American foreign policy and Pakistan

[R K Singh]

No doubt about its double standard.
And still people who make hue and cry for "War on Terror", dont object or say anything when it comes to Pakistan.
AW here is "another" headline about Pakistan.
Terrorist camps in Pakistan are threat to US: Times
Now I would like to listen 'something' from supporters of "war on terror" who attacked and captured a country with no proof of terrorist links(OK OK, the links which only you could see).
And there is a country where everything is open and still it is dealing with it in its own way.
What is that its own way, no one knows.
If I say US is giving shelters to terrorists by giving support to Pakistan then I dont think that I will be wrong.

[ChanSan Mehbubani]

Earth has radius of 6400 Kms and there is a possibility of hidden WMDs anywhere beneth earh's surface in Iraq. .In addition Saddam was cruel dictator for last 15 years.and Pakistan does not have Oil wells. .

[Joe King]

Pakistan is a bit of an enigma. There are continued rumours of terrorist training camps, there is a leader who has a slightly dodgy democratic record, and most worrying of all, they seem to have sold nukes to so called "rogue" states (ok, the guy said it was just him, bit who believes that the govt had nothing to do with it?). On the other hand, Pakistan is not likely to ever use its weopans directly because India is sitting next door and slightly trigger happy. Pakistan has also gained the support of the US through helping with the war on Afghanistan, so maybe it will be held in check for a while. My worry is that it could turn into another Iraq - a country that was initially supported by the West, but then came back to make them regret it. The other main worry is that (apart from possibly in Korea) Pakistan vs India is the most likely place where the second war involving atomic weopans could occur.

[Maarten Vergouwen]

The crucial difference is that the Pakistani government is willing to play ball with the US, whereas the Afghan and Iraqi governments wouldnt.
If merely being a hotbed for terrorists was the main reason for an attack (as opposed to excuse), then Saudi Arabia would have been invaded september 12th.
[ February 11, 2004: Message edited by: Maarten Vergouwen ]

[Paul Stevens]

The stated policy is that every country has to be dealt with according to the situation and information for that country. So you are saying it is a double standard because we have not attacked Pakistan? When was it stated that every country that had anything to do with terrorism would be attacked? Explain what you think is a double standard.
Do you think that the US should attack Pakistan?

[R K Singh]

The stated policy is that every country has to be dealt with according to the situation and information for that country.
No comments ...
But what kind of information did US has before attacking Iraq ??
At least more confirm information is there about Pakistan.
So you are saying it is a double standard because we have not attacked Pakistan?
Attack is very big word. No body attacks on any country till it sees some advantages.
Even it cant stop supporting it.
As someone said here, Pakistan is there because of 3A's Allah, America, A... [dont remember the third A.]
When was it stated that every country that had anything to do with terrorism would be attacked?
Oh, sorry if I misunderstood the objective of "War on Terror". I think Jaosn will be better person to tell the objectives of "War on Terror".
OR why not simply read any of the Jason's post in which he is trying to convince me that War on Iraq was not "War for Oil" but it was part of "War on Terror".
Explain what you think is a double standard.
Crying that we will not support terroristism or the country which supports terrorism and still supporting Pakistan.
Do you think that the US should attack Pakistan?
If not attack then stop supporting it.
By supporting Pakistan by any means you are supporting terrorists and terrorism.
And what terrorists do, now US also has taste of it.

[Rufus BugleWeed]

I was thinking last night that if most of the people in Kashmir are Muslims, may be Kashmir should be in Pakistan. If there was peace between the neighboring countries, Indians could always go there on vacation. Nobody would be deprived of the great scenary.
Wouldn't it be nice if two lands that have been connected for centuries could live in peace? Wouldn't it be nice if the US did not have to worry about fingers on the trigger between India and Pakistan?

[Terimaki Tojay]

US is a smart country. They do what is beneficial to them. There is no point in impressing over them that Pak. is a rouge state. They already know it. However, nothing is for free. They'll pay dearly for supporting Pakistan the way they did for supporting Iraq and Afghanistan.

[Jason Menard]

It's not like this exact topic hasn't been brought up and responded to over and over again. All the arguments and refutations of those arguments can be found via Java Ranch's handy dandy search facility if anyone is interested in saving time.

Now I would like to listen 'something' from supporters of "war on terror" who attacked and captured a country with no proof of terrorist links(OK OK, the links which only you could see).

This is a perfect example of a faulty assertion that has been raised multiple times, and dismissed just as many times citing countless sources. The correct parenthetical statement above should have read "OK OK, the links which only you and everybody else on the planet who has spent even a moment researching the topic could see".
Just my two cents.

[R K Singh]

I was thinking last night that if most of the people in Kashmir are Muslims, may be Kashmir should be in Pakistan.
There are more Muslim population in India than Pakistan .. so what do you want, India should be renamed to pakistan or India should be in Pakistan ???
And the demand for seperate nation in the name of religion ... I dont know about US but India will not never approve it.
Wouldn't it be nice if the US did not have to worry about fingers on the trigger between India and Pakistan?
Please leave Indians alone..
No one is saying to poke nose in Indian matter.
I am talking about terrorism and US double standard.
The terroris who are getting training, they wont only come to Delhi and Bombay but they might fly to US too .. thats what I am saying.

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
Just my two cents.

OK, for your sake in, this thread, I agree there were links between Saddam and terrorists ..
Dont you know the role Pakistan played in all that ..
Dont you know that how many terrorists are enjoying protection in Pakistan ..
OR US is waiting for something more tragic to happen...
After reading yesterdays blast news in Baghdad .. I think Bush wanted to give terrorists a play groud far away from US. ANd in that sense I think, Bush did right thing for short period. Because the moment terrorist realize that its not the place they are suppose to be, they will again head to US.
And that time, plenty of terrorists will be from the training camps of Pakistan.

[Paul Stevens]

We are waiting on Pakistan to find some oil fields so we can then act.

[Thomas Paul]

The US could invade Pakistan but then most Indian cities would be smoking piles of ruins. :roll: The goal is to convince Pakistan to play nice. The US will always try to negotiate first. It has worked with Libya and it may be working with North Korea.

[Mark Fletcher]

Originally posted by R K Singh:
[QB]Please leave Indians alone..
No one is saying to poke nose in Indian matter.
[QB]

Umm... so why are you poking your nose into how the US conducts its affairs with other countries?
I can only conclude that you started this thread to stir up some trouble.

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Mark Fletcher:

Umm... so why are you poking your nose into how the US conducts its affairs with other countries?

Because that affects whole world.
AW from the replies, I got the answer that there is no answer.
Thanks to all for their attention.
I can only conclude that you started this thread to stir up some trouble.
Though my intention is not that but I have no objection, if someone wants to close the thread.
Good night

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by R K Singh:
Because that affects whole world.

As does India's nuclear arsenal. Therefore, if discussion of one is fair game, it would seem that discussion of the other is equally fair game. Or is there some sort of double standard that should be applied?

AW from the replies, I got the answer that there is no answer.

"Proof by Opinion as Fact", "Proof by Dismissal", or "Proof by Termination"?
[ February 11, 2004: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

[Paul McKenna]

Here is my take on this..
India would be well capable of dealing with the threat posed by Pakistan. India has already discussed the idea of a pre-emptive strike against Pakistan and has also shown that it is ready to carry it out. The only restraint on the Indian government from doing so is the fact that US bases / interests are located in Pakistan.
As to why India should take a pre-emptive strike against Pakistan? For obvious reasons.. Pakistan has time and again funded terrorist organizations in the Kashmir valley. Pakistan's intelligence agency, ISI, has been publicly caught red-handed for funding and training jihadists in India. And more recently Pakistan has been found guilty of transferring nuclear technology to other rouge nations.
Why India wont attack right now?
Simple, if India attacks Pakistan right now, Pakistan will attack US forces in Afghanistan and surrounding areas. This will jeopardize US interests in the area and thus will strain the relationship between US and India, which is currently more valuable to India than a war with Pakistan.
How will India win a war with Pakistan when Pakistan has a nuclear arsenal?
@BIt has been stated by various analysts that Pakistan is also an inherently divided country. They have the same problem with Shias and Sunnis as Iraq. It has been stated in the past that if ever a major conflict were to break out between India and Pakistan all that India has to do is divide Pakistan into two by using its naval power (note that Pakistan has a neglible to non-existent naval defense). This divide will result in two factions in Pakistan, one that is highly anti-India and the other that is anti-India but can be convinced to co-exist with India. Alongside if a pyschological warfare is also conducted by promising more power to the oppresed muslim sect then a victory is in sight for India.

[Axel Janssen]

I think, the governments of Pakistan has been quite a reliable for the US in the last 50 years. Much more reliable than India, which was seeking its own way between nato and warschaw pakt.
From this foreign policy standpoint, Pakistan is better ally than India.
I don't know much about both countries, but from that what I know, Pakistan appears to me as more logical host country for terrorism than India.
The strong isn't that strong as not to be in need to locale allies. And Pakistan appeared to be a stable partner.
This might change when - out of frustration to not be able to keep up with economic growth rate of other asian neighbours - parts of middle classes get ready to form leadership of a radical movement with religious overtones.
(deja-vu of anti-USSR Mujahedijn).
This might happen or might not happen.
I don't know much about southern asia (70% of my knowledge is from MD). Maybe I think trash about Pakistan.
regards Axel

[Ashok Mash]

Originally posted by Axel Janssen:
I don't know much about southern asia (70% of my knowledge is from MD).

Well that's pretty much true about many others in here in MD, except that they don't seems to realise their level of ignorance when it comes to SE Asia region!
Rufus thinks Kashmir should be in Pakistan since they are majority Muslims! That�s just as tasteless as saying all Jews should live in Israel! As Ravish correctly pointed out there are more Muslims in India than in Pakistan, and India IS very much a secular state. Did I hear someone saying that my neighbors and some of my best friends should go to Pakistan? HA! It�s funnier than the silly things President Bush says now and then!
Axel, you could be right in saying if US find Pakistan as a better ally, but I am afraid that�s not in the right sense though. Stability-wise, Pakistan almost never had a proper democratic system going � They were ruled by many military dictators for more almost all of the last 50 years after independence, and most of them came into power through bloody coups and political murders and massacres. Even Pakistani's wouldn't dispute the fact that Pakistan's Military has always been and still controlling each and every decision their democratic face of government is doing. Anti-India feeling is the only thing that holds that country together, and politicians and the military administration knows that better than anyone else.
In contrary, India never had a military coup in last 50 years, and its proudly the largest and consistent democratic administration that�s going on since 1947. India was never too warm to any side during cold-war either, in the beginning. India was pushed hard to sought help from the USSR after Pakistan successfully lobbied America to take a stand (which they did, and moved their nave fleet near Indian coast) against India during the early cold-war stages.
I believe what the America sees in Pakistan is a �easy to manipulate�-ally than a 'consistant ally' or 'an ally based on principles'. By turning the right knobs (bribe/fund/pressure at the right people with dictatorial powers) anyone (even India ) can get Pakistan (and its military, intelligence etc) do things that they need without any sort of consensus from its people, like funding Afghan militia against USSR, for example. Its nearly impossible to get stuff like that out of India, as Indian administration is as transparent as it gets, media is as widespread as it gets in a developing country, and every (well, almost) Ramu, Shyamu and Saleem in India is aware of his own rights and had means (functional judicial system with power over the state, political parties, campaigners, free media) to get their voice heard, unlike clueless Pakistani�s who get told what they need to know (sandwiched between some religions reasoning) and some military dictator/general runs the show for them.
Hence, America and the rest of the west might find an �easy-ally� with Pakistan, but IMHO, they are only repeating their mistakes. Iraq, and now Pakistan, the West funds them to meet their demand-of-the hours (bust Russians, or Taliban) and assumes that it�s the end of the story, where as others in the region (Indians for example) stay low and count their dead, slaughtered down by the Pakistan-based militants.
What a sad state of affairs!!
[ February 11, 2004: Message edited by: Ashok Mash ]

[Ashok Mash]

Originally posted by Paul Stevens:
We are waiting on Pakistan to find some oil fields so we can then act.

Thank heavens; India doesn�t have any oil reserves!

[Paul McKenna]

Originally posted by Ashok Mash:
Thank heavens; India doesn�t have any oil reserves!

Wrong! India has huge oil reserves off Bombay coast - offshore drilling and in AP. Rajahmundry to be precise. (someone told me that Rajahmundry produces enough barrels a day to reduce the oil price in India by half but government regulation wont let the price drop, but I have no idea about the truth in this)

[Ashok Mash]

Originally posted by Joe King:
Pakistan is a bit of an enigma.

This is the issue that I am afraid of - the West seems to have no clear idea of the level of threat thats there. I should say Pakistan's PR is doing a pretty good job, indeed.
There are continued rumours of terrorist training camps, there is a leader who has a slightly dodgy democratic record, and most worrying of all, they seem to have sold nukes to so called "rogue" states (ok, the guy said it was just him, bit who believes that the govt had nothing to do with it?).
Continued rumors? Well, I can understand if you don't believe FBI/CIA after 9/11 and WMD, but every other intelligence agency in this planet has commented on it, and their man who did the actual bit of sales and 'proliferation' came out said, "Yeah, I did it, so what?". And its still a rumor for most in the West!
On the other hand, Pakistan is not likely to ever use its weapons directly because India is sitting next-door and slightly trigger-happy.
'Oops' again! India, is the one who is afraid of Pakistan�s trigger-happy attitude. If you care to note, India clearly stated that we can not get rid of our nukes, because everyone KNOW for a fact that Pakistan can not get rid of their nukes, even if they want to - because its hardly controlled by a democratic setup - its all in the hands of their military 'mafia', and the world knows it (as I said earlier, even Pakistani's would agree to this). Even then, India did announce a 'no-first-use' policy, which basically says India will NEVER use nukes against anybody, unless someone does that to them. Isn't that as clean enough? And yet, the West thinks India is trigger-happy!!
My worry is that it could turn into another Iraq - a country that was initially supported by the West, but then came back to make them regret it.
I share the exact same feelings! I sincerely hope someone will put a lid on the bottle before it gets out of hand!
Pakistan vs India is the most likely place where the second war involving atomic weopans could occur.
Yes, as long as Pakistan has nukes and they are run by organizations with religious interests, than its people!
Just my thoughts!

[Ashok Mash]

Originally posted by Paul McKenna:

Wrong! India has huge oil reserves off Bombay coast - offshore drilling and in AP. Rajahmundry to be precise.

The ' ' was just for that!
Well, on a foot note, thats hardly comparable to that of Iraq though - I hear they use crude oil to shave and wash!

[Don Stadler]

Wasn't there something smelly about the way Kashmir ended up in India at partition-time? Could some who are more familiar with the issue discuss this?

[Ashok Mash]

Originally posted by Don Stadler:
Wasn't there something smelly about the way Kashmir ended up in India at partition-time? Could some who are more familiar with the issue discuss this?

If others wont mind me straying off from the main topic for a while to answer this question, this is what I know about that.
At the time of partition, all the princely states and other regions of British-India was given a choice to join either India or Pakistan. Muslim majority states in the NorthEast (which is now Pakistan) naturally joined Pakistan, and so did the Muslim majority region in SouthEast corner of India, forming 'East Pakistan' (and later a different country, Bangladesh). As an exception to this general logic, Nizam, the ruler of Muslim majority region, Hydrabad, joined India (being in the middle of rest of India and away from Pakistan), after initial arguments of independent nation status. (I could be wrong here, please correct me if I am).
Meanwhile, a Hindu king ruled Kashmir, but with majority of its people were Muslims. King of Kashmir (his name slips my mind), was reluctant to join either India or Pakistan because he was certain that his Hindu population wouldn't be happy there, and vice versa. But, while he was taking his time to decide, Pakistan tactfully initiated Muslim tribal migration to Kashmir on the hope that somehow they can overpower this King and get Kashmir to join Pakistan (for strategically important region, military-wise, that is). The King of Kashmir was highly worried about the development and somehow dodged his assassins (not too sure about this) and decided to join India to protect his kingdom from the migrant invaders. One of the terms of the condition of joining India was that India need to provide immediate protection to the state, which they did by sending in their military there to protect Jammu and Kashmir, and promptly declared it as a state in India.
Pakistan, could never digest that fact and been faring many wars (open, proxy, diplomatic and PR) against India over that issue.
Now this is my understanding of the issue! Please feel free to correct me!

[Paul McKenna]

Originally posted by Ashok Mash:
Muslim majority states in the NorthEast (which is now Pakistan) naturally joined Pakistan, and so did the Muslim majority region in SouthEast corner of India, forming 'East Pakistan' (and later a different country, Bangladesh).

Northwest India - Pakistan and Eastern India - Bangladesh.
For more information one can refer to this site. This is a site run by muslims from Kashmir who equivocally state that Kashmir legally belongs to India

[Sadanand Murthy]

Originally posted by Joe King:
On the other hand, Pakistan is not likely to ever use its weopans directly because India is sitting next door and slightly trigger happy.

Oh boy! Talk about having the wires completely crossed. India has publicly stated more than once that her "no 1st use" policy on nukes. What this basically means is that India will never be the 1st to use the nukes in the event of a war but reserves the right to respond in kind in the event of a nuclear attack on her. Pakistan, on the other hand, has equally publicly stated that Pakistan will not agree to no 1st use policy where their nukes are concerned and that they reserve the right to use nukes in the event of a war with India.
Joe, can you please tell us why you believe India is trigger-happy? The last war between India & Pakistan was fought in 1999 in Kargill region of Kashmir. Kargill is in Indian part of Kashmir. The Pakistani army crossed the line of control (LOC) between the 2 countries into the Indian side & waged the war. Gen. Musharraf was the head of Pak. military at that time. When Indian troops had driven the Pakistani forces out of Kargill they wanted to follow them into the Pakistan side of the LOC. The Indian govt. refused them that permission & showed remarkable restraint on their part.
Also, during this Kargill war, Gen. Musharraf wanted to use nukes on India. How do we know this? Coutesy CIA. At that time Pakistan's decocratically elected Prime Minister Nawaz Shariff was visiting US & met with the then Pres. Clinton. During that mtg Clinton presented unrefutable evidence to Nawaz Shariff about the intended plans of Musharraf. This was shocking news to Nawaz Shariff himself. It was then that he issued the order to cease fire & pull back. He also had intentions of arresting Musharraf but was instead deposed by Musharraf in a military coup.
In December 2001, islamic terrorists trained in Pakistan attacked the heart of Indian government & democracy - they attacked the Indian parliament. What do you think US would have done if US Capitol was attacked like that by terrorists? So India amassed her troops on the Indo-Pak border because they felt that that was the last straw. At that time India very nearly went into Pakistan. Would that have been trigge-happy? I think not.
The earlier 2 wars between India & Pakistan were fought in 1971 & 1965. Both times, Pakistan had a military dictator who was apparently having trouble domestically. What better excuse to than to attack India, their arch enemy?
Since 1989 (about the time that mujahiddeen ended in Afghanistan when the then SU left that country), Islamic terrorism exploded in India & particularly in Kashmir. There were a lot of hindus then in Kashmir (albeit not the majority). There was a massive exodus of hindus from Kashmir as a result of this terrorism. So, it would be futile to even have a referendom in Kashmir. Perhaps Rufus was just musing so in the interest of peace between the 2 countries. But that would lead to a very dangerous precedent.
Regardless, if religion/race is to be used to carve out countries, how about creating a separate country for the Kurds? Or how about letting the Irish catholics secede from GB? What about the various religious followers in US? Are we then to say that if people of a particular relgion/race in US want to secede they should be able to do that solely on that criterion?
Rufus wondered if it wouldn't be better if India & Pakistan were friendly neighbors? Most definitely, yes. From the very bottom of my heart I would like to see the 2 countries as friends, nay as brothers for indeed that is what we were before the partition. Too much blood has been shed (most of it innocent) on both sides, too much misery has been injected into people's lives by this strife. But I will settle, now, for cordial relations.
Pakistan is a very poor country. The people lack even basic health care that even Indians have access to (& India is a far cry from US). Recently there was a news item about a Pakistani couple bringing their son to India for an eye trasplant. The family members were angry at the parents for even considering going to India. But they did; the doctors transplanted an Indian's (evidently recently deceased Indian) eye into the toddler & he can see now. After the whole thing, the mother said that she was very apprehensive about going to India but that the treatment she received by Indians in India was the opposite of what she had dreaded. She said that the majority of the common people in both countries can leave peacfully with each other.
There was another case where heart surgeons in Mumbai performed a successful surgery on a Pakistan't girl. This is what I'd like to see - peaceful, helpful collaborative co-existence between the 2 countries. Wonder if the recent thaw between India & Pakistan will amount to anything more substantial.

[Jason Menard]

Pakistans's thoughts on India's statement of "No First Use".
http://www.fas.org/news/pakistan/1999/990819-pak-pr.htm

Neither Pakistan nor the international community, can be taken in by India's so-called "no-first-use" policy. No-first-use has never been accepted as the basis for determining the deterrent postures of any of the Nuclear Weapon States. Indeed, India itself places no credibility in 'no-first-use'. If it did, it should have accepted China's assurance of 'no-first-use' and of non-use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapon States. This would have obviated the need for India's nuclear weapons acquisition and made unnecessary the operational deployment of nuclear weapons. Non-deployment, in turn, would make 'no-first-use' declarations unnecessary.
India's 'no-first-use' declaration is, in fact, designed to secure for itself "recognition" as a nuclear weapon state which would flow from the "acceptance" of its no-frist-use and non-use "assurances". It is for this purpose that India has offered to ratify the non-use assurance Protocol to the Treaty establishing the South-East Asia Nuclear Weapon Free Zone. Secondly, India will seek to justify the acquisition of a large nuclear arsenal by arguing that its nuclear forces should be large enough to sustain and retaliate against a nuclear first strike. The doctrine issue yesterday states that India's nuclear forces "shall be designed and deployed to ensure survival against a first strike and to endure repetitive attrition attempts with adequate retaliatory capabilities". It envisages a triad of nuclear forces including "aircraft, mobile, land-based missiles and sea-based assets". This would require a huge arsenal. According to a study published in the United States, India possesses over 1600 Kg of fissile material which can be used to produce over 400 nuclear warheads. this will have to be taken into account by all countries which are threatened by India's nuclear weapon arsenal.

[ February 11, 2004: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

[Paul McKenna]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
http://www.fas.org/news/pakistan/1999/990819-pak-pr.htm

Just one flaw in that viewpoint - India did not seek Nuclear weapons as a deterrent against China. India knows its nuclear capability is nowhere in comparison to China's but it sought the deterrent as a balance against Pakistan.
Pakistan declared to the world that it had gone nuclear weeks after India's nuclear tests. This could only mean that Pakistan was already nuclear and India knew about it well in advance while the rest of the world did not.

[Sadanand Murthy]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
Pakistans's thoughts on India's statement of "No First Use".
http://www.fas.org/news/pakistan/1999/990819-pak-pr.htm

[ February 11, 2004: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

As far as India & Pakistan are concerned, each country pooh-poohs whatever the other country says regarding internal matters, foreign policy, nuclear armament etc.
Historically, if you see, India has shown restraint when she had full right (especially in view of GWB's pre-emptive strike policy) to strike the terrorist centers whether they are based in Kashmir, PoK (Pak. occupied K) or in Pakistan itself. And if India were to do so, no one in the world, least of all US can blame or censure India. However, India has not done so; came very near to doing so in 2001.
In the event of a war between India & Pakistan, India will not need to use the nuclear armament because even in conventional armament just in sheer numbers India has an edge, a fairly wide edge. In this scenario, due to size & numbers if Pakistan feels that they won't be able to match India in conventional weaponry, they may resort to their nukes. That would be most unfortunate since that will result in retaliatory nuke attack. And this will cause unimaginable destruction on both sides. Personally, I don't think that this will ever happen due to MAD principle as long as Pakistan's governance doesn't fall into the hands of terrorists. Then, all bets are off. The whole world will be a scary place to live in.

[Falana Dhimkana]

Originally posted by Sadanand Murthy:

In December 2001, islamic terrorists trained in Pakistan attacked the heart of Indian government & democracy - they attacked the Indian parliament. What do you think US would have done if US Capitol was attacked like that by terrorists? So India amassed her troops on the Indo-Pak border because they felt that that was the last straw. At that time India very nearly went into Pakistan. Would that have been trigge-happy? I think not.

So the Indian parliament gets attacked by terrorists and India amasses troops on the border. How exactly did that help India? What would India have done assuming it attacked and defeated Pakistan? Install a puppet government? How would that war have helped solve/contain the terrorist attack or even terrorism in general? All the troop buildup was a political ploy that most Indians fell for. Basically the Indian govt was saying that Islamic terrorists attacked parliament (and since we have no way of tracking and containing terrorism), we will just attack Pakistan to get even. It was a completely irrational response that did nothing to help India but make it look like a trigger-happy nation

[Don Stadler]

Pardon me. Didn't India 'go nuclear' sometime in the 1970's? I don't believe it was a recent development....

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Don Stadler:
Pardon me. Didn't India 'go nuclear' sometime in the 1970's? I don't believe it was a recent development....

I'm pretty sure it was 1998.

[Arjun Shastry]

It was in May 1974 and then in 1998.

[Paul McKenna]

Originally posted by Don Stadler:
Pardon me. Didn't India 'go nuclear' sometime in the 1970's? I don't believe it was a recent development....

Actually there is a flaw in that. In late 1960s and early 1970s the then Indian PM ordered the Indian military to explore the possibility of developing a nuclear deterrent. India was reeling after a recent loss to China in Kashmir and a war with Pakistan was brewing on the western front.
So In 1974, India went nuclear by conducting 2 underground controlled explosions. It was then widely held by the world that India had arrived on the nuclear state. However documents later on proved that those tests were a failure and did not prove anything conclusive. India truly went nuclear in 1998, exactly 51 years after independence.

[Arjun Shastry]

Originally posted by Ashok Mash:

As an exception to this general logic, Nizam, the ruler of Muslim majority region, Hydrabad, joined India (being in the middle of rest of India and away from Pakistan), after initial arguments of independent nation status. (I could be wrong here, please correct me if I am).

Yes ,there were many arguments.Army was sent in which 15000 people from both sides died and Hyderabad was megred with India.

Meanwhile, a Hindu king ruled Kashmir, but with majority of its people were Muslims. King of Kashmir (his name slips my mind),

Hari Singh!!

.Now this is my understanding of the issue! Please feel free to correct me!

The agreement also said that this contract of merging Kashmir(2/3 of Kashmir) with India is temporary.Hari Singh and Kashmiri people had already lost 1/3 of Kashmmir to Pakistan.During this,USA showed interest to 'help' Pakistan by sending army/ship to check USSR which was not too far from Kashmir.USSR used veto in UN in 1948,thereby counterchecked US move of forming military base there.
After 2/3 of Kashmir mergerd with India,Abdullah (who also did signed that contract as a leader of Kashmiri people) demanded that Kashmir must be made a seperate country and election must be held.India declined on basis that 1/3 of Kashmir should be merged with 2/3 part before holding any election.Pakistan rejected that idea of merging 1/3 part with India's 2/3 part.Region was cool until USSR left Afghanistan in 1989 after which again problem came on international scene as many US trained Jihadis were directed towards Kashmir .

[Jason Cox]

Yeah, Pakistan and Saudia Arabia are enigmas to me. I worry about some of our "allies".
However, we can't fight a war on every front either. I think it's a bit much to expect us to fight every battle at once or none at all. I really do consider Iraq to be more of a threat than Pakistan. After all, we've seen links to terrorist groups, Saddam paying terrorists for successful attacks, a lot of suspect activity there (No WMD's found, but an awful lot of experts and strange facilities for a country that is not supposed to be acquiring or building WMD's).
That said, while I think Iraq is a bigger threat than Pakistan, I consider Saudia Arabia to be a bigger threat than Iraq. They're as bad about turning a blind eye to terrorist activity as Bush is to corporate scandals. These are our friends?

[Devesh H Rao]

Originally posted by Rufus BugleWeed:
I was thinking last night that if most of the people in Kashmir are Muslims, may be Kashmir should be in Pakistan. If there was peace between the neighboring countries, Indians could always go there on vacation. Nobody would be deprived of the great scenary.
Wouldn't it be nice if two lands that have been connected for centuries could live in peace? Wouldn't it be nice if the US did not have to worry about fingers on the trigger between India and Pakistan?

Just had to reply to this without reading further.....
Rufus do you really mean what u said or did your fingers just type it out while your mind was wandering somewhere in kashmir ......
i really need to know if the comment needs to be taken seriously and replied to :roll: ...
[Added after reading the other posts] i think my job is done
[ February 12, 2004: Message edited by: Devesh H Rao ]

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:

As does India's nuclear arsenal.

And so US's nuclear arsenal.
Who lives in glass house, they dont throw stones on other's house.

"Proof by Opinion as Fact", "Proof by Dismissal", or "Proof by Termination"?

your wish to choose whatever you want..
OR there was any answer... ??

[Mark Fletcher]

Originally posted by R K Singh:

And so US's nuclear arsenal.
Who lives in glass house, they dont throw stones on other's house.

So lets see, a summary of the more interesting parts of this thread so far.
RKS: Id like to criticise the USA's double standards on how it conducts its relations with other nations
JM: Wouldnt it be nice if Pakistan and India could just get along and we the USA wouldnt have to worry about both countries having nuclear weapons?
RKS: Dont butt into Indias business.
MF: But youre already criticising the USA on how it does its relates to other countries... arent you taking a double standard in your argument?
JM: Bunch of interesting facts, India has a nuclear arsenal.
RKS: So does the USA. People in glass houses shouldnt throw stones.
"People in glass houses shouldnt throw stones".
Well I guess if you practiced what you preach RK Singh, you wouldnt have started this pointless thread in the first place.
[ February 12, 2004: Message edited by: Mark Fletcher ]