2 Million troops on the border

**stevey** · 06-03-2002

>>and the british, ya they will surely favour you, we know that, b/c they favoured you at time of partition and they still do. we will never expect that britisher will talk just b/c they were never just the first place and its due to their MOUNT BATTEN that today this dispute stand in way of peace as a hurdle b/w india & Pakistan

well the Indian guys were blaming the British for partitioning India into a separate Muslim state and causing all the friction between India/pakistan, saying there should never have been a separate state of Pakistan. now you Pakistani guys did want an independant state didn't you ?? or do you want to be part of India ?? its due to Mountbatten that you have a separate state because that was the consensus of the people, we just tried to be democratic, and Indians seem to blame Britain for this partition. Mountbatten was just trying his best to be fair with limited time available.

if there had been a vote in Kashmir and it had become part of Pakistan then India wouldn't have accepted it, there would have been a war and partition of Kashmir regardless. the ruler of Kashmir and his muslim rival both decided to come to India, the British accepted this and didn't realise how important the matter would prove to be. it was considered just another province/region. that was a big mistake true.

but both sides blame Britain, looks like damned if you do, damned if you don't.........

the reason you both seem to hate each other is not Britain's fault, i'm sick of hearing both sides blame Britain, you ought to look at yourselves, not us.

now if you say Britain should never have set foot on the Indian sub-continent, thats a different argument altogether, and who would disagree ?? (but you'd only be speaking French or Dutch instead).
but in 1947 i think Britain tried her best to be fair.

**Clyde** · 06-03-2002

"i agree with everything you say Clyde, except you may be over emphasising the water aspect"

Fair enough, the reason i thought it was true, was because i heard from someone i know who's from Pakistan and seems to have a fairly unbiased opinion (she certainly not pro Pakistan), and that's what she told me, though it may be that she was in turn told that by someone who knew naught.

Basically she told me that the reason Pakistan was terrified of giving Kashmir to India was that virtually the entire water supply for the country passes through there, she also said that the last time India had control over it they shut it off. If she's wrong, i'll have to berate her for telling me wrong stuff! Grrr!

**Clyde** · 06-03-2002

"Can't you see its the matter of lifes & will of Kashmiris who are being slaughtered every day by indian forces occupying Kashmir"

I have not heard of Kashmiri's being slaughtered by the indian occupying forces. (Doesn't mean it doesn't happen, but it means i'm dubious; if there was large scale slaughter going on it you would think it would be in the press)

"Tell if usa finds out that it is nothing in front of russia in terms of cconventional weapons, will it ASSURE Russia that even if it goes down it WILL NOT use it nukes?"

Probably not, but why dear God take the US as a role model for foreign policy!??

**sean** · 06-03-2002

Wow... big post. SOrry if someone already asked this, but I'm NOT reading this whole thing. I heard rumors about this turning nuclear. Any news?

**stevey** · 06-03-2002

Originally posted by Clyde
"i agree with everything you say Clyde, except you may be over emphasising the water aspect"

Fair enough, the reason i thought it was true, was because i heard from someone i know who's from Pakistan and seems to have a fairly unbiased opinion (she certainly not pro Pakistan), and that's what she told me, though it may be that she was in turn told that by someone who knew naught.

Basically she told me that the reason Pakistan was terrified of giving Kashmir to India was that virtually the entire water supply for the country passes through there, she also said that the last time India had control over it they shut it off. If she's wrong, i'll have to berate her for telling me wrong stuff! Grrr!

looking at my atlas, looks like 1 in 3 of the main rivers is in kashmir, not one in 4/5. mebe thats what it said. still a large proportion esp if water is in short supply. but the article was poo pooing the emphasis on water, saying india has never interfered with water supply, nor would, nor could really.

**seditee** · 06-03-2002

did you hear chris mathews ( hardball ) going on about how we could become another japan ( hinting to the 2 bombs we dropped during wwII )? that was idiotic; for one thing...that ended the war for japan, it would only spawn a greater war for us. another thing...japan didn't have nuclear weapons, we do. so...if japan had been hit...& they did have nuclear weapons...they would have responded unkindly at the time. why do people make such wacked-out comparisons and analogies on television?

**xds4lx** · 06-04-2002

Who cares about india, my experience with indians is that they are the most closed minded people on the face of the planet, unwilling to accept anyone else's ideas other than their own. I hope pakistan nukes the whole damn country!

**vasanth** · 06-04-2002

Well when we know we are right and absolutely right we have no reasons to hear to any one... Well nuke us.. And remove pakistan from the atlas.... The nation has decided not to take this **** any more from pakistan..

And have you guys seen the rating of Imigrants in UK.. and on what scale pakistanis are.. I read that Pakistanis and Bangladeshis or the lowest regarded in many countries..
But who cares....

**furrukhsana** · 06-04-2002

i am sorry to tell you guys that i will not be able to participate in this discussion which has turned out out to be a debate, since i have ran out of internet hours. ut before leaving i want to give guys my concludatory words on this dispute & curruent situation.

first for those concerned for nuclear war. so i want to make it clear that in international diplomacy saying is one thing & doing it another. i mean to say when the general said that he will might have to use nukes, he not necessorily meant it. we all know that both india & Pakistan in past have maintained that non of them will use the nukes first. the sudden change in Pakistani policy is only for making india realise that if he intend to win a war by conventional means & try to eleminate Pakistan than he must also keep in mind the aspect of war going nuclear. this move of words was intented to put pressure on india to keep away from attacking us, in which Pakistan has become successful & now there are reports coming of the situation calming slowly but surely. for indians who are concerned, there own def. mins has ruled out chances of war going nuclear just yesterday. So i think any one with little sense of politics & diplomacy should consider this move of wordings a smart move.now you understand why i used the word "ASSURE" in my last post in block letters.

on the other those who who blame Pakistan for suporting terrorists crossing LoC, i have this to say.
wel all know the high number of indian troops along LoC and in Kashmir, they are enough to form a human chain along the entire LoC why don't the stop the crossing if any themselves ( do not compare this to pak-afghan border as you did previously, for the reason i have given in my prevoius posts).and even still if india insist that there is crossing along LoC then why does it agree on the pakistani advise of increasing the number of UN observers along the LoC. The only reason i & anyone with a little sense would give that this is b/c india has something to hide unlike Pakistan which gave this advise. Tell me can india itself be both the the accuser and the judge. I don't think this fair in any sense.

i will gone for sometime but as soon i get back on the net i will come here. Mean while i advise people here to talk justice and let go of there ATTITUDE b/c confession is good for soul. and vasaant try to talk about the real issue and give some facts here instead of just throwing away illegations and talking rubbish

**Clyde** · 06-04-2002

" but the article was poo pooing the emphasis on water, saying india has never interfered with water supply, nor would, nor could really"

Hmm, i just spoke with her, she said that she had been told there already was a dam in the disputed terratory that had been closed, when India was in control of it.

But she said she might be wrong, bleh! Now i have to do some digging!

**vasanth** · 06-04-2002

Talk sense buddy.. Do you think the troops are all over the border with each of them holding hands.. Troops are in the forms of batalions concentrated in different places. There is no way the entire broder can be monitored...
And musharaf seems to threten the world with his nukes.. And abot the water issue.. India has said it will never stop it and it never did even during 1971 war and even during the kargil..

Well on independent observers on infiltration. that is what india is planing to do with US.. The US dint act hastily it came to the conclution that Pakistan supported cross border terrorism when it saw solid proof... And i am not takking rubbish budy. I am talking facts which you are not.. I agree with some of your views but that does not seem to reflect the views of pakistan,...

Well i am not speaking now.. Because what ever i say.. He feels it is allegation... Well what do the members of this board think. that is more important.. It is a fact that he will defend pakistan and i will defend india.. So what do you guys think on cross border Terrorism....... And justify yourself with a reson.. Is pakistan supporting Cross Border Terrorism.. The decesion is in your hands...

**Clyde** · 06-04-2002

Hmm.. well from what i've read so far about the water thing seems she was wrong. (doh!).

Anyway what i think about the whole thing; both sides seem completely blind. You can see it right here on the message board, two sides blithely sticking to their "group", refusing to concede any points, utterly convinced that they are in the right.

In my opinion Pakistan is the (slightly) more sympathetic of the two (and only if what Musharaff says is true: ie. that they aren't actually helping the terrorists) because it is backing a referendum.

The people who kill innocent men, women and children are terrorists, in my opinion there terrorism is not justifiable.

All this over a few freaking mountains, what a waste, of human time, effort, resources and lives.

**vasanth** · 06-04-2002

Well the whole world knows that Musharaf cannot keep his promise.. And he just proved it.... Well that is why All the countries forced him .. And said that he has to keep up his word... I am sure that if pakistan was in Indias position it would bargain with thretening to cut of water.. Which India is not doing...

**Zeeshan** · 06-04-2002

>> ... I am sure that if pakistan was in Indias position it would bargain with thretening to cut of water.. Which India is not doing...

Which world do you live in ? India's PM Wajpai has already threatened Pakistan to cut the water supply and break out of the water treaty.

In a very recent speech, he said (quote),

"We will cut the water-supply to Pakistan. Pakistan will beg for each drop of water."

Just the last week, a conference of high level indian gov. officials was held in Delhi to discuss how this would be done. But, it is not as easy a task as you think, it would require building dams, which would take atleast 10 yrs...

>> two sides blithely sticking to their "group", refusing to concede any points, utterly convinced that they are in the right.

What can the Pakistani side do? Vasanth has not even said a word about the historical facts that i have mentioned.

Pakistan wants a referendum and that's it. What wrong with holding a referendum. If India thinks, Kashmiris want to live with them, why don't they agree to hold a referendum? Whats wrong with that?

>> The people who kill innocent men, women and children are terrorists, in my opinion there terrorism is not justifiable.

Then, the mentioned terrorists are INDIAN ARMY. The freedom-fight by the militants has just started since, 1989. Even before, 1989, a/c to Amnesty Internationals' report, more than 50,000 people had gotten killed. Who killed them ? No one else was there. INDIAN SOLDIERS did...

They have been continuously hurting, raping, killing, looting the common people of the valley.

>> So what do you guys think on cross border Terrorism....... And justify yourself with a reson.. Is pakistan supporting Cross Border Terrorism.. The decesion is in your hands...

That's the wrong question. The question should be,

"So what do you guys think, to whom should Kashmir go ?"

I've mentioned the necessary historical facts, which Vasanth don't even care to consider.

**Clyde** · 06-04-2002

"What can the Pakistani side do?"

You have a point, it is claimed that it could do a lot more to help cut down on the terrorists.

"What wrong with holding a referendum"

Nothing i agree, completely.

"They have been continuously hurting, raping, killing, looting the common people of the valley."

Even if what you say is true (and i'm still dubious), so what? Are you trying to say that because pre-1989 the Indian army killed innocent people in Kashmir that makes it ok, for terrorist to blow up more innocent people now?

Thread: 2 Million troops on the border

Thread Tools

Search Thread

Display

Similar Threads

[C++] Drawing a window border with asterisks

Button and edit control border

Listbox border size different to Tree View?

Debugging link error

German Troops