India and pakistan next?

[hellfish6 7]

This is about the Indian defense minister announcing his support for a pre-emptive strike policy towards Pakistan. With all this Iraq war news, I think this may have slipped off our radars. Did George II start a very dangerous precedent? And how is Pakistan different from Iraq? Both have weapons of mass destruction and both harbor terrorists.

Mods: If you think this belongs in another thread, or if you're going to get mad at me for starting another potentially political thread, just PM me and I'll edit this all away. However, I do think this would make a good discussion topic, hence why I am introducing it.

Fri Apr 11, 5:53 AM ET

JODHPUR, India (AFP) - Defence Minister George Fernandes reiterated Indian warnings that Pakistan was a prime case for pre-emptive strikes.

"There are enough reasons to launch such strikes against Pakistan, but I cannot make public statements on whatever action that may be taken," Fernandes told a meeting of ex-soldiers in this northern Indian desert city on Friday.

The renewed warning came just hours after US Secretary of State Colin Powell said Washington would strive to cool tensions between nuclear enemies Pakistan and India, who have fought three wars since 1947.

Fernandes said he endorsed Foreign Minister Yashwant Sinha's recent comments that India had "a much better case to go for pre-emptive action against Pakistan than the United States has in Iraq )."

Sinha also argued that Pakistan was "a fit case" for US military action, because it had weapons of mass destruction and terrorists.

Fernandes also rejected Pakistani allegations that India had breached United Nations Security Council resolutions from 1948 to 1957 which call for a plebiscite among Kashmiris to choose rule by India or Pakistan.

"Pakistan has a habit of lying and the issue of cross-border terrorism is a serious issue," Fernandes said.

India accuses Pakistan of arming and training Muslim militants in Kashmir (news - web sites). Islamabad denies the charge but says it offers moral and political support to what it describes as Kashmiris' legitimate struggle for self-expression.

Around 38,000 people have died in Kashmir, India's only Muslim-majority state, since the launch of the armed insurgency by Islamic guerrillas in 1989 in the Himalayan territory.

Pakistan and India both claim the scenic region, which is divided between them by a ceasefire line known as the Line of Control, with Pakistan controlling the northern part and India the south.

[edc 0]

Pakistan may have terrorists in it, but a lot of the government, ie their president, does not support them, and is going after them.

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (edc @ April 12 2003,08:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Pakistan may have terrorists in it, but a lot of the government, ie their president, does not support them, and is going after them.<span id='postcolor'>

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.

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Hellfish6 @ April 12 2003,07:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This is about the Indian defense minister announcing his support for a pre-emptive strike policy towards Pakistan. With all this Iraq war news, I think this may have slipped off our radars. Did George II start a very dangerous precedent?<span id='postcolor'>

hell yeah. His notion of pre-emptive attack has been the reason why I am not happy with some of the administration's foreign policy. I don't know how much the concept has been touted for this war, but the whole notion is bad. and i beleive to some extent current war has set precedents.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> And how is Pakistan different from Iraq? Both have weapons of mass destruction and both harbor terrorists. <span id='postcolor'>one thing is that Pakistan did not piss off US, and give global community much reason to deal with it. if Pakistan does something, its between India, and never really caused serious problem in recent years to warrant an international problem. right after Pakistan and India tested nuclear weapons, US gave both nations hard time. and after 9-11, the strategic need of airspaces forced US to recognize Musharaf and give some aid, while legitimizing his action.

i think US got itself into a heap of trouble, trying to balance both Pakistan and India.

[edc 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">He throws up AQ members now and again<span id='postcolor'>

Well its better than never giving us any Al Quaeda. I would agree that he's not a great guy, buts he's not done anything as bad as Saddam. I think the fact that they both have nuclear arsenals, and have shown restrain over using them(though India and Pakistan have come very close) says that theres some intelligent and logical thinkers in their governments.

[FSPilot 0]

What does this have to do with what happened in Iraq?

[Major Fubar 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ April 12 2003,08:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What does this have to do with what happened in Iraq?<span id='postcolor'>

The US have set a mandate that you can March into any country you feel represents a threat without waiting for UN approval.

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ April 12 2003,08:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What does this have to do with what happened in Iraq?<span id='postcolor'>

one of notions/doctrines that Bush administration put forward while discussing war on Iraq in early stage was notion of pre-emptive attack. it basically said that US will take pre-emptive action to root out terrorists and rogue states. and current war just showed that the doctrine was actually implemented.

now other nations are adopting it.

[Major Fubar 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ April 12 2003,08:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> And how is Pakistan different from Iraq? Both have weapons of mass destruction and both harbor terrorists. <span id='postcolor'>one thing is that Pakistan did not piss off US, and give global community much reason to deal with it. if Pakistan does something, its between India, and never really caused serious problem in recent years to warrant an international problem. right after Pakistan and India tested nuclear weapons, US gave both nations hard time. and after 9-11, the strategic need of airspaces forced US to recognize Musharaf and give some aid, while legitimizing his action.<span id='postcolor'>

So, what exactly did Iraq do to the USA again?

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ April 12 2003,13:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The US have set a mandate that you can March into any country you feel represents a threat without waiting for UN approval.<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">now other nations are adopting it.<span id='postcolor'>

So why aren't they adopting all of our other tendencies?

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Major Fubar @ April 12 2003,08:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So, what exactly did Iraq do to the USA again?<span id='postcolor'>

that's why i don't like this war. the closest to justifying it would be breaking UN resolution, but it did not exhaust enough diplomatic resources before relying on militaristic solution.

the current administration's initial reason was harboring AQ. got no where.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So why aren't they adopting all of our other tendencies? <span id='postcolor'>

cause they feel like it? i really don't want to see anyother nations adopting "Idol" shows("American Idol" is american version onf British show "Idol" with that Cowell guy).

in other words, just like US adopting certain things about other nations, other nations adopt certain things from US.

[Renagade 0]

Did u also see Ali G over there too

[KingBeast 0]

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.) Im sure it would have shook the world if Saddam had launched a Salvo of chemical SCUDs into the heart of Israel, and the world wouldnt be too happy with America for provoking such an action. But that didnt happen...

However, if you want to go and play with India and Pakistan then you have to be ready for the chance of a nuclear war. So why bother? 'Just try and keep them happy with us and let them destroy eachother' seems to be the policy for Bad leaders that are a REAL threat.

[IceFire 0]

I really don't think anything will come out of this.

For the past year or so India and Pakistan have almost gone to war with each other about 2 times already.

And it seemed more like just chest beating than anything really.

I doubt either actually have the guts to go at it in an all out war.

They always seem to be doing this.   This is nothing.   Don't worry about it.

[Longinius 1]

"They always seem to be doing this. This is nothing. Don't worry about it."

A big reason why nothing has happened so far is that they have worried about how the rest of the world would react. Well, now they know that pre-emptive strikes are OK, nothing will happen to you. Just look at America.

[hellfish6 7]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KingBeast @ April 12 2003,05:22)</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.) Im sure it would have shook the world if Saddam had launched a Salvo of chemical SCUDs into the heart of Israel, and the world wouldnt be too happy with America for provoking such an action. But that didnt happen...

However, if you want to go and play with India and Pakistan then you have to be ready for the chance of a nuclear war. So why bother? 'Just try and keep them happy with us and let them destroy eachother' seems to be the policy for Bad leaders that are a REAL threat.<span id='postcolor'>

How is India a clear and real threat? They're the largest democracy in the world. And last I heard, they didn't have state-sponsored terrorists.

[KingBeast 0]

They can be considered a threat in that they have nuclear weapons and are in a constant state of 'on the brink of war' which means they could end up using those nukes, which would then trigger Pakistan to use them also.

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (IceFire @ April 12 2003,12:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I really don't think anything will come out of this.

For the past year or so India and Pakistan have almost gone to war with each other about 2 times already.

And it seemed more like just chest beating than anything really.

I doubt either actually have the guts to go at it in an all out war.

They always seem to be doing this. This is nothing. Don't worry about it.<span id='postcolor'>

You just have to remember, chest beating doesn't always decide the outcome... when it's an even match, much worse things tend to happen, and nuclear weapons are the best equalizer in this case.

There is really no good moral reason to distinguish what USA did with Iraq and what India would like to do with Pakistan, actually Pakistan is a real and present danger, playing innocent through the U.S. relations.

Can you imagine, how many hours it can take from India launching and attack and all of us eventually getting nuked by one nation or another? I hope people are not complacant because we got through the cold war.

[hellfish6 7]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KingBeast @ April 12 2003,13:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">They can be considered a threat in that they have nuclear weapons and are in a constant state of 'on the brink of war' which means they could end up using those nukes, which would then trigger Pakistan to use them also.<span id='postcolor'>

The US was in this position vis-a-vis the Soviet Union for 45 years. Are we any more justified in our past than the Indians are in their present?

[KingBeast 0]

Hellfish, all I am saying is that any nation with nuclear weapons that is at the throat of another nation with nuclear weapons is a risk. But a risk that no one will counter. If two men are holding grenades with the pins pulled out and shouting at eachother, do you step in and knock one of the guys out or stay well out of the way?

This is what I am saying. Nothing is going to happen to nuclear nations as long as they have the ability to create massive destruction with said nukes. For instance, if it was certain that Saddam had nuclear weapons capable of reaching Israel, would the US invade Iraq and condem the Iraqi regime, or stay quiet and make friends with Saddam to make sure he doesnt do anything nasty?

Finally, I dont think the Cold War stand off between the Soviets and the US is comparable to India and Pakistan. In a small degree yes, but the difference is India and Pakistan are connected to one another, and there is near constant skirmishing in Kashmir.

[zverushka 0]

India has a far better case to go to war with pakistan.

What was Iraq to the US? Some small annoying country that doesn't like to play favorites with the US. Iraq never really did anything to the US.

What is Pakistan to India? A government that sujpports terrorists, including ones that are part of the al-qaeda that attack Indian positions daily in Kashmir and blow themselves up in Indian parliament occasionally. Its a huge threat to India. Unfortunately for India, Musharaff is playing favorites with the U.S. and pretends to be against Islamic extremism. And India is eternally screwed over because it was best buddies with the SU back in the cold war.

[IceFire 0]

They should nuke the hell out of eachother and get it over with.

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KingBeast @ April 12 2003,20:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Hellfish, all I am saying is that any nation with nuclear weapons that is at the throat of another nation with nuclear weapons is a risk. But a risk that no one will counter. If two men are holding grenades with the pins pulled out and shouting at eachother, do you step in and knock one of the guys out or stay well out of the way?

This is what I am saying. Nothing is going to happen to nuclear nations as long as they have the ability to create massive destruction with said nukes. For instance, if it was certain that Saddam had nuclear weapons capable of reaching Israel, would the US invade Iraq and condem the Iraqi regime, or stay quiet and make friends with Saddam to make sure he doesnt do anything nasty?

Finally, I dont think the Cold War stand off between the Soviets and the US is comparable to India and Pakistan. In a small degree yes, but the difference is India and Pakistan are connected to one another, and there is near constant skirmishing in Kashmir.<span id='postcolor'>

I would agree with you if there wasn't 50 years of conflict, war, and religious animosity between the two nations. If ever there is a flashspot in the world, this is it and Kashmir is the match.

Remember also that China has a claim on parts of the Kashmir, and parts of India as well. Who's to say that some Muslim radical won't attack the Indian Parliment again? Or some Hindu radical won't go on a spree in Kashmir? Remember last year or the year before that where India and Pakistan were on the verge? People "poo pooed" a nuclear war then too. Then it came out after that Pakistan had ready its missiles and were prepared to launch the instant an Indian incursion happened. Remember my hundreds of posts on that subject alone? Don't make me do it again!

[Frisbee 0]

</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...

[hellfish6 7]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KingBeast @ April 12 2003,13:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Finally, I dont think the Cold War stand off between the Soviets and the US is comparable to India and Pakistan. In a small degree yes, but the difference is India and Pakistan are connected to one another, and there is near constant skirmishing in Kashmir.<span id='postcolor'>

I would argue the opposite - that India and Pakistan are exactly like the US and Soviets. The US shared a border with the Soviet Union, both physically (Alaska/Pacific) and economically (Western Europe). And the skirmishing in Kashmir is no different to them than the skirmishes the US and Soviets fought in Latin America, Africa, Vietnam and Afghanistan.