[Napuljun]

A new hotline has been created by these two countries to try and stop a nuclear war if tension rises. Do you think thiswill help? Does anybody see progress? I think unless both sides start to scrap their arseanals, there won't be any progress.

[Josh]

The Pakistan/India situation really could go either way, in my opinion. If things go well, either side won't find a "reason" to nuke the other. However, there are a great deal of things that could spark a horrible conflict. One thing is for sure, though. If a conflict does ensue, the body count would be tragic. The image that pops up in my mind is very simple: nuclear missles flying past each other over the border between India and Pakistan. Here's hoping it doesn't turn into a bloodbath.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

A new hotline has been created by these two countries to try and stop a nuclear war if tension rises. Do you think thiswill help? Does anybody see progress? I think unless both sides start to scrap their arseanals, there won't be any progress.

I think the phone line is just a mere political stunt.

I think the only solution is not to "scrap their arsenals", but to further enhance them, like ten-fold, for they have other enemies too and today is the age of Nationalism not Ideological Internationalism, and Nations care more about territorial ambitions than world opinion. The other enemies of Pakistan and India is China.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

The Pakistan/India situation really could go either way, in my opinion. If things go well, either side won't find a "reason" to nuke the other. However, there are a great deal of things that could spark a horrible conflict. One thing is for sure, though. If a conflict does ensue, the body count would be tragic. The image that pops up in my mind is very simple: nuclear missles flying past each other over the border between India and Pakistan. Here's hoping it doesn't turn into a bloodbath.

This is very ignorant to think, because nuclear weapons have only been used once in all of history for military means in a war, and that was more than 50 years ago.

[Napuljun]

I think the only solution is not to "scrap their arsenals", but to further enhance them, like ten-fold, for they have other enemies too and today is the age of Nationalism not Ideological Internationalism, and Nations care more about territorial ambitions than world opinion.

With this situation it is defintely not the case. 'Islamic internationalism' is the main provoker of their tension in Kashmir. A war with India would involve other muslim countries fpr sure, and than India would result to use nuclear weapons to stop the Islamic advance.

THEY MUST DEFINETLY START SCRAPPING THEIR ARSEANALS TO AVOID A MASSIVE DESTRUCTION.

[Garibaldi]

So, what you're saying is that India should scrap it's nuclear stockpile because it might kill millions of people defending it's soveirgnty?

My toughts are that the only plausible solution would be for India to extend a hand of ecoonmic prosperity to Kashmir, and attempt to provoke Western thought in Pakistan.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

I think the only solution is not to "scrap their arsenals", but to further enhance them, like ten-fold, for they have other enemies too and today is the age of Nationalism not Ideological Internationalism, and Nations care more about territorial ambitions than world opinion.

With this situation it is defintely not the case. 'Islamic internationalism' is the main provoker of their tension in Kashmir. A war with India would involve other muslim countries fpr sure, and than India would result to use nuclear weapons to stop the Islamic advance.

Muslim countries have never fought together against any country. Pakistan and India have went to war over Kashmir 3 times, in 1948, 1964, and 1971; each time Pakistan never attacked India with another country nor did India attack Pakistan with any type of weapon of mass destruction, both sides always just used conventional weapons however Pakistan used suicide bombers to blow up Indian tanks.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

So, what you're saying is that India should scrap it's nuclear stockpile because it might kill millions of people defending it's soveirgnty?

My toughts are that the only plausible solution would be for India to extend a hand of ecoonmic prosperity to Kashmir, and attempt to provoke Western thought in Pakistan.

Currently there is a military dictatorship in Pakistan that is very western its secular style of politics and pro-western foreign policy, as evident in its immediate volunteering in helping U.S.A. after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on U.S.A. I think the U.S.A. government should stop funding and tolerating this oppressive anti-democracy regime in Pakistan and support the democratic opposition which is pro-wester and much more pacifist and is already attempting to use the little parliamentary democracy left in Pakistan to enact legislation to cut down on the military by coming to a commonality with the ruling political party that the military supports through allowing it to stuff ballot boxes with pro-ruling party ballots.

[Garibaldi]

Pakistan isn't secular, although it isn't theist either. It's attempting to straddle the fence for it's own good; what India needs to do is promoste the ideals of Locke, Roussiue, and Adam Smith to both show how much more prosperous they would be and relate western thought to Islam.

[Boondock Saint]

The Pakistan gov't is a paper tiger waiting to be toppled by an Islamic regime and in goes a OBL type guy with his finger on a button.

India would own Pakistan in a conventional war and the numbers of nukes they possess and the delivery systems available imo mean that a great deal of people would die on both sides but not enough to end a war.

IMO there has been progress made between these two nations as the talk of war is not nearly as hot as it was years ago.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Pakistan isn't secular, although it isn't theist either.

Pakistan is in fact theist, for its full name is: The Islamic Republic of Pakistan

It's attempting to straddle the fence for it's own good; what India needs to do is promoste the ideals of Locke, Roussiue, and Adam Smith to both show how much more prosperous they would be and relate western thought to Islam.

So your saying India is Islamic? India hasa lot of resemblance to autarky in its economic policies, and the U.S.A., is jealous of this and encourages India to reform its economic policies, most likely because it would make India much less of an autarky, and lead to economic dependence/interdepence on foreign nations, through capitalism.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

The Pakistan gov't is a paper tiger waiting to be toppled by an Islamic regime and in goes a OBL type guy with his finger on a button.

What button?

India would own Pakistan in a conventional war and the numbers of nukes they possess and the delivery systems available imo mean that a great deal of people would die on both sides but not enough to end a war.

Why not enough to end a war? And what do you specifically intend by saying this?

IMO there has been progress made between these two nations as the talk of war is not nearly as hot as it was years ago.

This is not progress, this is just further worstening the situation, because no material progress has been made, only abstract, like exchange of smiles between foreign ministers. I know this much better than you, because I am a Pakistani, and I frequently (almost daily) read the most popular newspaper of Pakistan through internet at:

http://www.dawn.com/

I commend you to read it, especially the opinion and editorials and look at the cartoons of present, recent past, and long ago. It even still has its political cartoon from September 12, 2001.

[Garibaldi]

Pakistan is in fact theist, for its full name is: The Islamic Republic of Pakistan

China's name is the People's Republic of China, does that make them a democracy.

So your saying India is Islamic?

What kind of fool would I be if I did that? India is a "secular" nation, but is highly more partial to Hinduism and slightly more partial to Christianity and Judaism; just about anyone knows that.

What I meant by relating Western thought to Islam was that I know somewhat about the Khalifa system and I understand that the Koran was written by a merchant and can be viewed as promoting capitalism. If India relates the Khalifa system to a US-style republic or(probably more successfully) a Parliementary style government, and makes a connection between Adam Smith and Mohammed, Pakistan would be less hostile to India and more likely to ally with the west, as well as be the first major step in peace between Islam and Western thought.

India hasa lot of resemblance to autarky in its economic policies, and the U.S.A., is jealous of this and encourages India to reform its economic policies, most likely because it would make India much less of an autarky, and lead to economic dependence/interdepence on foreign nations, through capitalism.

I'm sorry, but which population is too vast to feed it? I won't disagree that India is doing good compared to a lot of nations, but the idea that the US is jealous of India is downright laughable.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Pakistan is in fact theist, for its full name is: The Islamic Republic of Pakistan

China's name is the People's Republic of China, does that make them a democracy.

They are an indirect bureaucracy, indirect democracy in other words. A true democracy is one that fits the description of the word 'democracy', for the word democracy is a greek word that translates to "people government" or "government of the (majority) people", hence a true democracy is a direct democracy not a republic, which is an indirect democracy (pseudo-democracy), an indirect bureaucracy in other words. The other word used for republic is: "representative democracy".

So your saying India is Islamic?

What kind of fool would I be if I did that? India is a "secular" nation, but is highly more partial to Hinduism and slightly more partial to Christianity and Judaism; just about anyone knows that.

Only a small minority of humanity knows that India is "Secular" nation and has a Hindu majority, however a sixth of humanity resides in India as citizens of the republic of India (Bharat).

What I meant by relating Western thought to Islam was that I know somewhat about the Khalifa system and I understand that the Koran was written by a merchant and can be viewed as promoting capitalism.

That is oversimplifying it, to the point that it is almost false, because Islam at face-value does not seem as simply promoting capitalism, because one of the "5 pillars of Islam" is charity, and it is on the basis of a certain percentage of one's annual savings. And usury is forbidden for Muslims by Islam. And the Khalifa system is much more democratic than any other theocratic government that is based on just religion and religious tradition with indifference to modern political traditions of secularism or half-secularism.

If India relates the Khalifa system to a US-style republic or(probably more successfully) a Parliementary style government, and makes a connection between Adam Smith and Mohammed, Pakistan would be less hostile to India and more likely to ally with the west, as well as be the first major step in peace between Islam and Western thought.

Why Adam Smith? What is so good about Adam Smith? You seem like someone that is pro-capitalism, because you favor Adam Smith as the most wise philosopher/thinker for "modern times". Capitalism had its purpose in history, not that purpose has no use, because humanity has evolved beyond the ability of just advancing from tribalism, slavery, and feudalism to capitalism, and I think humanity is now ready for a new social, economic, political, spiritual, and martial mode of existance: Socialism.

India hasa lot of resemblance to autarky in its economic policies, and the U.S.A., is jealous of this and encourages India to reform its economic policies, most likely because it would make India much less of an autarky, and lead to economic dependence/interdepence on foreign nations, through capitalism.

I'm sorry, but which population is too vast to feed it?

There is no population that is too vast to feed, because of the innovation of agriculture in the course of human history, which replaced hunting and starvation from hopeless search for food into the ability to basically make heaven out of most of the land of the world. This is a principle of socialism and National Communism.

I won't disagree that India is doing good compared to a lot of nations, but the idea that the US is jealous of India is downright laughable.

Laughable to you, but not laughable to everyone. Jealousy comes in many forms, it is not exclusively in a combination of all its forms, your above quoted statement gives the implication that jealousy is automatically on the basis of prosperity, in the context of our discussion here. Is this laughable: In direct democracy, the rich are jealous of the numerical might of the poor; The rich are jealous of the noble social-minded hard work of the poor in their earning for a living in comparison to the lazy and parasitic anti-social profiteering methods of earnings of the rich.....??

[Crazy Brown Guy]

[quote="NationaliDemocratiSociali"]
This is very ignorant to think, because nuclear weapons have only been used once in all of history for military means in a war, and that was more than 50 years ago.[/quote]

You mean twice.

[quote="NationaliDemocratiSociali"]
I think the only solution is not to "scrap their arsenals", but to further enhance them, like ten-fold, for they have other enemies too and today is the age of Nationalism not Ideological Internationalism, and Nations care more about territorial ambitions than world opinion. The other enemies of Pakistan and India is China.
[/quote]
China is no enemy of Pakistan, they are very close allies. China is the biggest threat to India.

[quote="NationaliDemocratiSociali"]
With this situation it is defintely not the case. 'Islamic internationalism' is the main provoker of their tension in Kashmir. A war with India would involve other muslim countries fpr sure, and than India would result to use nuclear weapons to stop the Islamic advance.
[/quote]
Muslim nations will not side with Pakistan. As far as I know for sure, Arabia and Iran are close allies of India not Pakistan.

[quote="NationaliDemocratiSociali"]
Muslim countries have never fought together against any country. Pakistan and India have went to war over Kashmir 3 times, in 1948, 1964, and 1971; each time Pakistan never attacked India with another country nor did India attack Pakistan with any type of weapon of mass destruction, both sides always just used conventional weapons however Pakistan used suicide bombers to blow up Indian tanks.
[/quote]
India and Pakistan fought 2 wars over Kashmir not 3. Last war that they fought was the liberation of East Pakistan which later became Bangaladesh.

One little fact that you might wona know. India's president is a Muslim man, not a Hindu. Very strange how the world's largest democracy is led by a Muslim and here we say Muslims can't adopt democracy.

[quote]
Strange how my quotes arn't working...[/quote]

[Napuljun]

Muslim nations will not side with Pakistan. As far as I know for sure, Arabia and Iran are close allies of India not Pakistan.

What about Syria and Libya? Iran was an enemy of Pakistan because it sided with the Taliban in the Afghan Civil War. Now the Taliban is no more so I may think twice wheter to judge if Iran is still enemy of Pakistan.

China is no enemy of Pakistan, they are very close allies. China is the biggest threat to India.

I thought India had strong economic ties with China, am I wrong?

One little fact that you might wona know. India's president is a Muslim man, not a Hindu. Very strange how the world's largest democracy is led by a Muslim and here we say Muslims can't adopt democracy.

Who ever said that Muslims can't practice democracy is totally wrong. Democracy can't be practiced when religion still has too much power over society and Islam is a very powerful religion in a lot of Arab countries.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

I think the only solution is not to "scrap their arsenals", but to further enhance them, like ten-fold, for they have other enemies too and today is the age of Nationalism not Ideological Internationalism, and Nations care more about territorial ambitions than world opinion. The other enemies of Pakistan and India is China.

China is no enemy of Pakistan, they are very close allies. China is the biggest threat to India.

It was a typo, I meant to say that the other enemy of India is China, and that thus India needs its nuclear weapons to counter the continous imperialist expansionism of China in trying to gain North Indian land in Sikkim and areas close to it. By the way China is a nuclear military power, and China has been frequently conducting naval exercises with the India's navy. It seems China is becoming unfriendly to Pakistan, because of Pakistan's alliance with USA against Afghanistan and Pakistan's government allowing complete freedom of movement and "anti-terrorist operations" to the FBI and CIA of America, these are well-known to be very anti-China organizations. And China is loosing great imperialist investments in Pakistan ever since Pakistan allowed USA to go into Afghanistan freely, using its airspace and air force bases on land.

With this situation it is defintely not the case. 'Islamic internationalism' is the main provoker of their tension in Kashmir. A war with India would involve other muslim countries fpr sure, and than India would result to use nuclear weapons to stop the Islamic advance.

Muslim nations will not side with Pakistan. As far as I know for sure, Arabia and Iran are close allies of India not Pakistan.

You misquoted, that was not me that posted that, it was Napuljun.

Muslim countries have never fought together against any country. Pakistan and India have went to war over Kashmir 3 times, in 1948, 1964, and 1971; each time Pakistan never attacked India with another country nor did India attack Pakistan with any type of weapon of mass destruction, both sides always just used conventional weapons however Pakistan used suicide bombers to blow up Indian tanks.

India and Pakistan fought 2 wars over Kashmir not 3. Last war that they fought was the liberation of East Pakistan which later became Bangaladesh.

They had simulatenous war in Kashmir, and this is a well-known fact in history! The Indian military instigated the civil war between East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) and West Pakistan (now simply called Pakistan), and then the Indian military exploited the ensuing weakness of overstretched troop movements of West Pakistan to invade and conquer parts of West Pakistan occupied Kashmir and Punjab, however India returned all these newly won territories as part of a bilateral peace settlement, which was a result of peace talks promoted by the Soviets at Tashkent, Soviet Republic of Uzbekistan, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

One little fact that you might wona know. India's president is a Muslim man, not a Hindu. Very strange how the world's largest democracy is led by a Muslim and here we say Muslims can't adopt democracy.

Thats like saying that the current American puppet regimes in Afghanistan
and Iraq are proof that Muslims can have Democracy.

Strange how my quotes arn't working...

Please don't be egotistical, it ruins the wonderful impression of your brilliant intellectual arguments. Seriously, I am not using sarcasm.

[Napuljun]

Strange wrote:
NationaliDemocratiSociali wrote:
With this situation it is defintely not the case. 'Islamic internationalism' is the main provoker of their tension in Kashmir. A war with India would involve other muslim countries fpr sure, and than India would result to use nuclear weapons to stop the Islamic advance.

Muslim nations will not side with Pakistan. As far as I know for sure, Arabia and Iran are close allies of India not Pakistan.

Yes that was definetly me writing that.

Thats like saying that the current American puppet regimes in Afghanistan
and Iraq are proof that Muslims can have Democracy.

Not at all, I did not mention that, religion is not secularized in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[Crazy Brown Guy]

[quote=”Napuljun”]
I thought India had strong economic ties with China, am I wrong?
[/quote]
I don’t think so India’s major export partners are USA,Hong Kong,UK,Japan,Germany,UAE,Belgium,Italy,Russia,Netherlands,Bangladesh,France,Singapore,Malaysia,Australia and Thailand. Import partners are USA,Belgium,UK,Switzerland,Japan,Germany,UAE,Australia,Singapore,Nigeria,Italy,Korea (Rep.),France,Russia and Netherlands.

[quote=”NationaliDemocratiSociali”]
It was a typo, I meant to say that the other enemy of India is China, and that thus India needs its nuclear weapons to counter the continous imperialist expansionism of China in trying to gain North Indian land in Sikkim and areas close to it. By the way China is a nuclear military power, and China has been frequently conducting naval exercises with the India's navy. It seems China is becoming unfriendly to Pakistan, because of Pakistan's alliance with USA against Afghanistan and Pakistan's government allowing complete freedom of movement and "anti-terrorist operations" to the FBI and CIA of America, these are well-known to be very anti-China organizations. And China is loosing great imperialist investments in Pakistan ever since Pakistan allowed USA to go into Afghanistan freely, using its airspace and air force bases on land.
[/quote]

Before the navel exercises that took between India and China, China conducted a navel exercise with Pakistan. India was second on its list then France. Thing with Sikkim is that, India and China have agreed that the land these two countries took after the 1962-1963 war as belonging to the other country, this event was a monumental concession from both sides and it took place just this year. I really won’t China, India and Pakistan to get along to combat the US expansion into Asia, but I guess it’s not going to happen anytime soon.

[quote=”NationaliDemocratiSociali”]
They had simulatenous war in Kashmir, and this is a well-known fact in history! The Indian military instigated the civil war between East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) and West Pakistan (now simply called Pakistan), and then the Indian military exploited the ensuing weakness of overstretched troop movements of West Pakistan to invade and conquer parts of West Pakistan occupied Kashmir and Punjab, however India returned all these newly won territories as part of a bilateral peace settlement, which was a result of peace talks promoted by the Soviets at Tashkent, Soviet Republic of Uzbekistan, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. [/quote]

This war was not instigated by India, the West Pakistan had military control in the East and when these armies started to massacre the population, refugees started to leave the country and entered India as refugees. When millions of refugees flooding into your country India had no other choice then to intervene and fight the West Pakistani army along with the Bangladeshi rebels. When this happened West launched an offensive on all of the western flanks and India once again had to defend against this attack and drive them back to their borders. You have to know in the previous two wars, Pakistan was the aggressor, it always attacked India and India always drove them back to the bordered and barely entered the Pakistani borders.

[quote=”NationaliDemocratiSociali”]
Thats like saying that the current American puppet regimes in Afghanistan
and Iraq are proof that Muslims can have Democracy.
[/quote]
Regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq aren’t democracies because they were not elected by the people. They were hand picked by the Imperialists. You have been buying too much into the Imperialist propaganda.

India has the third largest Muslim population on the planet after Indonesia and Pakistan.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Strange wrote:
NationaliDemocratiSociali wrote:
With this situation it is defintely not the case. 'Islamic internationalism' is the main provoker of their tension in Kashmir. A war with India would involve other muslim countries fpr sure, and than India would result to use nuclear weapons to stop the Islamic advance.

Muslim nations will not side with Pakistan. As far as I know for sure, Arabia and Iran are close allies of India not Pakistan.

Yes that was definetly me writing that.

Thats like saying that the current American puppet regimes in Afghanistan
and Iraq are proof that Muslims can have Democracy.

Not at all, I did not mention that, religion is not secularized in Iraq and Afghanistan.

It IS secularized in Iraq, as much as in India. I have researched more on India's secularism more than anyone else on this entire forum, I am sure.