Thread: 2 Million troops on the border

And i do blame the Americans for playing a double eged sword game. For them it looks like one part of terrorism is not the same as terrorism in the other part.

i find that quite agreeable. if i remember correctly, until about 2 years ago, US was supporting Pakistan. then changed when they saw that Pakistan was not being reasonable and that is around when musharaff came into power. now we dont know where america stands. with the 'war on terrorism' going on, one might think they are for india, because india is not directing its attack on pakistan, but on terrorists that pakistan is allegedly supporting and hiding on their land. so why is US waiting so long for. if it is war on true "terrorism"USA would care about this. but all they are concerned is about gaining attention by going on a "bin-ladin hunt".

us also has to look out for it's own interests. If india an pakistan do go to war, as in my opinion, us will have to help one of them, but which one? will it be india, or will it be pakistan who is us getting help from in it's wot. either way, there will be some loss for the us. i don't think that us wants to loose the cooperation from pakistan or the realationship with india, so us will have to hold the war till us's own war finishes. but i must warn you, in case of war, it will be really hard stopping the countries from using nukes.

one more thought, i heard that kashmir is one of the most beautiful places on earth!!!!! y would you wan't to screw it up????? do you want to c the whole place blown up???....good, cause neither do i...... damnit!! who the **** give a damn about who has it....now I know what u r gonna bring it up.......but i don't care, a nuclear war, which will blow up kashmir into pieces, just to regain control of the place, is just not worth it

India has come a long way from the colonial times. I think it has turned a full circle.

I wish Ghandi's non violent resistance was adopted universially. He certainly had an impression on me.

India seemed to worship his memory and ideals, when I visited in the '80's. Had such a strong independence, everything had to be made in India, no imports. A country with endless history and tradition (compared to mine). (I toured playing hockey, had a lot of fun with the guys from the colleges in New Delhi.)

There is no easy answer to the situation in Kashmir but there is a choice to be made by India. (I don't think Pakistan has the will or opportunity)

That choice is to go to war (easy but wrong) or to passively and patiently resist. (very hard but right)

>Germany screaming in outrage that a US base is cutting down some trees

Cutting down some trees ? You want to turn a green, sprouting wood into a barren wasteland to practice tank maneuvering. Please note that just because it isn't marketed, you can't buy stickers and lolipops, something might still be a national park. You wanted to use squaremiles of German protected soil to play wargames and when you are done, you leave it that way for us to rebuild. I could understand that in the time when your positions here were in danger of immediate attack by the Warsaw Pact. What are you afraid of now ? Denmark ? The evil Swiss ? If you need to eradicate a healthy piece of nature, could you be so kind and do that in your own country ? I heard Redwood has some nice trees. I guess we send some Panzers over there, we need practice.

If you cut down our trees, it's our problem, but I fail to see why we shouldn't blame you for it.

Oh, and by the way, does the name Kyoto ring a bell ?

From news reports I've read, India isn't blameless in the way it treats citizens, muslim citizens anyway, of Kashmir. They're sort of (sort of, not exactly) like Israelis and Palestinians. This doesn't excuse the terrorism of Pakistan based groups, but gives it some context.
What I want to know is, given that most Kashmiris are muslim and want to be part of Pakistan, why does the India want to keep it so desperately? This is a question, not an accusation.
These types of conflicts are almost always unwinnable for either side. Serbs and Croats are still ........ed about 1000 year old events, Israelis claim land promised them in the bible 3000 years ago, yada yada yada. My ancestors came from Scotland. I've got a beef with Cromwell back in the 1600's. Don't even mention those Norse Viking bastards. Death to anyone different from me!

Sounds pretty damn stupid, doesn't it. And btw, thinking Pakistan wouldn't dare to use nuclear weapons is pretty damn stupid. Not a case for "Duh! guess I was wrong..."

i heard that kashmir is one of the most beautiful places on earth!!!!! y would you wan't to screw it up????? do you want to c the whole place blown up???....good, cause neither do i...... damnit!! who the **** give a damn about who has it....

I agree that Kashmir is a beautiful place and a tourist station too. but i DO give a damn about it, and i am sure that every indian who knows even half of the truth cares and "gives a damn about it". If Kashmir remains in the control of Pakistan, it wont be a beautiful place for long. they are gonna transform it into a playground and a domain for the terrorist groups that dwell on (technically) Indian land like parasites. and what's worse is that pakistan supports them and fuels them. there are rumors that they pay the terrorists to continue their activities and occasionally terrorize india. they kill so many innocent civilians and women & children. that makes me sick!

so, if you want to see kashmir in its prime and beauty as it ever was, india has to regain control of that land. not only that, but Pakistan has to discontinue their terrorist activities near the border...

peace has no place now. maybe about 10 years before there might have been a chance, but now matters have gone too far.

most Kashmiris are muslim and want to be part of Pakistan, why does the India want to keep it so desperately?

i'l tell you what, kashmir had almost equal number of hindus and muslims. during the partition in 1947, many hindus and muslims splitted and moved away, but many still resided there. the terrorism in kashmir caused many of the hindus to move out because life became hell to them. they were the main targets of the terrorism. so, pakistan has no "legal right" on the land of kashmir. it politically and regionally belonged to india. during the partition pakistan agreed that the land it got was enough... but later, it attacks india saying that kashmir belongs to them! what kind of law is that?

i hate to say it but the best thing that could happen to this world would be if pakistan was wiped off the face of the earth.

Here's a question. When did India become a country? I know it achieved independence in the 1940's, but was it really a country before that, or before the British imposed a structure? The impression I get is that it was a mix of local kingdoms, various maharajahs ruling their own little areas, at least until the British came.
Admittedly, this view comes from Rudyard Kipling and the like. But was it a country, a nation, before the British?

[i]Originally posted by nvoigt
What are you afraid of now ? Denmark ?

You bet! What's up with their furniture and architecture design? Don't even mention lutefisk. And didn't ABBA come from there? Reason enough to nuke 'em...

there are champions in war. whether it is seen as a win, or not...is superficial.

Originally posted by Unregistered


It is easy to tell your an american by how little you know about scandinavia.

Well, I looked on a map and couldn't find scandinavia. Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Netherlands, Norway, etc, but no scandinavia. I was just having a little fun, don't get all worked up about it. Except the ABBA part, they're really a low point in any culture.