panesarv Posted June 27, 2012 Posted June 27, 2012 Why ? Because i am wanting harm of a country that is indirectly responsible for numerous terrorist attack in the country. Sorry but look like you are a traitor person. Cuz the people (common man) who will die probably never had anything to do with it.
ganeshran Posted June 27, 2012 Posted June 27, 2012 5kua41JlFxY Wish granted. your world rep would go down if you use nukes. Once I used 2 nukes in a match with 8 countries and all 7 of them declared war on me. :D
Swing_n_Speed Posted June 27, 2012 Posted June 27, 2012 D-uh. American and British foreign policy is the sole reason for much of the mess the world is in today. Every major conflict over the past decade is a direct consequence of their actions. They prop up rogue dictators, arm them, overthrow legitimate governments, spread misinformation, fund all sorts of shady organizations, have army bases in more than half the world and in the process have killed millions. Quite sad really.
panther Posted June 27, 2012 Posted June 27, 2012 Why ? Because i am wanting harm of a country that is indirectly responsible for numerous terrorist attack in the country. Sorry but look like you are a traitor person.
Clarke Posted June 27, 2012 Posted June 27, 2012 they are not that different from our rogue neighbor. I didn't know Pakistan helped us become self sufficient in food, the single biggest contribution made by a non-Indian to our country. That Padma Vibhushan sure went waste. I'll ignore the tens of billions in aid or other assistance. D-uh. American and British foreign policy is the sole reason for much of the mess the world is in today. Every major conflict over the past decade is a direct consequence of their actions. They prop up rogue dictators, arm them, overthrow legitimate governments, spread misinformation, fund all sorts of shady organizations, have army bases in more than half the world and in the process have killed millions. Quite sad really. They did cross the line way too often but maybe letting Communism rise rampantly wasn't such a good alternative. Would you fancy a world dominated by the likes of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot beyond their borders while the Western powers continued to mind their own business ? I don't know what shape India would be in post 1962 but one can be assured Israel, Japan, Taiwan & South Korea would not exist as sovereign developed nations and the world's energy supplier, the middle east might be some very very bad place.
beetle Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 I didn't know Pakistan helped us become self sufficient in food, the single biggest contribution made by a non-Indian to our country. That Padma Vibhushan sure went waste. I'll ignore the tens of billions in aid or other assistance. They did cross the line way too often but maybe letting Communism rise rampantly wasn't such a good alternative. Would you fancy a world dominated by the likes of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot beyond their borders while the Western powers continued to mind their own business ? I don't know what shape India would be in post 1962 but one can be assured Israel, Japan, Taiwan & South Korea would not exist as sovereign developed nations and the world's energy supplier, the middle east might be some very very bad place. So we should roll over and forget that they mulled nuking us off the earth and more recently helped a terrorist nation in our neighborhood arm themselves with nukes .They helped us in some way so let us take their nukes up our backside.This is the least we can do for the saintly nation called the USA.
Desi Cartman Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 So we should roll over and forget that they mulled nuking us off the earth and more recently helped a terrorist nation in our neighborhood arm themselves with nukes .They helped us in some way so let us take their nukes up our backside.This is the least we can do for the saintly nation called the USA. I donÃÕ deny that they have been selfish and I guess all governments (including ours which needs to be more selfish), but they did not hand over nukes to Pakistan. They were looking after their interests which was around India USSR alliance and they didnÃÕ trust Chinese either. They have donated millions of dollars and have helped us on many fronts. Of course they could have done more to help us but what have we done for them that they were bound to help us, werenÃÕ we in the dushman camp (USSR) ? What I see in this thread are comments which are quite similar to what pakis make like USA should have saved us, they need to give us money, they need to protect us , they are the leaders .. SO WHAT ? How about our leaders growing a pair and doing something ? ABV/Advani were shouting like lions after the nuclear tests but when they needed to use Air force in their own country during Kargil war, whom did they run to first ? In bigger scheme of things, US is as important as our netas make it, in the above example had we used air force early we could have saved so many lives but our sarkar doesnÃÕ have balls to do anything.. we could have finished pakistanÃÔ nuclear program and could have given them back twice when Kashmir problem started but what did our neta do, they dismantled RAW and now we whinge cry shout oh look pakis are killing us in Kashmir, there are bomb blasts in Bombay delhi etc and whom do we request for help/support ? USA so our leaders need to show some spine when time comes and take their own decisions as for what happened in the past, well all countries looked into their interests
Clarke Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 So we should roll over and forget that they mulled nuking us off the earth and more recently helped a terrorist nation in our neighborhood arm themselves with nukes .They helped us in some way so let us take their nukes up our backside.This is the least we can do for the saintly nation called the USA. I never said anything close to that. They may have had their alliances in the cold war and some incompetent leadership as well but compared to many other nations, they have done their bit to help India which is conveniently ignored. As far as nuking goes, they weren't close to it and if you're relying on words thrown around here and there, you might as well admit they came close to nuking our #1 enemy on the North East in our own war. Why cherry pick on the cons when there's many pros ? My main problem with the earlier quoted statement of yours is that with the United States, there's been many positives along with the negatives in our relationship, those positives immensely helping us. How can you equate that to our western neighbor ? What did we gain from them, other that some artist performing in film/television and making x times the money what he/she would have made otherwise ?
flamy Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 I donÃÕ deny that they have been selfish and I guess all governments (including ours which needs to be more selfish), but they did not hand over nukes to Pakistan. They were looking after their interests which was around India USSR alliance and they didnÃÕ trust Chinese either. They have donated millions of dollars and have helped us on many fronts. Of course they could have done more to help us but what have we done for them that they were bound to help us, werenÃÕ we in the dushman camp (USSR) ? What I see in this thread are comments which are quite similar to what pakis make like USA should have saved us, they need to give us money, they need to protect us , they are the leaders .. SO WHAT ? How about our leaders growing a pair and doing something ? ABV/Advani were shouting like lions after the nuclear tests but when they needed to use Air force in their own country during Kargil war, whom did they run to first ? In bigger scheme of things, US is as important as our netas make it, in the above example had we used air force early we could have saved so many lives but our sarkar doesnÃÕ have balls to do anything.. we could have finished pakistanÃÔ nuclear program and could have given them back twice when Kashmir problem started but what did our neta do, they dismantled RAW and now we whinge cry shout oh look pakis are killing us in Kashmir, there are bomb blasts in Bombay delhi etc and whom do we request for help/support ? USA so our leaders need to show some spine when time comes and take their own decisions as for what happened in the past, well all countries looked into their interests :hatsoff:
nikred Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 I donÃÕ deny that they have been selfish and I guess all governments (including ours which needs to be more selfish), but they did not hand over nukes to Pakistan. They were looking after their interests which was around India USSR alliance and they didnÃÕ trust Chinese either. They have donated millions of dollars and have helped us on many fronts. Of course they could have done more to help us but what have we done for them that they were bound to help us, werenÃÕ we in the dushman camp (USSR) ? What I see in this thread are comments which are quite similar to what pakis make like USA should have saved us, they need to give us money, they need to protect us , they are the leaders .. SO WHAT ? How about our leaders growing a pair and doing something ? ABV/Advani were shouting like lions after the nuclear tests but when they needed to use Air force in their own country during Kargil war, whom did they run to first ? In bigger scheme of things, US is as important as our netas make it, in the above example had we used air force early we could have saved so many lives but our sarkar doesnÃÕ have balls to do anything.. we could have finished pakistanÃÔ nuclear program and could have given them back twice when Kashmir problem started but what did our neta do, they dismantled RAW and now we whinge cry shout oh look pakis are killing us in Kashmir, there are bomb blasts in Bombay delhi etc and whom do we request for help/support ? USA so our leaders need to show some spine when time comes and take their own decisions as for what happened in the past, well all countries looked into their interests Kaka nailed it. :two_thumbs_up:
beetle Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 I never said anything close to that. They may have had their alliances in the cold war and some incompetent leadership as well but compared to many other nations, they have done their bit to help India which is conveniently ignored. As far as nuking goes, they weren't close to it and if you're relying on words thrown around here and there, you might as well admit they came close to nuking our #1 enemy on the North East in our own war. Why cherry pick on the cons when there's many pros ? My main problem with the earlier quoted statement of yours is that with the United States, there's been many positives along with the negatives in our relationship, those positives immensely helping us. How can you equate that to our western neighbor ? What did we gain from them, other that some artist performing in film/television and making x times the money what he/she would have made otherwise ? I guess our relationship with USA has not been all bad.....unlike the rogues in the neighborhood....but USA is responsible for a lot of misery around the world.They are by no means the saints. Anyways...sorry for the kind of rude tone of my response.It was uncalled for.:icflove:
beetle Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 I donÃÕ deny that they have been selfish and I guess all governments (including ours which needs to be more selfish), but they did not hand over nukes to Pakistan. They were looking after their interests which was around India USSR alliance and they didnÃÕ trust Chinese either. They have donated millions of dollars and have helped us on many fronts. Of course they could have done more to help us but what have we done for them that they were bound to help us, werenÃÕ we in the dushman camp (USSR) ? What I see in this thread are comments which are quite similar to what pakis make like USA should have saved us, they need to give us money, they need to protect us , they are the leaders .. SO WHAT ? How about our leaders growing a pair and doing something ? ABV/Advani were shouting like lions after the nuclear tests but when they needed to use Air force in their own country during Kargil war, whom did they run to first ? In bigger scheme of things, US is as important as our netas make it, in the above example had we used air force early we could have saved so many lives but our sarkar doesnÃÕ have balls to do anything.. we could have finished pakistanÃÔ nuclear program and could have given them back twice when Kashmir problem started but what did our neta do, they dismantled RAW and now we whinge cry shout oh look pakis are killing us in Kashmir, there are bomb blasts in Bombay delhi etc and whom do we request for help/support ? USA so our leaders need to show some spine when time comes and take their own decisions as for what happened in the past, well all countries looked into their interests ok:hatsoff:
Swing_n_Speed Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 They did cross the line way too often but maybe letting Communism rise rampantly wasn't such a good alternative. Would you fancy a world dominated by the likes of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot beyond their borders while the Western powers continued to mind their own business ? I don't know what shape India would be in post 1962 but one can be assured Israel, Japan, Taiwan & South Korea would not exist as sovereign developed nations and the world's energy supplier, the middle east might be some very very bad place. Yea don't the Bahrain's love the US version of democracy. Palestinians. Iraqis, Afghans, Libyans. Now Syrians. Later Iranis? In between add Georgia to that too. But they just got mauled by the bear aka Russia. Oh don't forget the droning in African countries, Uganda, then the Egyptians who absolutely love America interfering in Egypt's internal policies. And finally numerous weapons sale all sorts of shady characters. Imagine if Pakistan was not nuclear, u think they'd dare be state sponsors of terrorism? I assure you without US manipulations, this world will function just as fine. The only positive in all these conflicts has been South Korea. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations#2010.E2.80.93Present
Desi Cartman Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 Yea don't the Bahrain's love the US version of democracy. Palestinians. Iraqis, Afghans, Libyans. Now Syrians. Later Iranis? In between add Georgia to that too. But they just got mauled by the bear aka Russia. Oh don't forget the droning in African countries, Uganda, then the Egyptians who absolutely love America interfering in Egypt's internal policies. And finally numerous weapons sale all sorts of shady characters. Imagine if Pakistan was not nuclear, u think they'd dare be state sponsors of terrorism? I assure you without US manipulations, this world will function just as fine. The only positive in all these conflicts has been South Korea. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations#2010.E2.80.93Present terroism started in early 80s -- they had nothing till at least few years later. Congress ****ed it up big time during this time. As for what they have done in Syria etc, they have done more and have done better around the world than what USSR/India/China has.. our only mission ever to help anybody else was in Sri Lanka and we ****ed it up. With the US, at least they try and of course they have ****ed it up multiple times but they are way better than others. You think china or Russia gives a flying **** about African countries or you think china will send their army to fight in Uganda or Korea?
Swing_n_Speed Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 ^^^ I'm not sure dude, I think USA has messed up in Syria. That's sometin even India has stated at the UN meetings. USA doesn't care about anyone. Let's forget the past. Look at the present. What is the US doing in the Middle-East? Is it conducive to global peace? Is it the Gandhian way? My observations of current events has led me to believe that a lot of what's wrong can be attributed to USA. I agree a lot of other countries don't do enough. But unlike the USA other countries don't wage war in the guise of charitable operations or liberation, whilst setting up permanent army bases. Did'nt India help Bangladesh attain Independence? We went in, we went out. No bases nothing. I have great respect for our army and government's foreign policy. Yea we may screw up a bit, but we are honest, peace-loving and restrained. Besides if the US really cared bout peace and all that jazz why don't they get involved just next door in Mexico? 50,000 deaths. US foreign policy in one word:- Hypocrisy!
flamy Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 I would be happiest person if a dirty nuke goes off in US. hey feck u man :beee:
Clarke Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 Yea don't the Bahrain's love the US version of democracy. Palestinians. Iraqis' date=' Afghans, Libyans. Now Syrians. Later Iranis? In between add Georgia to that too. But they just got mauled by the bear aka Russia. Oh don't forget the droning in African countries, Uganda, then the Egyptians who absolutely love America interfering in Egypt's internal policies. [/quote'] What you've done is compiled a list of some troubled nations and decided that it was somehow USA's fault in casting whatever influence it did in post WWII history. The fact of the matter is not one of these nations was close to being a full fledged democracy and many like Libya & Iran would have been nuclear powers ruled by dictators. Contrast that with longstanding American allies in NATO some of whom were in the dumps in 1945 and have turned out into well established democracies with excellent economies (sometimes under US assistance such as the Marshall Plan) & generally solid human rights record. Can you say the same of the reds especially if they were left unchecked in the cold war ? The valid criticisms of United States would typically be its interventions in Latin America, the excesses in Vietnam & the second Gulf war (especially the reasons behind the invasion) among others, not Palestine/Iran/Libya etc. The Russians and Chinese were far more into this shady weapons business and still are, you can't hold United States as the primary problem there. Same goes with Pak nuclear program, AQ Khan got some nuclear secrets from Holland and they got some missile knowhow from NK but the major player was always China. Khan's prosecution would do squat to slow down the Pakistani ambitions. They carry on with the Al Qaeda & Taliban living comfortably in their territory and our most wanted individuals such as Hafiz Saeed & Dawood Ibrahim, you think one person's arrest would destroy Pak Army's ultimate ambitions ? United States on the other hand implemented sanctions twice and offered major benefits including clearing all debts to avoid the retaliatory testing in 98. The view of the Pakistani generals was simple, if these guys are willing to pay billions one time to avoid the tests, they shall continue to pay billions periodically to safeguard the tested nuclear WMDs. Couldn't be more correct about the future, could they ? ============= I'm surprised how some here are indeed blaming US for the Pak nuclear bomb. The fact of the matter is the hand that rocks that cradle (and does so in NK as well) is China and one man's unlikely prosecution wouldn't have changed anything. Besides, what nation has worked the most on preventing nuclear proliferation ? I bet if there was a known threat of a bomb being stolen, their special forces would be the first ones to drop in at the less secure facilities before our mantris finish their morning chai and get the memo.
Swing_n_Speed Posted June 29, 2012 Posted June 29, 2012 ^^^ Fascinating reply! A list of troubled nations? Each of those countries is in the dumps primarily because of America's foreign policy. Why isn't America concerned about Bahrain? The fact is they don't care. So long as their bases continue to flourish. And God forbid a country does not have an American base. Ohhh that's a perfect recipe for American Style liberation. As for Iran? When has USA given Iran a chance? Right from the time of the Shah the US and UK have always interfered in Iran's domestic affairs. And talking bout Russia? Russia has always been one of our closest allies. So who else has Russia funded? Apart from legitimate governments. Now pan to America, these guys are actively supporting all sorts of radical organizations (just read the news) For all this talk about USA there are two aspects to it. The personal aspect and the international aspect. The USA has given Pakistan enough chances, always at the expense of India. Pakistan failed. So the US has no choice but to ally with us. I guess on the personal front things are looking up. On the international front, I side with Ron Paul. Dismantle ur bases and back-off. The world will be fine. Jumping to Pakistan and Nuclear Weapons Maybe you’re right. It’s hard to tell. The actions of the Chinse in this regard are certainly questionable. But here’s food for thought:- President Nixon on record stated that he was in favor of Pakistan attaining Nuclear Weapons. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/oct/13/usa.pakistan http://news.rediff.com/report/2009/jun/16/paknuke-us-allowed-pak-to-go-nuclear.htm http://www.spacedaily.com/news/nuclear-india-pakistan-04i.html Besides, what nation has worked the most on preventing nuclear proliferation ? I bet if there was a known threat of a bomb being stolen, their special forces would be the first ones to drop in at the less secure facilities before our mantris finish their morning chai and get the memo Has USA ever questioned or sanctioned Israel for their possession of nuclear weapons?
Recommended Posts