Benazir Bhutto shot dead !!

[random2]

As far as burma is concerned, our govt didnt even lodge official protest with their govt recently which was a shocker.

I think that was bcse our house commies didnt want to insult their brethren.

 

[rushabht]

Well i kinda feel sad about what the world is ending up to be. Benazir bhutto had taken a vow to finish off these terrorists, even if it required the intervention of bringing the american troops to pakistan, which made all this happen. And both india and pakistan have always had bad luck in such cases, for ex. see what happened to Rajiv Gandhi, he was pretty much the only prime minister who couldve transformed india into a super power. But i guess good people just cannot survive in this cruel world

 

[guru]

The reason is oil for burma.

If you mess with sri lanka, the tamils get angry and they will remove their support from the goverment.

No idea abt nepal,

Thats the real reason y we dont forcefully resolve the conflicts in our subcontinent.

1. The reason for our shameful inaction in Burma is that our politicians [BJP included] dont have balls

Yes, Burma has oil but thats goes to China not us.

we should have sent our military and restored democracy there.

2. AIADMK hates LTTE, Tamils are on the middle on this. They support/hate LTTLE depending on whether they are with AIADMK or DMK
3. In Nepal, we let communists destroy the country. Someone said Evil Triumphs, when good men do nothing.

Thats exactly what happened in Nepal.

Communists are ideologically against our culture and hence the state. still cant believe our morons vote for them. They supported British during Independence movement, China during Indo-China war. ranted against our nuke tests while they celebrated chinese nuclear tests in the 60's. They are the original enemy within. Now communists of Nepal flavor have made Nepal a Chinese colony on our door step - how? becuase of OUR INACTION

 

[blr_p]

How strong is our position in the NE. Given the sepratists & what not already sproadically attacking the Indian Army, do you really think it would be wise to move on burma ?

Of course not. China would very easily say, they are moving in to liberate the Burmese. And there you have two of Asia's giants fighting over what..

nothing.

I say unless the country is being attacked or about to be attacked it makes no sense whatsoever to go on any adventures.

 

[Safin]

Actually we already have. we've done it 1971. while some us like to romanticize [and even want mofo traitors] India and Pakistan and two EQUAL states going at it. Truth is India is way stronger Political, Social, Economic and Military Institutions than Pakistan.

This is not 1971. The 71 war was won due to the divided attention of Pakistan army and extreme demoralization it faced in erstwhile east Pakistan. 30 years on the things are totally different. Pakistan has much better resources at its disposal and weaponry. A strong political and social institution is actually not a great thing in a war on equal balance wars especially, there is very minor tactical difference between India and Pakistan in a full scale ground conflict.

Now about our stand vis-a-vis SriLanka. I have had the privilege of seeing IPKF at close quarters and knowing from the actual officers on the ground of what was happening. First of all realize that the situation was pretty tough for us as we had a tamil support for the LTTE and when there, SriLankan government had imposed unbelievable restrictions on what we can do in conflict. What actually happened was that in the conflict that started, a gorilla warfare, the LTTE had far better knowlege of the terrain, the jungle and ofcourse no qualms about using human shields. We had none of those advantages. What ended up was that the Gorkhas(and those who know them will know that they are the most battle hardened troops of Indian and for that matter british army) were getting demoralized.

Could we have handled it better? Maybe we could have. We could have sorted out our conditions with Sri Lanka better. But based on the support from within India for the "just cause" it was never a easy issue to tackle.

Talk about Bangladesh. We were the liberators. Now we have a string of terror outfits opening up there. I can't see what we can do better. You think we can go and bomb them? What purpose will that serve. You will kill 10, 20 more hardened and more dangerous outfits will arise.

No country has ever achieved(in recent times) anything with a armed conflict. USA has burned its hands in every country it used force on. It has supported dictators in South America, only to find more hostile governments form. It has made a mess in Iraq, Afganistan(i mean the original mess of 80's). Kossovo is forgotten and a bigger mess(Balkans have been a mess from the start). I cannot find a single case where armed conflict has resulted in peace. It breeds hatred and more retaliation.

Most of the NE problems don't have anything to with foreign powers. Non development and a total cutoff from mainstream India has led to a feeling of isolation. I have personally seen people taunting the people from NE. How many central institutions have been built there?

Someone says go and bomb the ULFA out. Where do you find them? They are everywhere. You can't bomb them out but only reason them out(Its exactly the same in Kashmir). Unless attitudes of India changes, problems will not vanish. Naxalism is on the rise because of unequal growth, the rich poor divide. Instead of talking to bomb others, we can use that cash on ourselves. If you say on this topic that politicians are spineless, scoundrels, i wholeheartedly agree. They bring in caste, divide on communal lines and do everything other than trying to improve the basics. What i can't agree is the bomb this, bomb that talk There are too many issues to look at, and more often than not, the foreign affairs ministry usually does get it right on what to do as far as foreign relations go. WE should ofcourse spend money on our defense. Whats happening on our northern borders with China is dangerous. We should look at effectively using our leveraging power with the Tibet cause to counter balance China. Instead we are ignoring that. I am pretty sure the Indian diplomats are working on a strategy.(Common misconception, Politicians don't take foreign affairs decisions overnight, its usually the diplomats, politicians can give you the the title, not the book)

EDIT: those saying Nepal is going out of control cos of our Inaction, what action do you think we can take?

 

[stalker]

Communists have been running a couple of states within this country of yours since god knows when. And despite the mess they have landed themselves in at times... they've still done a damn good job.

ppl need to realize that an Indian Commie cannot be equated with the image of communism that has been created by the former soviet union/the us of a/china.

Our commies have adapted their ideology to the country and its demands. Do remember that the commies in India are among the best educated types you will find in the mess that is Indian politics.

@safin.

were u in de forces

 

[guru]

This is not 1971.

nobody said it is

The 71 war was won due to the divided attention of Pakistan army and extreme demoralization it faced in erstwhile east Pakistan. 30 years on the things are totally different. Pakistan has much better resources at its disposal and weaponry.

and we dont have "much better resources at its disposal and weaponry." ?

A strong political and social institution is actually not a great thing in a war on equal balance wars especially, there is very minor tactical difference between India and Pakistan in a full scale ground conflict.

stronger political,economic and social institutions help during the war and most importantly AFTER It. Check out America after WW2 where it almost single handedly funded and rebuilt East Asia and Europe. all while fighting the commies.
or even during the recent Iraq war, the average American hardly felt the war. It was not like everything stopped for the war. The routine civilian life went on. we even had Paris Hilton drama during the wartime lol.

Full scale ground conflict is normally assisted by Naval and Air power. Now, i'm pretty sure we are better at it than Pakistan.

Now about our stand vis-a-vis SriLanka. I have had the privilege of seeing IPKF at close quarters and knowing from the actual officers on the ground of what was happening. First of all realize that the situation was pretty tough for us as we had a tamil support for the LTTE and when there, SriLankan government had imposed unbelievable restrictions on what we can do in conflict. What actually happened was that in the conflict that started, a gorilla warfare, the LTTE had far better knowlege of the terrain, the jungle and ofcourse no qualms about using human shields. We had none of those advantages. What ended up was that the Gorkhas(and those who know them will know that they are the most battle hardened troops of Indian and for that matter british army) were getting demoralized.
Could we have handled it better? Maybe we could have. We could have sorted out our conditions with Sri Lanka better. But based on the support from within India for the "just cause" it was never a easy issue to tackle.

i agree. Srilanka was a disaster. We should have never have been there. period. There was no threat to India. no genocide from Srilankan Govt. Going in was a political decision. As usual soldiers payed the price.

Talk about Bangladesh. We were the liberators. Now we have a string of terror outfits opening up there. I can't see what we can do better. You think we can go and bomb them? What purpose will that serve. You will kill 10, 20 more hardened and more dangerous outfits will arise.

thats because we walked away after liberating the place. Mistake. we should have been there for a while. like American bases in Germany. Instead we let Pakistan play the ethnic card - for NE and Islam card within Bangladesh to create all these alphabet soup terrorist groups.

No country has ever achieved(in recent times) anything with a armed conflict. USA has burned its hands in every country it used force on. It has supported dictators in South America, only to find more hostile governments form. It has made a mess in Iraq, Afganistan(i mean the original mess of 80's). Kossovo is forgotten and a bigger mess(Balkans have been a mess from the start). I cannot find a single case where armed conflict has resulted in peace. It breeds hatred and more retaliation.

Gulf war1 was a huge success where Military force was used. Kosovo was another success. Now the Balkans and Middle east were a mess before the conflict and will be after the conflict, except for the localized Area (Kosovo, Kuwait) for/on which the wars were fought.. ME is still a mess, with America squarely in the middle of Arab countries and Israel. but Kuwait for its part is better off.

Most of the NE problems don't have anything to with foreign powers. Non development and a total cutoff from mainstream India has led to a feeling of isolation. I have personally seen people taunting the people from NE. How many central institutions have been built there?

agree. yet another place we have F**ked up. having said that i'd be surprised if Pakistan and China dont/haven't already exploited our failures.

Someone says go and bomb the ULFA out. Where do you find them? They are everywhere. You can't bomb them out but only reason them out(Its exactly the same in Kashmir). Unless attitudes of India changes, problems will not vanish.

Terrorism has been taken out in Punjab by military and police force. Do i think military force is the only option. Hell no. But it should be one of the options. Taking that option off the table is equivalent to digging our own grave. I dont understand why terrorism should change our altitudes.

those saying Nepal is going out of control cos of our Inaction, what action do you think we can take?

covert and Intell operations to convince else take out. the communist hierarchy set up by the Chinese.

 

[guru]

Communists have been running a couple of states within this country of yours since god knows when. And despite the mess they have landed themselves in at times... they've still done a damn good job.

lol thats a new one. and how have they done a damn good job?

ppl need to realize that an Indian Commie cannot be equated with the image of communism that has been created by the former soviet union/the us of a/china.
Our commies have adapted their ideology to the country and its demands.

you mean like opposing the nuclear deal - the reason given was that the deal was against China. WTF. How about supporting the deak "for India"

Do remember that the commies in India are among the best educated types you will find in the mess that is Indian politics.

and Congress and BJP dont have educated people? Karan Singh of Congress has probably more education and culture in him than all commies put together.

 

[stalker]

lol thats a new one. and how have they done a damn good job?

you mean like opposing the nuclear deal - the reason given was that the deal was against China. WTF. How about supporting the deak "for India"

and Congress and BJP dont have educated people? Karan Singh of Congress has probably more education and culture in him than all commies put together.

The ppl in the respective states have kept re-electing them. The indian electorate might not be the best, but it still has just enough sense to re-elect those that could do a better job

The reason given for opposing the nuke deal was not that it was 'against china'. this is the first time im hearing that

the reason all along has been that it was a pro-us deal. Given that the deal was advantageous to us. The reason for the opposition was just that decades of foreign policy built on the back of communist ussr has been getting a major redo over the past 10 years. People within the India political setup just cannot accept India becoming partners with the states, coz they see this deal as being the harbinger of the same.

and about your last point... i really aint in the mood for a degree by degree comparison of each and every indian politician

 

[Safin]

and we dont have "much better resources at its disposal and weaponry." ?

yes but the imbalance does not exist now which proved decisive then. Plus Pakistan has nuclear weapons and there is no diversion for them as before.

stronger political,economic and social institutions help during the war and most importantly AFTER It. Check out America after WW2 where it almost single handedly funded and rebuilt East Asia and Europe. all while fighting the commies.

or even during the recent Iraq war, the average American hardly felt the war. It was not like everything stopped for the war. The routine civilian life went on. we even had Paris Hilton drama during the wartime lol.

I am talking about a war that you will fight next to your country and not 30000km away from it and please stop comparing us with US. There is no comparison. About the post war, well i was talking about during the war and history shows that clearances via institution waste time and don't allow fast decision making. (Sometimes that a good idea, sometimes isn't. Kandhahar happened cos of our slack clearances that allowed the IA flight to take off from Amritsar.)

Full scale ground conflict is normally assisted by Naval and Air power. Now, i'm pretty sure we are better at it than Pakistan.

Better at it for what? AS i mentioned before, Pakistan has now the weapons to neutralize a lot of those attacks for so long for it to retaliate with a nuclear strike.

thats because we walked away after liberating the place. Mistake. we should have been there for a while. like American bases in Germany. Instead we let Pakistan play the ethnic card - for NE and Islam card within Bangladesh to create all these alphabet soup terrorist groups.

Again, this is not US. Given a choice, Germany will throw out the US forces. No country wants another country's base in their land. There are numerous factors(mostly economic) that play their part. India is not in position to exercise them. Plus setting up a military base in a Islamic state is a dangerous proposition as even America is finding out in Saudi Arabia(There are numerous congress committees contemplating major withdrawals from there) As it is we do not have the economic or the power clout to set up banana governments and sustain them over a long period against people's wishes.

Gulf war1 was a huge success where Military force was used. Kosovo was another success. Now the Balkans and Middle east were a mess before the conflict and will be after the conflict, except for the localized Area (Kosovo, Kuwait) for/on which the wars were fought.. ME is still a mess, with America squarely in the middle of Arab countries and Israel. but Kuwait for its part is better off.

Gulf war was a success? Really. What did it achieve. A slaughter of the Shiites in Iraq? A half finished job which bush jr. tried to finish in the second attempt and can now not finish it? I think success is decided looking at it a bit long term and no one even in US will call Iraq a success.

Exactly how was Kosovo a success? No one wants a independent Kosovo. Which is exactly whats happening or being demanded now. A move on that line will open up a pandora's box in the balkans. Kuwait is better off? Yeah sure. A puppet American government with prioritized exports of oil to US and a full American military base set up there. I don't think a normal Kuwaiti would be enjoying that. Ofcourse shade better than Saddam taking over it but then Saddam is a problem US made in the first place, so they can't complain.

Terrorism has been taken out in Punjab by military and police force. Do i think military force is the only option. Hell no. But it should be one of the options. Taking that option off the table is equivalent to digging our own grave. I dont understand why terrorism should change our altitudes.

Terrorism should not change your attitudes with regards to itself but not trying to find ou the reason for people blowing themselves up is not going to serve you either. Why are we trying to win the hearts and minds of Kashmir. Why is the Indian army involved in a full scale effort to show the Kashmiri people that we Indians care, why the army avoids any major weapon power use(rockets) when tackling terrorists in the valley? The answers to those are cos the reason for the armed revolt there (of the valley's youth) has been a disillusionment that frankly we created by flawed policies. You are not going to brand everything as terrorism and say we are not going to change. At the end of the day terrorism can only be defeated when the locals don't support it and for that your attitude vis-a-vis locals has to change(if thats one of the reasons for their support). Punjab was won because the locals turned against the terrorists who were the minority. There is a difference that you need to appreciate.

covert and Intell operations to convince else take out. the communist hierarchy set up by the Chinese.

Too many CIA movies mate

I agree about the convincing part and we are actually already doing plenty of backchannel diplomacy there talking to both the sides. Maoists enjoy support there and thats why they can't be ignored. Its not our country. People support them cos of flawed policies of King Gyanendra.

I think "take them out" sounds cool but is something you can discard outright. There is no one in Nepal who is going to support a strike in their country and we don't want another hotbed of extremists with the sole aim of avenging those strikes being set up in Nepal. Diplomacy is and will be the only option that will remain on the table.

 

[blr_p]

hehe, choice answers there :hap2:

 

[BIKeINSTEIN]

Keep it clean... You wanna make a point then go ahead and do that... But not like this and definitely not on my forum... No flames... You are open to post your views...

We know 'who's the Daddy'. hyeah:

He he he, Its alright morgoth. Now that you know, Me and Nikhil have strong opinions and I like picking on him .
But I just cant digest people saying RIP Bhutto, she was a paki goddamit.

What are we??Emotional fools?Some lady in an enemy territory dies (and god knows how many terrorists she mustve trained against India) and here we have people going RIP Bhutto boohoo. Cmon do you even shed a tear when an Indian soldier dies??(Or do you even care??).
I am not saying that what has happened is good, its just that we shudnt be going zomg she's dead boohoo. **Wears FlameSuit**
PS: I'll kill them if the stock market goes down tomorrow cos of this

R.I.P. Benazir.

she was a mother too.
Death in any form is a rude reminder of the dear ones we lost and those we might lose anytime, anywhere.
God bless the soul of the departed.

Whenever there is a small spark of normality in Political life of Pakistan, it seems to end before it is started. Nawab sharif needs to be extra careful now. There arent many powerful political candidates to run the whole country. If this goes then I wouldnt be suprised if guys like Osama and the taliban (or be any terrorist body) will use pakistan as their breeding ground and a stronghold, just like Afghanistan. If this happens, then its Bad news for India and its security.

I thought it's 'Nawaz Sharief'.

What actually happened was that in the conflict that started, a gorilla warfare, the LTTE had far better knowlege of the terrain, the jungle and ofcourse no qualms about using human shields.

Guerrilla warfare.

I am not political but the only good thing about such topics is it gets Safin out of his foxhole :lol: and that provides with some good insights into the scheme of such issues. :ashamed:

 

[guru]

yes but the imbalance does not exist now which proved decisive then. Plus Pakistan has nuclear weapons and there is no diversion for them as before.

so are you saying Pakistan and Indian Militaries are now equal? Last time i checked we had nukes too. Turns out we also have thermonuclear weapons that they dont have. The First nuclear strike by Pakistan doesn't mean we lost the war. Its the just the beganing.

I am talking about a war that you will fight next to your country and not 30000km away from it and please stop comparing us with US. There is no comparison.

I wasn't comparing, i was trying to make a point on how stronger institutions help in the longer run. looks like you didn't get it or worse dont want to get it.

About the post war, well i was talking about during the war and history shows that clearances via institution waste time and don't allow fast decision making. (Sometimes that a good idea, sometimes isn't. Kandhahar happened cos of our slack clearances that allowed the IA flight to take off from Amritsar.)

lol, History repeatedly shows. planned executions are better than arbitrary incursions during war. thats, why any military worth its name has a central command, hierarchies of decision making and fallback hierarchies

Better at it for what? AS i mentioned before, Pakistan has now the weapons to neutralize a lot of those attacks for so long for it to retaliate with a nuclear strike.

yawn. same old nuclear strike scare. There'd be consequences if they initiate a nuclear strike agaisnt us. They'd know that right.

If you are fighting a war TO WIN, we oughta get ready to pay the price and most importantly have the balls to make the other guy pay the price. If any one of them is alive, that is

Again, this is not US. Given a choice, Germany will throw out the US forces. No country wants another country's base in their land. There are numerous factors(mostly economic) that play their part.

Then couldn't we create "factors" for us remain there to see things thro. wait we dont need to. After all we stopped killing there. hell even created a country for them. oh btw, Military bases are not the only options. extensive intell network is another.

Plus setting up a military base in a Islamic state is a dangerous proposition

wooo scary, Islamic state. wtf is that?

As it is we do not have the economic or the power clout to set up banana governments and sustain them over a long period against people's wishes.

why would a democratically elected by the people of Bangladesh be a banana govt like the ones US created with dictators. Please stop comparing us with US . why are you talking about "sustaining a govt against peoples wishes" unless you think

1. Democratically elected govt in Bangladesh will always be hostile to India

2. Any govt elected by Muslims would be automatically hostile to India

Gulf war was a success? Really. What did it achieve. A slaughter of the Shiites in Iraq? Kuwait is better off? Yeah sure. A puppet American government with prioritized exports of oil to US and a full American military base set up there. I don't think a normal Kuwaiti would be enjoying that. Ofcourse shade better than Saddam taking over it but then Saddam is a problem US made in the first place, so they can't complain.

Exactly how was Kosovo a success? No one wants a independent Kosovo. Which is exactly whats happening or being demanded now. A move on that line will open up a pandora's box in the balkans.

Now we are in Denial mode. are we Any fact that is against you view is ignored The primary military objective to free Kuwait was achieved. It was a military success.Kuwait is better off now than under Saddam Husein.

Same with Kosovo, Miliosevic's military out of Kosovo. Kosovo is much better off with Nato inside than Milosevic's Military around. You can deny it all you want. The fact remains..

Terrorism should not change your attitudes with regards to itself but not trying to find ou the reason for people blowing themselves up is not going to serve you either.

Why are we trying to win the hearts and minds of Kashmir. Why is the Indian army involved in a full scale effort to show the Kashmiri people that we Indians care, why the army avoids any major weapon power use(rockets) when tackling terrorists in the valley? The answers to those are cos the reason for the armed revolt there (of the valley's youth) has been a disillusionment that frankly we created by flawed policies. You are not going to brand everything as terrorism and say we are not going to change. At the end of the day terrorism can only be defeated when the locals don't support it and for that your attitude vis-a-vis locals has to change(if thats one of the reasons for their support).

honestly can you tell me what flawed policies make it ok to 20 odd Sikhs while they were sleeping.? or beheading girls who didn't wear the Burkha? not to mention the, ethnic cleansing of the Kashmiri Pandits?

At the end of the day terrorism can only be defeated when the locals don't support it and for that your attitude vis-a-vis locals has to change(if thats one of the reasons for their support).

There are many ways of defeating terror, British smashed the IRA by winning the Intell war with the IRA. Negotiations should only come about once you have got the terrorists in to a corner and they have no option but to negotiate.

Punjab was won because the locals turned against the terrorists who were the minority. There is a difference that you need to appreciate.

so in Kashmir, terrorists are a majority? Locals in Kashmir support terrorists? Then may be we should stop trying to win their hearts

Too many CIA movies mate

I agree about the convincing part and we are actually already doing plenty of backchannel diplomacy there talking to both the sides. Maoists enjoy support there and thats why they can't be ignored. Its not our country. People support them cos of flawed policies of King Gyanendra.

I think "take them out" sounds cool but is something you can discard outright. There is no one in Nepal who is going to support a strike in their country and we don't want another hotbed of extremists with the sole aim of avenging those strikes being set up in Nepal. Diplomacy is and will be the only option that will remain on the table.

Communism is failed ideology.Maoists are bad for India and more importantly bad for Nepal. There are many ways to take out the enemy than an air strike. There are always REASONS on why things go bad. validity of reason doesn't mean you sit waiting to be slapped around. If you think Diplomacy is the only option we SHOULD have. then you are asking us too loose or being naive. Without the the threat of consequences. you will be taken for granted.

just like on this Forum you have the option and the threat to ban people, if they dont adhere to the rules. talking with unruly members without the threat of being suspended and or being banned is not an option. As an admin i thoguht you knew this

 

[blr_p]

so are you saying Pakistan and Indian Militaries are now equal? Last time i checked we had nukes too. Turns out we also have thermonuclear weapons that they dont have. The First nuclear strike by Pakistan doesn't mean we lost the war. Its the just the beganing.

yawn. same old nuclear strike scare. There'd be consequences if they initiate a nuclear strike agaisnt us. They'd know that right.
If you are fighting a war TO WIN, we oughta get ready to pay the price and most importantly have the balls to make the other guy pay the price. If any one of them is alive, that is

Are you suggesting we de-nuke pak ?

 

[guru]

^^ how did you get there? lol

 

[blr_p]

Going by the way you say we have nothing to fear from them.

..or did i read too much into what you said.

 

[guru]

Going by the way you say we have nothing to fear from them.

fear is not an option in the war. you always plan for the worst - for yourself and more importantly plan to bring the worst to your enemy. If there is a nuclear strike against us. Just make sure, the consequences of a nuclear strike against us are so bad for them, that they'd rather loose a conventional war against us rather than attempting a nuclear strike against us. That way, they live.

Same way, In cold war, two nuclear sides even though were fighting a conventional mostly wars, never dared to go nuclear.

 

[blr_p]

Well sure but i can't really see a nuke war happening between state actors anywhere for obvious reasons.

..the only ppl with the incentive for it are terrorists because then who(?) do you attack. This is one very big asymmetric advantage.

 

[Neotheone]

As a matter of fact the hiroshima bomb caused a loss of nearly 1,40000 lives . Even a crude bomb is a severe threat, so the threat is always there. But one thing is certain that we are not going into a war unless the extremists get into power ...which again would bring the US actively into this, and probably they will try and get control over the nukes before anything else... one can only hope that somehow pakistan gets out of this mess and the moderates control the government ....does not seem likely though.

 

[blr_p]

Would it be naive to assume that given what the extremists have done recently in pak that maybe there will be a harder line shown towards them by its administration ?

That the ppl there will now be less enamoured of them and with that might come their downfall, provided of course there is a stepped up effort in conjunction to counter them. A heightened effort by pak to rid (rid might be optimistic if not at least contain) this cancer. I can't see any alternative moves left for them atm.