Search results

The total land captured was roughly 2% of Pakistan, that's not exactly game-changing (especially when one remembers that most of it was returned to Pakistan). Sure, some areas were strategic, but it's still an awfully small portion that hasn't given India much of an advantage in the long run...

I never said land wasn't taken, I said no major gains were made, and this is correct. I'm pretty sure that wasn't the objective of the Kargil War. That was the main idea all along, that India wouldn't be so stupid to do something that brought it so little benefit but so much pain. We were...

Why do all the liberal Pakistanis always look like Indians? Has anyone else noticed this lol? Even in this picture, other than a couple of them, they all look Indian.

So long as NATO is on-board (and they would be), Pakistan would know Iran is doomed to lose. In such a scenario, it's pretty unlikely Pakistan will refuse to help Saudi Arabia if such assistance is requested (because of the consequences such a rejection may bring, as well as the benefits an...

Clearly not, otherwise things would have gone down differently. You're the one who made the claim contrary to common knowledge, so the onus of proof is upon you. Codswallop, that land didn't just magically come under Indian authority. Bangladesh was as much a part of Pakistan as British...

Can't recall, but I know it was not close to 1:1. That's not even 1% of Pakistan's land mass lol. And most of that land was complete junk.

Iran is right next door, that's not going to be an advantage. An aircraft carrier isn't needed for that. They can just use PAF bases.

They haven't got enough ships to guarantee it's safety while also defending the Saudi coastline. They don't even have submarines. They could buy all of this stuff, but it's a useless investment since they have no need to project power. What Saudi Arabia should invest in is better training for...

No it wasn't. And you still failed to make any major gains (in fact, you even lost territory such as Chamb sector).

Such as? I read the thread in which you completely flipped out, and I saw no such thing.

No, their naval fleet isn't anywhere near strong enough to defend such a heavy investment.

The professionalism of the Muslim armies in India has been shown throughout history, when we didn't wipe out all the Indians despite ruling over many of them for hundreds of years. Just look at India now! It has one of the world's largest populations, if we weren't so professional this wouldn't...

That forum is disgusting.

And then NATO would breathe down their necks and force them to stop. If they didn't listen, they'd get the Iraq treatment. It's not the fact that there are casualties, it's that they're simply far higher than they should be. Over 2,000 coalition soldiers have been killed, almost two dozen...

Might as well just ask for a ban lol

Arab and US governments have also supported the claim, with Saiful Azam also going down as one of the worlds 22 Living Eagles. Still behind. The gap isn't quite that big, and Arab armies are notorious for being poorly trained. And these fancy tools mean nothing in the face of our nuclear...

Yes, several. Saiful Azam (a Pakistani pilot) even holds the world record for most Israeli aircraft shot down: http://www.paf.gov.pk/air_warriors.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sattar_Alvi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saiful_Azam I'm not talking about I.O.U's, we're talking about...

To some degree. The divide is still rather apparent if one looks at history. Most Hindus who assisted the Muslims were shunned by the others. Agreed. He's often portrayed as a bigot even though he brought numerous Hindus into his administration. You're welcome.

It's funny how you actually believe something that lacks any evidence whatsoever.

Better than Arabs that's for sure. We flew your planes and shot down several Israeli aircraft without losing a single one of our own. Even now, the Gulf comes running to us for military support against little old Yemen. Only 1 out of the numerous conflicts/wars we've fought. Arabs, on the...