"Thanks to Indian media who has over the period of time swiped out intellectual taste from mass Indian population." - Chetan Parekh
I am a Papad
"Thanks to Indian media who has over the period of time swiped out intellectual taste from mass Indian population." - Chetan Parekh
Now I would like to listen 'something' from supporters of "war on terror" who attacked and captured a country with no proof of terrorist links(OK OK, the links which only you could see).
"Thanks to Indian media who has over the period of time swiped out intellectual taste from mass Indian population." - Chetan Parekh
Originally posted by Jason Menard:
Just my two cents.
"Thanks to Indian media who has over the period of time swiped out intellectual taste from mass Indian population." - Chetan Parekh
Associate Instructor - Hofstra University
Amazon Top 750 reviewer - Blog - Unresolved References - Book Review Blog
Originally posted by R K Singh:
[QB]Please leave Indians alone..
No one is saying to poke nose in Indian matter.
[QB]
Mark Fletcher - http://www.markfletcher.org/blog
I had some Java certs, but they're too old now...
Originally posted by Mark Fletcher:
Umm... so why are you poking your nose into how the US conducts its affairs with other countries?
"Thanks to Indian media who has over the period of time swiped out intellectual taste from mass Indian population." - Chetan Parekh
Originally posted by R K Singh:
Because that affects whole world.
AW from the replies, I got the answer that there is no answer.
Commentary From the Sidelines of history
Originally posted by Axel Janssen:
I don't know much about southern asia (70% of my knowledge is from MD).
[ flickr ]
Originally posted by Ashok Mash:
Thank heavens; India doesn�t have any oil reserves!
Commentary From the Sidelines of history
Originally posted by Joe King:
Pakistan is a bit of an enigma.
[ flickr ]
Originally posted by Paul McKenna:
Wrong! India has huge oil reserves off Bombay coast - offshore drilling and in AP. Rajahmundry to be precise.
[ flickr ]
Originally posted by Don Stadler:
Wasn't there something smelly about the way Kashmir ended up in India at partition-time? Could some who are more familiar with the issue discuss this?
[ flickr ]
Originally posted by Ashok Mash:
Muslim majority states in the NorthEast (which is now Pakistan) naturally joined Pakistan, and so did the Muslim majority region in SouthEast corner of India, forming 'East Pakistan' (and later a different country, Bangladesh).
Commentary From the Sidelines of history
Originally posted by Joe King:
On the other hand, Pakistan is not likely to ever use its weopans directly because India is sitting next door and slightly trigger happy.
Ever Existing, Ever Conscious, Ever-new Bliss
Neither Pakistan nor the international community, can be taken in by India's so-called "no-first-use" policy. No-first-use has never been accepted as the basis for determining the deterrent postures of any of the Nuclear Weapon States. Indeed, India itself places no credibility in 'no-first-use'. If it did, it should have accepted China's assurance of 'no-first-use' and of non-use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapon States. This would have obviated the need for India's nuclear weapons acquisition and made unnecessary the operational deployment of nuclear weapons. Non-deployment, in turn, would make 'no-first-use' declarations unnecessary.
India's 'no-first-use' declaration is, in fact, designed to secure for itself "recognition" as a nuclear weapon state which would flow from the "acceptance" of its no-frist-use and non-use "assurances". It is for this purpose that India has offered to ratify the non-use assurance Protocol to the Treaty establishing the South-East Asia Nuclear Weapon Free Zone. Secondly, India will seek to justify the acquisition of a large nuclear arsenal by arguing that its nuclear forces should be large enough to sustain and retaliate against a nuclear first strike. The doctrine issue yesterday states that India's nuclear forces "shall be designed and deployed to ensure survival against a first strike and to endure repetitive attrition attempts with adequate retaliatory capabilities". It envisages a triad of nuclear forces including "aircraft, mobile, land-based missiles and sea-based assets". This would require a huge arsenal. According to a study published in the United States, India possesses over 1600 Kg of fissile material which can be used to produce over 400 nuclear warheads. this will have to be taken into account by all countries which are threatened by India's nuclear weapon arsenal.
Originally posted by Jason Menard:
http://www.fas.org/news/pakistan/1999/990819-pak-pr.htm
Commentary From the Sidelines of history
Originally posted by Jason Menard:
Pakistans's thoughts on India's statement of "No First Use".
http://www.fas.org/news/pakistan/1999/990819-pak-pr.htm
[ February 11, 2004: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]
Ever Existing, Ever Conscious, Ever-new Bliss
Originally posted by Sadanand Murthy:
In December 2001, islamic terrorists trained in Pakistan attacked the heart of Indian government & democracy - they attacked the Indian parliament. What do you think US would have done if US Capitol was attacked like that by terrorists? So India amassed her troops on the Indo-Pak border because they felt that that was the last straw. At that time India very nearly went into Pakistan. Would that have been trigge-happy? I think not.
Originally posted by Don Stadler:
Pardon me. Didn't India 'go nuclear' sometime in the 1970's? I don't believe it was a recent development....
MH
Originally posted by Don Stadler:
Pardon me. Didn't India 'go nuclear' sometime in the 1970's? I don't believe it was a recent development....
Commentary From the Sidelines of history
Originally posted by Ashok Mash:
As an exception to this general logic, Nizam, the ruler of Muslim majority region, Hydrabad, joined India (being in the middle of rest of India and away from Pakistan), after initial arguments of independent nation status. (I could be wrong here, please correct me if I am).
Meanwhile, a Hindu king ruled Kashmir, but with majority of its people were Muslims. King of Kashmir (his name slips my mind),
.Now this is my understanding of the issue! Please feel free to correct me!
MH
Originally posted by Rufus BugleWeed:
I was thinking last night that if most of the people in Kashmir are Muslims, may be Kashmir should be in Pakistan. If there was peace between the neighboring countries, Indians could always go there on vacation. Nobody would be deprived of the great scenary.
Wouldn't it be nice if two lands that have been connected for centuries could live in peace? Wouldn't it be nice if the US did not have to worry about fingers on the trigger between India and Pakistan?
Originally posted by Jason Menard:
As does India's nuclear arsenal.
"Thanks to Indian media who has over the period of time swiped out intellectual taste from mass Indian population." - Chetan Parekh
Originally posted by R K Singh:
And so US's nuclear arsenal.
Who lives in glass house, they dont throw stones on other's house.
Mark Fletcher - http://www.markfletcher.org/blog
I had some Java certs, but they're too old now...
You will always be treated with dignity. Now, strip naked, get on the probulator and hold this tiny ad:
Gift giving made easy with the permaculture playing cards
https://coderanch.com/t/777758/Gift-giving-easy-permaculture-playing
|