On Tuesday 30 Dec 2008 11:25:23 am lukhman_khan wrote: > >And while that war was averted by the urgent > >diplomacy of the Clinton administration, the > > That war was averted? And by urgent diplomacy of the Clinton admin...? > > As we understood it, the pakis were being hammered in kargil and they > wanted some face saving exit. So they were looking for someone, anyone > to tell them to stop.
Lukhman - the man is a Paki. This is the standard Pakistani story. The only odd thing about the article is this man's acknowledgement that Pakistan is in trouble - an acknowledgement that does not come easily from Pakistanis. > > New Delhi cannot afford to be lacking a military > > response. India's failure to demonstrate her > > military resolve undermines her security and > > economic progress, and makes a mockery of her > > claim as an emerging global actor deserving > > permanent membership in the Security Council. > > Do you agree with this? Shiv? India, he says cannot be seen as being a > strong state unless it attacks Pakistan. Once again, a standard Pakistani line that occurs in article after article is that "lack of response" and "lack of war" is India's weakness - even "cowardice'. Time and again, Pakistan's survival after a conflict is portrayed as India's defeat. > > economic progress, and makes a mockery of her > > claim as an emerging global actor deserving > > permanent membership in the Security Council. > > To deserve a permanent membership in the security council, India > should wage war against pakistan? (who can then claim to be a victim) > and that would be a sure shot way of losing support. Heh heh. :D And there are Indians who will agree with this guy. > > >Pakistan is unravelling along its Afghan > >frontier. India can mount, with NATO members > >including Canada, greater pressure on this > >frontier by considering troop deployment in Afghanistan. > > Are the Americans facing any success there in Afghanistan? And even > for a moment agreeing to send our troops there, where should India's > supply lines be? Through pakistan? The supply lines are the problem. If that can be sorted (Russia? Iran?) I would not mind seeing a slightly increased role in Afghanistan. I personally think a Pashtunistan should be carved out of Afghanistan and Pakistan. At least part of the Taliban is Pashtun nationalism. However the argument you make is a strong one and a lot of people disagree with my view. > Assuming pakistan is going into self-destruct anyway, why dirty our > hands in that mess. Let the americans do all the dirty work. After all > they were the people who created it in the first place. Lukhman I have just finished writing an article about the US's role. A friend is trying to get the article into one of the mainstream media. Even if it does not get published by them - it will go online on my usual medium. I will link that here in due course. shiv
