blr_p said:
Those two statements you made are markedly different. Anyway, trade with any country(not just pakistan) is good for india.....So why single out pakistan??There's already illegal trade going on between the two countries and even if that was legalised, we wont prolly see an exponential rise in trade bet. them.Trade with america,SE asia, Europe are a lot more important than trade with pakistan.Anyway it is pakistan and not india that's blocking the trade.So there's nothing much we can't do.
So we should give up kashmir to pakistan just to enable trade with pakistan:rofl: :rofl:FYI, it's not kashmir that's the stumbling block. It's the paki army that's blocking trade with india using kashmir as a pretext.Infact it's the paki army that's the root cause of all problems between india and pakistan.Only people who fall prey to Pakistani propaganda believe that kashmir is the stumbling block that's preventing trade between the two countries.
Stop imagining things.Read that post again.What i said was that it would have been better for india if M.K.Gandhi never existed......When did i ever say that i have a problem with "another" gandhi in office??FYI, the gandhis of today aren't even related to M.K.Gandhi.And i don't have a problem if another "gandhi' becomes india's next PM(as long as it's not sonia gandhi).Infact i would love to see rahul gandhi become India's next PM.
And what the hell has that to do with south asia and how is that even related to this topic???? If you are stupid enough to believe that the same thing could happen between india and pakistan,then think again.:rofl: :rofl: As long as pakistani army sticks to its current behavior,nothing will ever change.To improve relations we need both sides to work together...... Everytime time we tried to improve relations with pakistan,everytime we trusted pakistan, we were stabbed in the back by pakistan.....We tried agra summit,we got kargil.They invaded india in 48,65 and 71.Everytime we try to improve relations with that country,we end up paying a heavy price.Do you want us to keep trying the same failed ideas again and again and again?? How long should we continue making a fool out of ourselves??
Everytime we try to be nice to our pathetic neighbour, everytime we try peace with them,they mistake it as a sign of our weakness........the end result---- we get kargil,terrorist attacks,bomb blasts,etc,etc.Talking with pakistan under the current circumstances is meaningless.As long as the attitude of paki army doesn't change peace won't work.Pakistanis understand only the language of force....that's it!! We live in a real world not an ideal world.Foolish concepts like non-violence will not work against our enemy.How many instances do you know where non-violence ever worked??Infact non-voilence has never 'worked' in any politically relevant sense of the word, and there is no reason to suppose it ever will. It has never, largely on its own strength, achieved the political objectives of those who employed it.The only ones who belive it works are the foolish idealists and dreamers. Do you think non-violence would have worked against hitler or for that matter pakistan terrorists or their army??
MICHAEL NEUMANN said the foll. about gandhi"he wanted independence from British rule, a united India, and nonviolence itself, an end to civil or ethnic strife on the Indian subcontinent. What he got was India 1947: partition, and one of the most horrifying outbursts of bloodshed and cruelty in the whole bloody, cruel history of the postwar world. These consequences alone would be sufficient to count his project as a tragic failure.
What of independence itself? Historians might argue about its causes, but I doubt any of them would attribute it primarily to Gandhi's campaign. The British began contemplating--admittedly with varying degrees of sincerity--some measure of autonomy for India before Gandhi did anything, as early as 1917. A.J.P.Taylor says that after World War I, the British were beginning to find India a liability, because India was once again producing its own cotton, and buying cheap textiles from Japan. Later, India's strategic importance, while valued by many, became questioned by some, who saw the oil of the Middle East and the Suez canal as far more important. By the end of the Second World War, Britain's will to hold onto its empire had pretty well crumbled, for reasons having little or nothing to do with nonviolence.
Another factor was the terrorism--and this need not be a term of condemnation--quite regularly employed against the British. It was not enough to do much harm, but more than enough to warn them that India was becoming more trouble than it was worth. All things considered, the well-founded fear of generalized violence had far more effect on British resolve than Gandhi ever did. He may have been a brilliant and creative political thinker, but he was not a victor."
And i fully agree with Neumann. Besides like i said before, this moron even demanded funds for pakistan after independence...what do you have to say about that??
i never said gandhi put him in power.What i said was that the reason he rose to power was because of gandhi..gandhi and co. gave him too much importance.Ofcourse once he came to prominence, he did everthing to distance himself from gandhi, establishing his own identity by taking on congress/gandhi on most issues and even managed to position himself as the sole saviour of indian muslims.He further went onto portray congress as primarily the party of the hindus and the only way muslims will ever be safe is in a sepearte homeland for them.
I fail to understand one thing though....why are these scumbags only born in india:huh: :huh:
