IceFire 0 Posted April 12, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Frisbee @ April 13 2003,00:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (IceFire @ April 12 2003,21:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">They should nuke the hell out of eachother and get it over with.<span id='postcolor'> Oh yes,let's hope Al qaeda can get a nuke and nuke the hell out of america,and vice versa. Hell,let the rest of the world also nuke the hell out of eachother and get it over with. [\sarcasm] Great line of thinking... Â <span id='postcolor'> No no, I was just talking about Pakistan and India, not us and Al-Quada, or the whole world. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Akira 0 Posted April 12, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (IceFire @ April 13 2003,01:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Frisbee @ April 13 2003,00:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (IceFire @ April 12 2003,21:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">They should nuke the hell out of eachother and get it over with.<span id='postcolor'> Oh yes,let's hope Al qaeda can get a nuke and nuke the hell out of america,and vice versa. Hell,let the rest of the world also nuke the hell out of eachother and get it over with. [\sarcasm] Great line of thinking... Â <span id='postcolor'> No no, I was just talking about Pakistan and India, not us and Al-Quada, or the whole world.<span id='postcolor'> Yeah cause that would only effect them. *insert rolling eyes* Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Frisbee 0 Posted April 13, 2003 India : 1,045,845,226 Pakistan : 147,663,429 It seems to be easy to be very easy to say that the lives of people you don't know anything about are worthless. That's a total of 1,193,508,655 people,a very large fraction of those would get killed immediately,eg mumbai (bombay)being a target of choice,and that has a multi million population. Aww hell,they're just a waste of perfectly good oxygen aren't they? *goes off grumbling* Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
toadlife 3 Posted April 28, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> India and Pakistan are both clear and real threats, which is why they likely wont be attacked for a while. Its all very well to attack a Dictatorship that probably doesnt have any WMD, because you know there wont be any serious concequences (ie no chemical or biological attacks took place in Iraq.) <span id='postcolor'> </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> Keep believing that. The only difference between Musharref before 9/11 and after is that he saw the expediency in not pissing off the most powerful nation on the planet. He throws up AQ members now and again and he's a darling with the US government and gets loads of Aid money. Call me a cynic, but he's yet another evil dictator that the US props up when it's in their best interest.<span id='postcolor'> Do you know anyone from Pakistan that can verify any of what you say, or are you just spewing propoganda to further your anti-American agenda? I am friends with an exchange student from Pakistan. He said he likes Musharraf. Note that he is safe here in the U.S. and said this of his own free will.), and that even though he is technically a dictator, he is not oppresive. Of course, he doesn't want to go back to Pakistan, but it's not because of the "evil dictator" in his country - a lot of his family is here. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IsthatyouJohnWayne 0 Posted April 30, 2003 I would not exactly call Musharraf an evil dictator. A power seeking opportunist perhaps (surely most national rulers could be called that?). A typical Sandhursty (British military trained) type post-British empire authoritarian guy. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/472997.stm He can mainly be criticised for failing to ease tensions with India , not doing an awful lot (or often anything) to stop anti-Indian terrorists operating out of Pakistan (if you call them 'militants' or freedom fighters then he would even be quite supportive), and obviously 'suspending' civilian led democracy. Im not surprised many of the more secular Pakistanis are somewhat supportive of Musharraf. Hes their national leader against the Indians, and he represents the non-islamist , supposedly non-corrupt alternative for pakistan. Have no doubt though that the islamists and commited muslims in Pakistan (not to mention many British Pakistanis i have met) tend to hate Musharraf and America with powerful fury. Pakistan could do worse than Musharraf though. Much worse.Even though things are bad between Pakistan and India i think they could be -even- worse without Musharraf. A non Musharraf government would likely be even more anti-indian , more explicitly muslim fundamentalist, more brutal etc.  Whilst i think it would be unfair for the British to take all the blame for this situation we British certainly bear a certain historic responsibility for and authorship of the present troubles. I think we should make every effort to intervene (contrary to what Kingbeast seems to say) and help to ease tensions between the two countries most preferably through the EU. Not by 'knocking one guy out' but by convincing them both to throw their grenades into the sea. In fact most of the present troublespots bear colonial and/or early United Nations hallmarks. India/Pakistan, Israel/palestine, the creation of the modern state of Iraq (in fact all these are ex-british) +most of the middle east, africa and many parts of asia all created and delineated via very artificial and eurocentric means by dieing empires with the league of nations or early UN only adding to the problems with their flawed anachronistic schemes bringing into creation nations with the swish of a pen. America harried the european powers to immediatly dispense with their empires after WW2. This did not help largely bankrupt or ailing european states to make the colonial- post colonial shift in the colonial countries easier or encourage caution or reflection (not that the european governments  would necessarily have been willing to reflect at the time anyway) . The decolonisation was ad-hoc and somewhat botched. Also it accepted largely without question the artificial boundaries imposed by colonial masters. This ungraceful withdrawal left many voids unfilled in the former colonies and sowed many seeds of discontent which i believe are now bearing fruit. I dread to think what America will reap from the seeds its sowing. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PitViper 0 Posted April 30, 2003 India doesn't have the relative power or influence to make it happen. Â U.S will lean on them, end of story. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Acecombat 0 Posted May 2, 2003 I cant imagine how hypocrite the media can be What about the state sponsored terrorism spawned by the Indian Army , who kill people in kashmir and rape and murder without any right? why doesnt the US who says its 'helping' and 'freeing' people especially the muslims 'Kosovo and Iraq' *insert roll eyes* stop India or even better invade them and hand Kashmir back to pakistan since its their Legal right after the independence .... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
