India vs Pakistan

[midnight Target]

I stand chastized and forlorn... yet still pretty pissed.

I apologize for personalizing the issue. Of course we have made mistakes. Funny thing is, we make them (usually) for good reasons.

I attribute my response to typical Month-end manufacturing frenzy and the fact that it's really hot outside. Either that or temporary insanity.

Sorry Mr. Ripley.

[Tac]

Originally posted by Curval


Midnight..no disrespect, but I think he was refering to:

Cuba - attempting to support a democratic government by recruiting Cubans to invade and then leaving them stranded after the "Bay of Pigs".
Vietnam - Mistaking Ho Chi Mihn for a communist initially, when in fact he was a Nationalist.  A mistake that cost the US 60,000 men.
El Salvador - Supporting a dubious government for years
Nicaragua - same as above
Panama - supporting Noriega and then having to invade the country in order to get rid of him.
Supporting Irag in their war with Iran - that tended to bite the Americans in the bellybutton a few years later.
Not ousting Hussein and leaving the Kurds to the mercy (or lack thereof) of the Iraqis.  He later supported terrorism to the maximum extent possible.

etc..I could go on..but I'm late for lunch..

Please don't get me wrong...I am a huge supporter of the US, but I am not blind to their horrible track record in certain cases.

Flame away.

Funny thing is that Panama was also "stolen" from a sovereign nation and made a quasi puppet state via underhanded means.

[MrRiplEy[H]]

Accepted Tah Gut..

Even if the things were made with good intentions, sometimes (often it seems) you just can't calculate all the risks.

[scspook]

Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
I think the U.S. should stay the hell out of it.

Britain made that mess. No reason for us to clean it up.

Hmmm interesting and very bizarre considering the Brits spend a hell of a lot of time and men cleaning up some of yours.

[Jack55]

Originally posted by scspook


Hmmm interesting and very bizarre considering the Brits spend a hell of a lot of time and men cleaning up some of yours.

None come to mind for me, unless you are trying to blame UK involvement in Afganistan on the USA.  I thought that had soemething to do with AQ attacks and NATO agreements.

[Kieran]

What he means is the UK always stands behind the US, no matter what. I agree. No matter what the denizens of this BBS may feel, the UK and the Commonwealth have always stood beside us, and we owe it to them to do the same.

[Sikboy]

Originally posted by Kieran
What he means is the UK always stands behind the US, no matter what. I agree. No matter what the denizens of this BBS may feel, the UK and the Commonwealth have always stood beside us, and we owe it to them to do the same.

It must have someting to do with the subtlety of it, but why is it that when I use the "Poor foreign Policy of the UK" bait, I get nothing. But Sandman gets hits on it?

-Sikboy

[Jack55]

Originally posted by Curval


Midnight..no disrespect, but I think he was refering to:

Cuba - attempting to support a democratic government by recruiting Cubans to invade and then leaving them stranded after the "Bay of Pigs".
Vietnam - Mistaking Ho Chi Mihn for a communist initially, when in fact he was a Nationalist.  A mistake that cost the US 60,000 men.
El Salvador - Supporting a dubious government for years
Nicaragua - same as above
Panama - supporting Noriega and then having to invade the country in order to get rid of him.
Supporting Irag in their war with Iran - that tended to bite the Americans in the bellybutton a few years later.
Not ousting Hussein and leaving the Kurds to the mercy (or lack thereof) of the Iraqis.  He later supported terrorism to the maximum extent possible.

etc..I could go on..but I'm late for lunch..

Please don't get me wrong...I am a huge supporter of the US, but I am not blind to their horrible track record in certain cases.

Flame away.

Cuba - Shame on US for the Bay of Pigs tragedy.

Vietnam - a crystal ball would have been nice.

El Salvador - Cold War strat, and no worse than supporting the Soviet Union during WW2.

Nicaragua - Same as above, and seems to have worked-out in the end.

Panama - I guess the General though he was invincible and could do anything.  I hear too much drugs can do that and worse to people.

Supporting Iraq - Ya, they had hordes of M60 tanks, F-15s and cobra helicopters and billions of dollars.  Saddam is the type of guy that needs a lot of encouragement to go on the warpath. lol.  He saw a weakness and tried to exploit it.  The US saw an opportunity to get back at a regime that held a bunch of US diplomats hostage for 444 days.

Iraq 1991 - Imagine all the other OBLs that would have popped-up because the US was occupying a defenseless Muslim country and all the innocent people killed fighting in Baghdad urban combat.  All the pictures of dead babies on BBC and CNN would have led to a crucifixion of the US.  I guess the US would then be even more responsible for attacks on it like 11Sept.   In hindsight, we should have done it anyway.

Kurds - Shame on US.  Republican Guard survived to massacre them.  No-Fly-Zones and embargo were steps to protect them, but were inadequate and result in political attacks on the US and more palaces for Sadam.  NATO ally Turkey has a Kurd "problem" too.  I guess that had something to do with the lack for a more forcefull defense of the Kurds.

[Kieran]

Sorry, Sikboy. Just responding to the last obscure comment. Of course, I happen to feel that way, too.

[samu1]

I don't know what "the poor foreign policy of the UK" and the crisis in Kashmir have to do with each other, as I said before it was the indian government that split India pre 1947 into India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. So next time you slam British foriegn policy, please get your facts straight.

Cheers

[Sikboy]

Originally posted by samu1
I don't know what "the poor foreign policy of the UK" and the crisis in Kashmir have to do with each other, as I said before it was the indian government that split India pre 1947 into India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. So next time you slam British foriegn policy, please get your facts straight.

Cheers

OK I'll play.

It was missmanagement by the British during the decolonization process that led to the formation of India and Pakistan, along the lines of 1947. To the British, it was just a big lump of land, and not enough was done in an effort to prevent the split from coming throught the threat of civil war and violence. Instead the UK set up a horrid situation, then washed its hands and walked away when things threatened to get ugly.  

-Sikboy

[samu1]

I agree the decolonisation process was certanly far from perfect but IIRC the dispute over Kashmir has more to do with borders which were drawn up by the Indian administration and not caused by British mis-management of the North-West frontier region (i.e 3 Religions in a small densely populated area) but then again if they hadn't been so eager to kill eaah other it wouldn't have made much difference. In short I agree with your point but I don't see how it has much (if any significant) bearing on today's crisis. The British gave India the land, they (The Indian's) knew full well the ethinc make-up of Kashmir and IMHO tried to bite a little more than they could chew.

[Sikboy]

Originally posted by samu1
In short I agree with your point

Please don't agree with it, as it is complete and utter mandoble. Originally it was meant as a wry observation to point out how I disagree with those who say "The Sept 11th attacks are a direct result of US Foreign Policy."  Sure there is a relationship between the two, but I think we need to understand the differences between the two as well. But, Sandman picked up the ball and ran with it and was able to get a few more strikes on his bait than I was.

-Sikboy

[Kieran]

Now Sik, you are counting me as a strike when in fact I was merely clarifying a mispoken point. Take my comment as a general ideology regarding our allies and you get the point.

FWIW, I think the WTC attacks were an eventuality more than anything else. When people are willing to die to achieve such ends, little will stop them.

[Qnm]

Quoting a news site, from an anonymous Pentagon representative:
"...] nine to twelve million immediate dead in total in a war between Pakistan and India.[...]not counting ensuing casualties from famine, contaminated water and disease. [...] in short term the wounded would reach between two to six million."
This estimation was based on the number of nuclear weapons the two countries disposed of and their probable targets.

According to Jane's, India has fifty to 150 weapons, while Pakistan between 25 and fifty.

The Pentagon representative precised Indian nuclear weapons were ten kt while Pakistan's were twenty kt; WWII Hiroshima's was ~fourteen.