but on a more serious note: scares the sh*t outta me...

In any event who is to say that the Indian's or Pakistani's,Israelis, or even the Iraqi's or Iranians are less capable than the U.S. in making professional Military decisions in a Theatre of War, actual or potential?

Mutually Assured Distruction.

If either the USA or Russia attacked the other, it was a suicide note for the attacking nation as well. However, due to the size and range of the India/Pakistan arsenal - mutual distruction is not assured in Aisa.

The death toll from a nuclear war in the region has been put at 12 million. India's population alone is over 1 billion - so the loss of life (in percentage terms) is actually quite small.

So the "west" wonders why India and Pakistan would risk nuclear war, based on the "west"'s perception of what a nuclear war would mean. In the Asian area, that perception is incorrect and we should look at the conflict from the point of view of the protagonists, not from the old cold war MAD point of view.

My only real concern is that China is also in conflict with India over Kashmir as China occupies land that India claims. If China gets involved, then it could get messy - although I doubt even India's politicians would take on the huge military might of the PRC.

Americans think everything can be solved by "diplomats talking", but these two nations have been talking for 50 years with ZERO progress, WAR IS INEVITABLE between them so they may as well fight it out now rather than later. Why delay the inevitable? It's probably best to let one side wipe out the other, end of issue, no more war.

Pakistan and Inida are sovereign nations with the ability to decide for themselves who to bomb and who not to bomb, just as the US has decided in its past who to bomb, who to nuke, who to place in concentration camps during WWII, etc

Even now, the US has suspended the civil liberties and civil rights of arab men after 9-11, we allowed them to be arrested and detained without counsel even to this day, kicked off of airplanes based on nothing more than flight crew's fear of arab looking males... This would be a CRIMINAL act if committed against an African American male, but it's legal when perpetrated against Arab males because suspending civil rights is what the U.S. does when it doesn't know how to handle any situation. We do this and nobody really cares because "it's not us" being discriminated against so who cares...

We bombed the heck out of another nation recently killing civilians but Americans don't care because we love to get revenge on those who wrong us. Oh, but when another country wants to go to war we are the FIRST to object to their sovereign right to run their country any way they see fit.

Don't forget that the US has the most potent nuclear arsenal by FAR, we not only have over 15,000 nuclear devices but we have the missile technology to deliver them to any country in the world faster than anybody else. Russia has more actual nuclear weapons still, but they don't have enough functioning missiles (or the technology) to deliver very many of them compared to the US. China only has like 400 Nuclear weapons, Canada, France, and Britain have even less I think.

People think China or North Korea are threats to the US, gimme a break, they pose no threat to the US since they don't have enough missiles or technology to launch more than a few warheads before a full counter-launch from the US would make them a hole on the map. The US has become an all-powerful Nuclear power with no real rivals, sort of like the T-Rex. With that power we like to boss people around.

The US not only has the most deliverable nuclear weapons (15,000), but we are the only nation to actually have used them on civilian populations killing and maiming hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, all without much remorse or apologies. Why? Because Pearl Harbor justfied it according to most Americans, revenge is a powerful motive.

So, why is it that when the US targets an enemy for bombing (or war) it is looked upon as "okay" by Americans in general, but when another nation does it then Americans view them as "out of line"?

It's not our business, if you are an American then it's just not your business how Pakistan or India conduct themselves. Their weapons don't pose much threat to the outside world, and they pose ZERO threat to the United States because they have limited delivery devices and no long range ballistic missiles capable of reaching the US, and only a few actual nuclear weapons to begin with.

Perhaps it is the best thing for them to fight it out and destroy each other, then we wouldn't have to hear their moaning and groaning in the news each day. I don't believe in empty threats and saber rattling, I believe in carrying out any threats, so I say "bombs away" and let the chips fall where they may.

The ONLY way to end the threat of war is to have one side realize that it cannot win the war, and because these two countries are too proud to come to this realization the ONLY way for them to see the truth is for them to actually fight it out, with the loser realizing this truth and accepting "peace".

Again, the "bomb" has settled more disputes and created more "peace" in history than all of the diplomats in history combined. The bomb is a necessary peace mechanism, it's just the way the world works. Julius Caesar realized that and created peace among the world by conquering it by force, though in his day the "sword" served the function of the "bomb".

I believe that superior fire power is the only way to peace, sometimes we must use that fire power to achieve "peace".

Even the illiterates in both the countries do know what nuclear bomb means and most of them would know what happened over Japan but may be not in technical terms. I classify this ignorance/careless factor mainly on terms of the financial condition of the individual, like a poor guy in pakistan would do anything to earn even a very small amnt of money, dont even bother when a wealth is offered.
Then there are middle class families who have just what they need and if they get down to do anything else, they loose whatever they got. Also they havent got any say just like the poor class.
And then we have two section of rich families, one who are scared and genuinely want peace and the other who are so disoriented in life that a human life doesnt mean much to them, and they openly say, "It wont make much diff if some 100 thousand of these poor people die". And they support themselves by saying, hey its all business.
These are the people who motivate Politicians to do all the wrong, except some are politicians on their own.
Now if you get the picture, politicians support those masses of poor people to do the wrong things and those people dont have a choice.
This is different in India, even if poor class is ready to do anything and if somehow a politican does tend to support some bad plans, it wont work for long. Mainly cuz there does exist a fairly stable system with a good sense of "humanity" who are not motivated to kill anyone for money.
The above might sound too crazy but a lot of my research suggest nothing but what i just said above.
If we were to talk abt this nuclear hysteria being created by Pakistani army, once again i have to say that this a part of political agenda. Indians and pakistanis have very strong historical relations, and i am sure its hard for anyone who isnt "disoriented" to think abt the destruction of each other. I know a lot of people from both sides, atleast thats what they say.

India also have some extreme politics like what we heard abt Gujrat, the religious killings but eventually Indian democracy is a stable one and the one which is striving to become a world leader by virtue of good things rather the bad ones.

I might be implying some negative things against pakistan, but actually i am suggesting negativity abt the messy politics in both the countries which one need to stop, to avoid this war.

Though i am pretty sure it will never happen.

We did not hear too much by way of calls for restraint in the aftermath of Sept 11th, although the idea of rounding up wrongdoers in general is praiseworthy

I think the biggest problem is that the U.S. is asked by Waring factions to take a Middleman or intervention role, and in those circumstances, it puts them in a very difficult position, in order to keep both sides happy

Theoretically,If somehow the U.S. could tell overseas factions that their problem is not the U.S.'s problem, and concentrate more on domestic matters, they may be a lot better off but I do know in practise it is not so easy to do

The U.S cannot be the World's Policeman

Double standards it is. Pakistan has waged a proxy war with India for A LOOOOOOOOONG time now, and when we decide to take action, he is all indignant about us as tho we were children. Well that is expected. What else will a bully do ?

India and China are America's biggest emerging markets in the world, he cannot afford to lose them. So now he wil play big daddy. The fact is the Indian politicians have no balls. Every youth in this country wants action against Pakistan. It will happen eventually. come what may.

The U.S. and Russia both realized that not only mutual destruction, but possibly global destruction were the only end game scenario that a Nuclear War could bring. We pretty much had/have enough nukes to blow up the world.

India/Pakistan do not. They have just enough nukes to cause some serious damage to a very large chunk of the world. As was pointed out...12 mil out of a billion just doesn't seem like a lot of loss...in the minds of military strategists. I honestly don't know what's going to happen...I honestly don't know what I think should happen. I know only the generals about the situation, so i can't really judge who is right or who is wrong...but I do know that a LOT of people stand to lose their lives over this.

Though honestly, with my limited knowledge, I would tend to lean toward making Kasmir a soverign nation of it's own...then no one gets it...except the people who live there.

--
Theoretically,If somehow the U.S. could tell overseas factions that their problem is not the U.S.'s problem, and concentrate more on domestic matters, they may be a lot better off but I do know in practise it is not so easy to do
--

I also agree with Linda that the U.S. has (and will continue to be) put in a very bad position. People whine and complain because we intervene...but you know what...they whine and complain when we don't. It's a no win situation for us...

We have the financial and military resources to help countries like Somalia, Bosnia, Afganistan, India, and whoever. Therefore, if we let civil wars or genocide go on without stepping in to "save" everyone...people accuse us of being isolationists and not caring. If we DO step in and try to help, people accuse us of always trying to take over the world and force our ideas on everyone else.

The world honestly needs to decide. I have no problem helping out my neighbor...but if he's going to call me names every time I do it...I'm eventually going to quit. I'd be more than happy to take a nice tax cut based on the foreign aid we no longer send out to the world...or to see that money go toward improving health care, education and social security. I bet most people here in the states would.

--
The U.S cannot be the World's Policeman
--

No...we can't...and we shouldn't. And others should not bite the hand that so often feeds them.

quote:

---

Though honestly, with my limited knowledge, I would tend to lean toward making Kasmir a soverign nation of it's own...then no one gets it...except the people who live there.

---

Enhance your knowledge.

Excerpt of http://www.jammu-kashmir.com/basicfacts/basics.html

=========

What exactly happened in 1947?

Jammu & Kashmir in the year 1947 was an independent country for all practical purposes. The Maharaja who ruled the State had signed agreements with both Pakistan and India to remain neutral and not be part of either country. India honoured that agreement but Pakistan did not. Pakistani raiders and soldiers attacked the state in 1947 forcing the Maharaja to flee to India. The Maharaja asked India to help his people who were being killed and looted by the Pakistani raiders. He also agreed to make Jammu &; Kashmir part of India. The Indian ruler at that time was Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru. He accepted Jammu &; Kashmir's accession to India and agreed to rescue his people from the Pakistani attackers. Indian troops were flown into the Kashmir Valley and they managed to drive away most of the Pakistani raiders from the state. But a large area of the state remained under the control of Pakistani soldiers. These areas were difficult to reach because they were surrounded by tall mountain ranges. Also, India wanted to stop the fighting. The fighting ended with Pakistan retaining control of a large area of the state but India keeping a larger part.

what is the legal position on Jammu & Kashmir?

Legally, Jammu & Kashmir is an integral and inseparable part of India. The British had ruled India as one undivided country made up of many provinces and princely states. When they left, India was partitioned into two separate countries. The new country, as mentioned earlier, was called Pakistan. The British as well as the leaders of both India and Pakistan had agreed to one basic principle - every inch of land must go either to India or to Pakistan. In other words, people living in India before the partition of 1947, had only two options: they could either join Pakistan or they could join India. They could not remain independent.

Jammu & Kashmir was actually an exception. The Maharaja of the State had wanted time to decide whether he should join Pakistan or join India. But the rulers of Pakistan did not want to give him the opportunity to decide and instead attacked his state, killing hundreds of people and causing extensive damage to property. The Pakistani action forced the Maharaja to join India.

Was the Maharaja's decision to merge his state with India legal?

It was absolutely legal. According to the agreement on which the partition of India was based, the rulers of princely states, like Jammu & Kashmir, had the absolute right to decide whether they wanted to join Pakistan or India. There was never any question of holding a referendum or a plebiscite. All the same, the then Prime Minister of India, Pundit Jawaharlal Nehru, agreed to hold a plebiscite because he was a democrat and wanted to find out what the people of the state of Jammu & Kashmir wanted.

Read more : http://www.jammu-kashmir.com/basicfacts/basics.html

=========

So, Jammu & Kashmir is an integral and inseparable part of India. All those people who are trying to separate it or giving any type of backup to such people are enemy of India. And hence, all those people are my personal enemy too.

PS: If you want to know what Indian Army is doing in J&K., please visit http://www.armyinkashmir.org/

I am not sure to laugh or otherwise on this particulare comment but just realize its all part manipulation game.(hmm dont ask where to buy? hehe)

Ask yourself why a terrorist organization would hit on the Indian parlaiment? Well for me publicity.
Why would a terrorist who wants Kashmir free would kill innocent Kashmiri women and children, i mean their own people? Tell me if it doesnt ring any bells in your heads.

These are tacts but nothing else to promote the terror around the world.

If one would say there are kashmiri's who wants self autonomy, i am sure there are who doesnt? At this time one could ask for hey why not have a vote?
The answer is simple, just scroll up and see the begining of the msg.
When the entire state is terrorised, anyone would vote which gets them peace. But who looses here? For me the entire man kind. Why?
Because if one succeeds at blackmailing one entire nation, others just get all the inspiration and courage.
I would love to be criticized now.

Thanks! That was a pretty good summary. When I have a chance, I may have to read more from that web page.

What I don't understand though is why Kashmir still has to belong to either Pakistan or India. I can understand that when the British divided it up, they wanted everything to go one way or the other...but now that India and Pakistan are soverign, a British demand that's over 50 years old shouldn't really come into play.

Now...if it's a question of Kashmir WANTING to be soverign, but being repeatedly overun by the Pakistanis, and calling on India for help, I can understand how India might simply want to "adopt" it as a state so as to provide better protection.

Also, when Pakistan and India where divided, didn't the British try to divide it up based on the religion of each area? Thus, Pakistan was a Muslim area and most of India followed Hinduism? From what little I did know, i thought that was how it got divided...

What is the dominant religious/ethinic culture of Kashmir?

Personally I'd like to see the country of Kashmir created and India, Pakistan and China be forced to butt-out

The Maharaja of Kashmir has signed a legal document (agreement of accession) with India. As per that document Jammu & Kashmir has became an integral and inseparable part of India. Hence Kashmir is belong to India and ONLY India. This also include Pakistan occupied part of J&K. Pakistan has NO right to keep it and they should return it to India.

Do you have any reason why Kashmir should not belong to India?

FYI: All other states of India has signed the same agreement. It's similar like US states. Do you think that some US states are NOT belong to US?

quote:

---

Now...if it's a question of Kashmir WANTING to be soverign, but being repeatedly overun by the Pakistanis, and calling on India for help, I can understand how India might simply want to "adopt" it as a state so as to provide better protection.

---

As per the agreement, legally Kashmir is an integral and inseparable part of India. So there is NO question of separate Kashmir.

BTW, who told you that Kashmir want to be sovereign? FYI, it is already sovereign. It's an integral and inseparable part of sovereign India. People in Kashmir can elect their OWN representative by voting in elections. They have all those rights that any other Indians have.

And you didn't replied to waYss's following quote.

==
Imagine, aroud the the outskirts of US, towards the border in some state, number of terrorist organistations starts to create problems and gradually get sponsored by the enemies of US.
Do you think the present "Super power" will say, oh right its alright with us. Some people dont want this state to be part of ours, so we are ready to grant the autonomy to them and let them have thier own way.
==

Will you support anybody from any US State who WANT to be sovereign? And will you say that your enemies are good freedom lover people because they are supporting those few people who WANT to be sovereign just because they can rule on behalf of your enemies? Especially, when those enemies DON'T HAVE ANY DEMOCRATIC GOVT. in their OWN COUNTRY.

>>Also, when Pakistan and India where divided, didn't the British try to divide it up based on the religion of each area?

Don't know the truth. It may be yes or no. It's a different story.

>>Thus, Pakistan was a Muslim area and most of India followed Hinduism?

Pakistan is an Islamic country. But India is Secular country.

People believing in different religions has equal rights in India. And yes, most of Indian are Hindus. But it DOESN'T matter because our nation is a secular nation.

I would like to tell you 2 facts.

1. Indian Muslims are more in number than Pakistani Muslims. It means more muslims are living in India than muslims live in Pakistan.

2. All Indian Muslims has equal rights and are treated equally in India.

Click here to read about one the MOST respected Indian who is Muslim.

>>What is the dominant religious/ethinic culture of Kashmir?

It DOESN'T matter because Kashmir is an integral and inseparable part of India. And India is a secular country.

Does religious/ethinic cultural dominant matters in US? I was under WRONG impression that US is a secular nation.

quote:

---

Personally I'd like to see the country of Kashmir created and India, Pakistan and China be forced to butt-out

---

Nice smile. Why don't you try to divid YOUR OWN country? If you need terrorist, please contact Pakistan. It's a motherland of terrorist.

There is more information available online, http://www.pak.gov.pk/public/kashmir/kashmir.htm , is very informative.

CNN also has a good collection of articles, http://asia.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/kashmir/

Here is a very clear explaination of the Pakistans stand, http://www.forisb.org/kashmir.html

Here is one more resource, if you want to read bunch of bad comments over India.
http://www.paknews.com/forum/

Please feel free to read few thread in 'Jammu & Kashmir (Azad & Indian Occupied)'. You will know that who is racist, Indians or Pakistanies (Sorry for those Pakistanies who are really good).

quote:

---

If you need terrorist, please contact Pakistan. It's a motherland of terrorist.

---