King Tendulkar Posted December 8, 2008 Posted December 8, 2008 Why not? Is it set in stone or something? I mean if the US can go to war on flimsy excuse why can't we when we have a genuine reason at that. They have a massive army and also nuclear bombs. Pak is such an unstable country it is just not worth the risk. Also simply going to war in pak will further make create 10 times more jihadis in pak and india and bangla. Yanks attacked non nuclear states and countries miles away. They are not bordered by islamic states nor have 150 million muslims in their country. Also the ecomonic effect will be bad as well on India. We should stop worrying about pak. Lets face they ain't gonna change, they will be after indian blood wether by war or terrorism. Knocking out a few LET camps will do jack apart from fuel he anger of another 1000 more jihadis. What we need to do is let them produce 10,000 suicide bombers, as many as they want. Should not bother us. We need to focus on securing our borders so not one terrorist can enter India. Spend our time and energy on this and then what pak does is irrelevant. Throw out illegal immigrants like all the banglas. Then concentrate on the home grown jihadis and stopping them.
Lurker Posted December 8, 2008 Posted December 8, 2008 Why not? Is it set in stone or something? I mean if the US can go to war on flimsy excuse why can't we when we have a genuine reason at that. Because you are not USA, thats why. USA can go to war in Iraq/Agfanistan and not worry about many issues that India will. For example economy. USA attacked Iraq, its economy didnt take a hit. Well directly anyways. India-Pakistan war starts and half the multinationals will move out in less than a hour. The nueavue rich IT/BPO workers who want "action" would be out on street jobless. Military action should not be ruled out, but is should definitely be considered with all the implications.
King Tendulkar Posted December 8, 2008 Posted December 8, 2008 Military action should be just a big threat but no more. We should act like we are considering it but no more. I guarantee we are not going to attack pak, our leaders are dumb but not that dumb. Also pak govt cant control its army anyway. Even if hypothetically zadari wants end to LET he cant do jack as ISI and army will just say this:finger:
Guest dada_rocks Posted December 8, 2008 Posted December 8, 2008 Kya kuch nahin karega?? Udhar US Secretary of State categorically mentioned Pakistan as where the attacks started, and that it is now imperative on it to reign in the perpetrators. Who do you think did this?? Advani saab? Wait a minute he went missing from the meeting! I understand your dislike for Congress but learn to give credit where its due. Few cosmetics will happen no doubt but hard and fast drive to actually address the issue will go under carpet till next blast which going by the statistics might happen in next couple of months..... Pakistan will arrest some and release later those kind of things whihc Irfan hussain mentions.... Talking of Aadvani buddy on large scale if Kashmri is quiet it's due to the fact that we forced pakistan to fold its terro factory back to a large extent by that eyeball-to-eyeball situation in 2001.... Already congressi are goign around saying terro is not a burning issue.. Translation we will continue doing what we do that is nothing.. yeah after thousands of blast when election is impending despite thousand requests now they have woken up to have an all party meeting .. You can latch on to that straw to give them clean-chit I am nto convinced at all.. And yes it doesn't matter who represented BJP in that meeting fact is there were peopl there with constructive suggestion from BJP. Javed Naqwi kind of agrees with me on this score. It's politics 101 your politicians proritize things the way people prirotize as simple as that.
Show_stopper Posted December 8, 2008 Posted December 8, 2008 So instaed of nipping the threat in its nascent stage(atleast i think so) we should let it manifest? What if as time goes by and Pak militants harness more power and as you say decide to attack us anyway..how are you gonna "defend your borders" then? Just imagine if it gets to a stage where we won't be able to do anything even if we wished to?
King Tendulkar Posted December 8, 2008 Posted December 8, 2008 So instaed of nipping the threat in its nascent stage(atleast i think so) we should let it manifest? What if as time goes by and Pak militants harness more power and as you say decide to attack us anyway..how are you gonna "defend your borders" then? Just imagine if it gets to a stage where we won't be able to do anything even if we wished to? Nip what in the bud. The whole thing has grown in to a massive tree now. We should defend our borders like any country should. Invest money in air, land and sea to fully control our borders.
Guest dada_rocks Posted December 8, 2008 Posted December 8, 2008 More than what tokenism we wriggle out of pakistan.. honestly what is the point of thsi tokenism under american arm-twisting if pakistani govt is not on the same page.> As bumper mentioned these guys on a short notice get nabbed and at the same time they have been purportedly running under the banenr of officially banned outfit.. What kind of ban is this. it is nothign but an eywash and India should not be happy with this kind of tokenism.. I say break off the relatonship aided with heavy diplomatic defence of tat ban and then get our own houses in order.. Don't give us minority will not like it.. I don;t think any minority organization has protested and will protest in future.. even they are getting killed... So some cajones and give every state MCOCA if you have such an aversion to POTA.. rvitalize RAW.. put NSG in place and pepper the bureaucratic bottlenecks that come in the way of policing.. If you take these steps and people think that enough is being done mind you even then blast might happen but at least oen will be assured that all that cud be done is being done then this terror issue will cease to be political football. As AruN jaitley rightly said that when you say people want you to be united on terror then please let me know united for what united for lackaidiscal effort that we have seen united for cavalier manner that this is being treated if unity is being sought to legitimize the status quo then we are not on the wagon .. yes if they really mean why they say then they will get all the support from us.
fineleg Posted December 8, 2008 Posted December 8, 2008 Because you are not USA, thats why. USA can go to war in Iraq/Agfanistan and not worry about many issues that India will. For example economy. USA attacked Iraq, its economy didnt take a hit. Well directly anyways. India-Pakistan war starts and half the multinationals will move out in less than a hour. The nueavue rich IT/BPO workers who want "action" would be out on street jobless. Military action should not be ruled out, but is should definitely be considered with all the implications. Lurker, Keeping aside the semantics of directly or indirectly - the iraq war has been a huge, tremendous negative effect on US economy. Whats the cost of the war? Billions, trillions?
punjabi_khota Posted December 8, 2008 Posted December 8, 2008 Lurker, Keeping aside the semantics of directly or indirectly - the iraq war has been a huge, tremendous negative effect on US economy. Whats the cost of the war? Billions, trillions? The ****ers cut the budget of NASA due to war spending and my PhD. topic got changed after 1 year due to that. :((
varun Posted December 8, 2008 Posted December 8, 2008 Why not? Is it set in stone or something? I mean if the US can go to war on flimsy excuse why can't we when we have a genuine reason at that. Yaar.. Pakistan is our next door neighbor that's why. USA went to war with ppl in far away lands who can never retailiate. With nuclear options open on both sides, war is near impossible now. Only proxy wars and international pressure can be accomplished
Lurker Posted December 8, 2008 Posted December 8, 2008 Lurker, Keeping aside the semantics of directly or indirectly - the iraq war has been a huge, tremendous negative effect on US economy. Whats the cost of the war? Billions, trillions? Indeed. But the difference between US vs India in that regards is, Iraq war and its affect on economy was totally USA's doing. On the other hand Indo-Pak war would be India's doing but economic affect would be completely external. No International company, a la Microsoft or Boeing, closed its shop in USA due to Iraq war, on the other hand the moment Indo-Pak war breaks out GE, GM etc etc will take a flight out of India.
Lurker Posted December 8, 2008 Posted December 8, 2008 The ****ers cut the budget of NASA due to war spending and my PhD. topic got changed after 1 year due to that. :(( NASA is overspending anyway man. The Space challenge in 2008 is not the same as in 1978. May I suggest TV compereing? Thats where the big bucks are. Specially if you can say Chand Nawaaz Indus News Karaaaachi.
punjabi_khota Posted December 8, 2008 Posted December 8, 2008 NASA is overspending anyway man. The Space challenge in 2008 is not the same as in 1978. May I suggest TV compereing? Thats where the big bucks are. Specially if you can say Chand Nawaaz Indus News Karaaaachi. Par meri shakal pakistan musalman jaisi nahi hai.
Lurker Posted December 8, 2008 Posted December 8, 2008 Par meri shakal pakistan musalman jaisi nahi hai. Uska upaay hai na..Daadhi badha lo.
Recommended Posts