India's "War on Terror"

[Agammamon]

India asks why it can't bomb the hell out of Pakistan for repeated terrorist strikes against Indians. The U.S. response -- because -- isn't selling. U.S. calls for continued talks are losing what little meaning they had.

"If dialogue per se is more critical than combating international terrorism with all necessary means, then one can legitimately ask why both in Afghanistan and Iraq military action instead of dialogue has been resorted to," a spokesman for the Indian government said.

So it will be anywhere a claim of a terrorist threat can be made.

Reason (http://www.reason.com/)

[clk]

I think India has a very good point. The US looks very hypocritical to the Indians. If India were to do to Pakistan what the US did with Iraq, all hell would break loose. Why does the US urge restraint to other nations when the nations are repeatedly being attacked by terrorists, but yet shows no restraint of its own? I have yet to hear a counter-argument from the US.

[Advocate]

I think there is a very good answer. Because if India attacks Pakistan and is too successful, Pakistan will retaliate with its nuclear weapons. The only way to prevent that would be a nuclear first strike. I don't think India would risk that. A war is one thing, a nuclear war is another. I think if Pakistan did not have nuclear weapons, we would see the Indian army there already.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Advocate
I think there is a very good answer. Because if India attacks Pakistan and is too successful, Pakistan will retaliate with its nuclear weapons. The only way to prevent that would be a nuclear first strike. I don't think India would risk that. A war is one thing, a nuclear war is another. I think if Pakistan did not have nuclear weapons, we would see the Indian army there already.

That is the answer, and India is smart enough to know it. It is a convenient fiction for the Indian government to point at us as the reason they can't attack Pakistan. Our insistence may even be arranged for their benefit.

In any case, it does make us look like hypocrites, and it likely has no effect on the situation except to give the Indian government an 'excuse' for not fighting, which they aren't going to do anyway. We should quit issuing such warnings.

MattJ

[Agammamon]

Originally posted by Advocate
Because if India attacks Pakistan and is too successful, Pakistan will retaliate with its nuclear weapons.

Which is why India should have invaded Pakistan years ago before Pakistan developed WMD, which is precisely what we are doing now.

One thing that applies to the India/Pakistan problem is that India has been doing to Pakistan exactly what Pakistan has been doing to India.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Advocate
I think there is a very good answer. Because if India attacks Pakistan and is too successful, Pakistan will retaliate with its nuclear weapons. The only way to prevent that would be a nuclear first strike. I don't think India would risk that. A war is one thing, a nuclear war is another. I think if Pakistan did not have nuclear weapons, we would see the Indian army there already.

Pakistan is a prime example of why the United States has to keep Islam away from nuclear weapons.

JK

[Agammamon]

And India is a prime example of why we should keep nuclear weapons away from the hindu.

[Advocate]

Originally posted by Agammamon
And India is a prime example of why we should keep nuclear weapons away from the hindu.

A little too late. All the Hindu dominated nations have them. Unless there is a Hindu nation hiding somewhere. ;) All the Muslim nations do not, fortunately. OTOH since both India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons there should be a stalemate between them. If it was only one side with them now I would expect to see an invasion.

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Pakistan is a prime example of why the United States has to keep Islam away from nuclear weapons.

JK

Originally posted by Agammamon


And India is a prime example of why we should keep nuclear weapons away from the hindu.


And they both are a prime example why we should keep nuclear weapons away from everybody.

[Dorman]

Advocate:
A little too late. All the Hindu dominated nations have them. Unless there is a Hindu nation hiding somewhere.

Actually, the only officially Hindu nation does not have nuclear weapons yet :cool:

[Advocate]

Originally posted by Dorman

Actually, the only officially Hindu nation does not have nuclear weapons yet :cool:

OK. I am confused. I thought India was the only Hindu nation. And they do have nuclear weapons.

[clk]

Originally posted by Advocate


OK. I am confused. I thought India was the only Hindu nation. And they do have nuclear weapons.

Nepal is the only officially Hindu nation.

[susheel]

Nepal is the only officially Hindu nation.

Actually clk is right here. Nepal is the only officially Hindu nation in the world. The Indian constitution defines India as a 'secular socialist democratic republic'. Of course there is an overt and covert move by the ruling Hindu right wing to rewrite the constitution along Hindu Nationalist lines.

However, Indian democracy is still strong enough to see to it that such efforts are stymied by popular action. We lefties do some good work here in India.;)

[Advocate]

Originally posted by clk


Nepal is the only officially Hindu nation.

OK. I stand corrected. I was not aware that Nepal was officially Hindu.

[Agammamon]

Originally posted by Advocate

OTOH since both India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons there should be a stalemate between them. If it was only one side with them now I would expect to see an invasion.

So I have to wonder why we told India not to invade Pakistan, and Pakistan not to invade India, before they both had nukes.

If nukes were not involved would either country be right (like we are supposed to be) to invade the other to end terror attacks? And if so why has the US intervened for all these years? We told them to give peace a chance, yet they have the same problems with each other that we supposedly have with Iraq.

[susheel]

Actually India conducted it's first nuclear test way back in the seventies "for peaceful purposes".

Indira Gandhi the then Prime Minister had declared emergency and relations with Pakistan were pretty bad. She had also included a rather fascistic 20 point programme towards 'development'. In fact she was a bit of a dictator. The ‘test’ was on the one hand to create a feeling of insecurity among the masses which would immediately be alleviated by a feeling of National pride and power. Thereby securing her unconstitutional hold on power.

The one at Pokharan recently was saber rattling and an affirmation of Hindutva nationalism by a right wing Hindu administration trying to strengthen an otherwise shaky government.

Do you see a pattern here?

While two test conducted prove that India has the technology to create a bomb, many of us seriously doubt we have one. I hope I am not being too optimistic in assuming that the ‘bombs’ are being used as deterrants.

While India has elected Prime Ministers with a certain dubious intellect, the Presidents have so far been largely sensible people. And the final authority for the deployment of the bomb will rest with the President.

I can speak with some confidence that India will not be the first to deploy a nuke. And I also believe it will be the same with Pakistan, they are smart enough to do the math. Unless the President is a Jihadist who believes the utter destruction of two nations is the ultimate sacrifice for Islam.