Jump to content

Trump’s Kashmir aspirations

zen

By zen
in Chit Chat

 Share

Recommended Posts

zen Grand Master

zen

Posted
Posted (edited)

Operation Sindoor has brought international spotlight back on Kashmir with US President Trump offering to mediate (which Ind, along with maybe Pak, is likely to turn it down) on a “solution”, maybe hoping to make history. 

 

Discuss the US role in the region moving forward esp. if Trump has tasted blood. 

Edited by zen
zen Grand Master

zen

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Trump is looking for the 51st state. Will need to see if in trying to mediate, he takes a piece of Kashmir for the US :hmmm:

 

(though Kashmiris may not mind turning into US citizens overnight). 

zen Grand Master

zen

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, Real McCoy said:

Ceasefire got violated within a few hours and again today it seems like. Trump is a showoff nothing else


If the ceasefire is violated, it could give him reasons to be more active -> :police:

Edited by zen
Real McCoy Veteran

Real McCoy

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, zen said:


If the ceasefire is violated, it could give reasons to be more active -  :police:

 

We are talking about trump here. he is not going to act just talk mindlessly as he did throughout this conflict. He talks about brokering peace like a deal in his made up hollywood programmes. he is full of bs

Chaos Grand Master

Chaos

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, zen said:

Trump has already taken credit for the “ceasefire”:

 

 

 


ok i am a trump fan but needs to stop muddling with indian affairs. Pakistani started it and india needs to end them.

zubinpepsi Proficient

zubinpepsi

Posted
Posted
11 hours ago, Chaos said:


ok i am a trump fan but needs to stop muddling with indian affairs. Pakistani started it and india needs to end them.

I’m Curious what made you as a trump fan? That guy is selfish to the core . He doesn’t give a sh!t about anyone.. it’s all about him.. irrespective of which party you support this guy doesn’t have any redeeming qualities to look up to.. whatever he says is all BS.. just world salading. Even his wife or people close to him wudn’t trust him..

 

so I’m just curious what did you see in him to be his fan?

Mariyam Grand Master

Mariyam

Posted
Posted
16 hours ago, zen said:

Operation Sindoor has brought international spotlight back on Kashmir with US President Trump offering to mediate (which Ind, along with maybe Pak, is likely to turn it down) on a “solution”, maybe hoping to make history. 

 

Discuss the US role in the region moving forward esp. if Trump has tasted blood. 

Trump and the US has no locus standi in this matter.

 

 

Number Grand Master

Number

Posted
Posted (edited)

If he can make his lapdog Pakistan withdraw from the PoJK which is the first condition of UN charter on ceasefire in 1948, then we will get in Gilgit Baltistan and it will be happily ever after. 

Edited by Number
zen Grand Master

zen

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
54 minutes ago, Mariyam said:

Trump and the US has no locus standi in this matter.

 

 


All that the US has to do is defer it to the people of Kashmir. For e.g. include the US option in the referendum.

 

Militarily too it can come in and break Kashmir region into: 


a) Gilgit Balistan -> Pak 

b) Akshai Chin -> China 

c) Jammu & Ladak -> India 

d) Kashmir including the Azad one -> the US


It can push for an independent Kashmir region (a status Kashmiris have a right to consider per India’s own agreement to the UN condition on referendum), which can then opt to join anyone including the US.
 

The point here is that there are multiple ways to do that. 
 

Note: that Kashmir is an integral part of India is a mainly Indian PoV (that gains traction among us Indians). Others don’t need to necessarily agree (irrespective of how much we shout like Arnab Goswami within India) as it is by and large considered as a disputed region and can have multiple possibilities for its future. 

 

The Kashmir issue is still an issue because both India and Pakistan want it, irrespective of what the Kashmir region wants (both India and Pakistan agreed to respecting the will of Kashmiris but have not stood by their commitment for whatever reasons). All any third party has to do to bring the point of the will of the people of Kashmir into play.

Edited by zen
zen Grand Master

zen

Posted
  • Author
Posted
24 minutes ago, Number said:

If he can make his lapdog Pakistan withdraw from the PoJK which is the first condition of UN charter on ceasefire in 1948, then we will get in Gilgit Baltistan and it will be happily ever after. 


It is referred to as POK (or Pak Administered Kashmir). POK includes both Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Balistan.

Number Grand Master

Number

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, zen said:


It is referred to as POK (or Pak Administered Kashmir). POK includes both Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Balistan.

Actually I have obsessively studied this conflict since I turned a teenager. This "Azad Kashmir" Pakistnis refer to is neither Azad nor Kashmir. Kashmir valley that is part of our side is what actual Kashmir is. In "Azad Kashmir" they don't speak Kashmiri nor have any cultural similarity with Kashmir.

It matches more with the Jammu region (consisting 10 districts having majority Hindu+Sikhs) in culture and laguage. Pakistanis have termed it as Kashmir just to make their claim on Kashmir valley region in India.

zen Grand Master

zen

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Just now, Number said:

Actually I have obsessively studied this conflict since I turned a teenager. This "Azad Kashmir" Pakistnis refer to is neither Azad nor Kashmir. Kashmir valley that is part of our side is what actual Kashmir is. In "Azad Kashmir" they don't speak Kashmiri nor have any cultural similarity with Kashmir.

It matches more with the Jammu region (consisting 10 districts having majority Hindu+Sikhs) in culture and laguage. Pakistanis have termed it as Kashmir just to make their claim on Kashmir valley region in India.


Yeah. Azad is a token name. The land is now inhabited mainly by Pakistanis in violation of UN conditions.
 

Pakistan used tribals (non state actors) to capture Kashmir, leading to its King asking for India’s help. If I am not wrong, India offered it on the condition that it would need to join India (probably under a special status) so it can be said that India also took advantage of the situation. 

Then Nehru went to the UN where the future of the region was to be decided by Kashmiris through a referendum. Both India and Pakistan have ignored this. Pakistan has even changed the demographics of the region. Now the region still remains in flame fueled by jingoism from both sides. 
 

 


 

Mariyam Grand Master

Mariyam

Posted
Posted
56 minutes ago, zen said:


All that the US has to do is defer it to the people of Kashmir. For e.g. include the US option in the referendum.

 

Militarily too it can come in and break Kashmir region into: 


a) Gilgit Balistan -> Pak 

b) Akshai Chin -> China 

c) Jammu & Ladak -> India 

d) Kashmir including the Azad one -> the US


It can push for an independent Kashmir region (a status Kashmiris have a right to consider per India’s own agreement to the UN condition on referendum), which can then opt to join anyone including the US.
 

The point here is that there are multiple ways to do that. 
 

Note: that Kashmir is an integral part of India is a mainly Indian PoV (that gains traction among us Indians). Others don’t need to necessarily agree (irrespective of how much we shout like Arnab Goswami within India) as it is by and large considered as a disputed region and can have multiple possibilities for its future. 

 

The Kashmir issue is still an issue because both India and Pakistan want it, irrespective of what the Kashmir region wants (both India and Pakistan agreed to respecting the will of Kashmiris but have not stood by their commitment for whatever reasons). All any third party has to do to bring the point of the will of the people of Kashmir into play.

Again, The US is not in any position to defer anything to the people of Kashmir. It is not the 1960s, the US does not project that kind of power or command that kind of respect anymore. In 20 years the US could barely handle a ragtag army of Afghan shepherds. To think that they could drive out India and Pakistan from Kashmir and occupied Kashmir respectively is laughable. Today the US is a rudderless state in terminal decline. Meddling in issues which have nothing to do with them, would only hasten their demise.

 

India represents the aspirations of the people of Kashmir, and those Kashmiris and non Kashmiris who are unfortunate enough to be in PoK. Not the US.

 

Like I mentioned in my previous post: The US has no locus standi here.

zen Grand Master

zen

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Mariyam said:

Again, The US is not in any position to defer anything to the people of Kashmir. It is not the 1960s, the US does not project that kind of power or command that kind of respect anymore. In 20 years the US could barely handle a ragtag army of Afghan shepherds. To think that they could drive out India and Pakistan from Kashmir and occupied Kashmir respectively is laughable. Today the US is a rudderless state in terminal decline. Meddling in issues which have nothing to do with them, would only hasten their demise.

 

India represents the aspirations of the people of Kashmir, and those Kashmiris and non Kashmiris who are unfortunate enough to be in PoK. Not the US.

 

Like I mentioned in my previous post: The US has no locus standi here.


From the US PoV (which can even be implemented through the UN), both India and Pakistan can be seen as occupying forces that have ignored the will of the people of Kashmir (I.e. in violation of the UN resolution).
 

Note that India and Pakistan have mainly fought against each other. India hasn’t won any war apart from the ones against Pakistan, which has not won any war. Their military capabilities cannot be gauged based on engagement with each other. The US has experience in participating in multiple wars around the globe and can even bring NATO in. Imagine if the 7th fleet is deployed in the Arabian Sea,  it would create panic in the subcon. 
 

It can even just support Pakistan in a military action against India and then take Kashmir from Pakistan (including by offering it a multi billion package $). For Pakistan it would like “if Kashmir cannot be mine, it won’t be India’s too”.

So there are multiple options in play. As I said we can keep shouting like Arnab Goswami but other parties will move based on their perspective not India’s (For e.g. the German invasion of Poland in WW2 where a perspective was even manufactured)!


 

 

Edited by zen
Serpico Veteran

Serpico

Posted
Posted

This man is hungry to have a big legacy in anyway possible, whether its good idea or bad for the world. All the sht talking about Canada, Greenland, Palestine etc is all bout his hunger for legacy. I hope some other massive global event happens and his sundowning brain forgets what or where kashmir is

 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...