener.

- Now let us look at the tactics being used by both sides. Pakistan cannot annex Kashmir thru military action because India has a superior conventional force. That's why it is using terrorism. Defending against this terrorism has cost India Rs 46,000 crores!! That's US$10 billion, a sizable chunk of change for a country with a $350 billion GNP. On the other hand, the cost to Pakistan of inflicting this terrorism is minuscule. Continuing on the current course is obviously advantageous to Pakistan, and unsustainable for India.
- There are over 100 terrorist training camps in Pakistan and Afghanistan, dedicated to jihad in Kashmir. India could overrun Pakistan in a week and destroy all of them, for far less than Rs 46,000 crores. But it can't do that because Pakistan has had a nuclear deterrent since 1990.
- India has two options. Either it can attack the terrorist camps and dare Pakistan to use its nuclear arsenal, or it can pay Pakistan back in kind. It can create a force of 100,000 commandos and unleash them on Pakistan, minus an Indian army uniform.
- Those looking for peace in South Asia need to understand that as long as Pakistan has military parity with India, it will continue to aggress, if not for Kashmir, then for some other reason. Peace has a much better chance if India has unquestioned military superiority over Pakistan.
- This is akin to the Arab-Israeli situation. There exists a tenuous peace, if you can call it that, because Israel has a clear military superiority over the Arabs. If, on the other hand, the Arabs had military superiority, or even parity for that matter, there would be immediate all out war.

Love is blind, but marriage is a real eye opener.

This post was deleted by request of the author.

This post was deleted by request of the author.

But keep in mind that the only difference between us and them is the fact that when they get a nuclear device they will use it.

Alright, then there is no difference because you claim to use it FIRST.

We show restraint because we are smarter then they are. We value life, they don't.

Using nuces is what you call value life?

Even if "they" (cant stand this evil-terrorists-bla anymore) use it first, there's absolutely no need to go down to "their" level of brutality and contempt of life. Thinking, smartness, intelligence and the ability to compromise are the strong points of humanity. To fight fire with fire is mere darkage thinking. We should be able to leave that behind and by that show "them" the absurdism of "their" deeds. Why dont "they" stop? Because its always the same: revenge for revenge for revenge. Killing any single guy in the name of the US brings 10 more children to their side. Its a fatal mistake to think you could extinguish their believes by killing them. On the contrary: it just confirms their believes, it confirms their distorted (?) picture of the US.

Serious question, Frank: did you ever listened to what they said? Do you actually KNOW why they keep attacking the US, why they hate the US? Did you ever try to see it from their point of view? Make no mistke, I'm not at all sympathizing with any of those deeds. But maybe just listening and checking out the shades of truth in it might be a first step.

Massmurder is never right, not even as an answer to any whatsoever cruel act of violence. And if we're so smart as you said, Frank, we dont need that!

After decades of construction my website is finally up an running: www.kkds.de

This post was deleted by request of the author.

This post was deleted by request of the author.

This post was edited by frank on May 21, 2002.