Close Topic Options

India vs Pakistan - Page 4

[quote]

The next think to analyze... if a war were to develop between Pakistan and India - who would most likely come out the victor?[/quote]

Do you all think there will be bilateral wars ever again? That is just two countries slugging it out between themselves? Without the rest of the world taking sides? Can they just stand by the sidelines and just watch?

Nowadays, each time there is a conflict somewhere, it has the potential to develop into a regional one and even the possibility of becoming a world war. Scary thought!

Pakistan India

If left to themselves, India would walk all over Pakistan.
I seriously doubt Pakistan could rally much support from other nations. They are not hugely popular in the Arab world, are geographically isolated enough that other Arab nations would make a lot of noise about their "Arab brothers", but do nothing.

India vs Pakistan History & Civil Business Politics

[quote]If left to themselves, India would walk all over Pakistan[/quote]
And you choose to back Pakistan anyway? I never knew you were a supporter of the underdog.

Page 4 Pakistan India

[quote]
And you choose to back Pakistan anyway? I never knew you were a supporter of the underdog.[/quote]
Actually, like most Americans, I have a soft spot for the underdog.

That is why I find the Palestinian situation so ludricrous.

But the main thing for me is, Pakistan backed our play, and you don't turn your back on a man who backed you.

Pakistan India

[quote]
But the main thing for me is, Pakistan backed our play, and you don't turn your back on a man who backed you.[/quote]

Stranger, on this matter I have already given my kudos to you in an earlier post. But now I have a question. If another country does not back the US in something that is against their principles, does that make them any less as a friend? This Iraq war is an example. A lot of nations did not back the US because it is morally wrong (in the eyes of most of the world).  They were able to differentiate between what is right and what is wrong. They chose to be morally right. Is that so bad?

It does not mean they are against the American people or the nation, but that particular action only. Right?  :

India vs Pakistan

Fireduck,
I probably cannot give an objective answer to that.
There is a lot of history there, bad feelings that go way back.
Plus I know that morals have nothing to do with it.
France, Germany, Russia & China had their own vested interests going, chief among which was they were selling arms to Iraq in violation of every sanction known to man.

If the world  finds this morally wrong, why did they ask the US to step in during the conflict in Bosnia? Was that war any less wrong?

You see, the problem I am constantly facing in forming opinions and discussing things is that the UN nations are always hot to get the US involved when they decide something needs to be done, yet are quick to call us cowboys when we decide something needs to be done.

There is a lot of ill will between the US and the other nations of the UN, but they ALWAYS want our money and our troops at their beck and call.

PS
As I read back over my post here, I see I gave a totally inadequate answer to your question. I didn't think I would be able to be objective about it.
Sorry man.

India Pakistan - Page 4

Fireduck, I understand your point and I ask myself the same thing but I don't have answers for that. But you know what? this is not only the US. Any country in the world that ask another country for help and they refused, when the second country is in trouble and ask the first country for help, they would turn their back to them!. That's how we 'people' act. Only few individuals are willing to help someone despites of differences and interests. If you ask help to someone and that someone says 'no' you will feel sad, angry, dissapointed, etc...and if that someone ask you help now that he/she is in need...are you going to help him/her?. I'm not trying to justify anything, my point in here is that this is how human beings are.

India Pakistan Politics Business Civil & History - Page 4

Fireduck,
I am going to make another attempt to answer your question about the "moral" justification of the war in Iraq.
Hussein has one of the most well-documented reigns of terror ever to be recorded. There are literally millions of pages from sources all over the world, recounting his mass murders, his many torture chambers, the almost casual rape and murder inflicted on the Iraqi people by his Republican Guard, dating back twenty-five years.
Every year, we here in the US get exiled Iraqis who come over and beg us to help depose him.
After Desert Storm he publicly murdered 500,000 Kurds in retaliation for their revolt. He murdered an average of ten thousand people a year. That we know of.

I am a simple man. I see things in a simplistic manner. To me, what is morally wrong is that the entire world, the UN and  the Administrations of the US government sat back and let it happen.

When the "anti-war" people protest, saying it is "morally wrong" to start a war against him, they are saying that the lives of the people he murdered mean nothing. They are willing to sacrifice the Iraqi people in deference to some abstract concept.

They say that "innocent civilians will be killed in the fighting". Saddam kills innocent civilians for pleasure. He tortures them for pleasure. He rapes their women for pleasure.
The innocent civilians will die anyway, because he will kill them at his own leisure.

To me, what Bush's real motivation and agenda for going after him was, is irrelevant. I don't care. I would have gone if Bush had said "he's wearing the wrong color beret".

I believe the whole world should have been looking for an excuse to go after him, and should have done it long ago. To me, those who can justify letting him murder people like that is not only morally wrong, it is morally bankrupt.

I have been watching the people in Baghdad all morning long, rejoicing, celebrating the lifting of a slave's yoke from their shoulders. That's all the justification I need.