What's new

India asks Pakistan, US to mend ties

jesus-says-meme-generator-jesus-says-you-ve-been-trolled-aaebc2.jpg


Looks like S.M. Krishna is on soft Trolling mode :D:D


Mind your business india, if it wasn't for india meddling in Afghanistan, making pacts with Karzai and building its consulates in Afghanistan near the Pakistan border, Pakistan and US would not have conflicting interests and disagreements concerning Afghanistan.

Why are you not worry that Iran and U.S. have bad relations, why are you worried that Kayani is growing a spine and refuses to be Uncle Sam's personal pet like Musharraf used to be.

Reply from S.M Krishan to you...

277182_254405104592005_3968425_n.jpg
 
. .
good joke:D

ask the ppls of this highlighted countries do they think the same.......its just like indians says tht they are the super power but world is not Paradise of fools to beleive tht...:D

and u think u know everything wat those people think of us. let me make it clear for u then.
1. Nepal PM is currently visiting India to boost security and economic ties and expects 1 billion dollars of soft loan from india.
2. Bhutan's king will visit India in his first bilateral visit after his wedding. rahul gandhi was present from india at his wedding reception.
3. India has announced that they will be stationing some dornier aircrafts at maldives for surveillance for three weeks.
4. india will be loaning 500 mn dollars to myanmar for development works.
5. ties with bangladesh have improved a lot in recent times and an agreement on water sharing is expected soon.

why dont read the news first about my claims and then come back to trolling. making a green smiley with teeth doesnt make u look funny...
 
.
"India asks Pakistan, US to mend ties" :D:D:D:D
Your laughter smiley sucks! And you rub it in by pasting not one but FOUR of them! Sheeesh!
monster-013.gif


Yes, India is asking Pakistan and US to mend ties because they're squabbling like ruddy 3 year olds!
unhappy-009.gif

Grow up and start behaving like a responsible country!
 
. .
The longer USA stays in Afghan the better it is for India and afghan... the shorter the USA stays in Afghan the better it is for pakistan .... at least keeping this logic in mind pak better go after and get rid of the Haqqanis and all other extremists , else the relation between US and Pak will continue to sour !!!
 
.
Mind your business india, if it wasn't for india meddling in Afghanistan, making pacts with Karzai and building its consulates in Afghanistan near the Pakistan border, Pakistan and US would not have conflicting interests and disagreements concerning Afghanistan.

Why are you not worry that Iran and U.S. have bad relations, why are you worried that Kayani is growing a spine and refuses to be Uncle Sam's personal pet like Musharraf used to be.
Well I actually think it is a good statement from the Indian government - if India really means it, then I would argue that it supports my previous arguments about the US coming under tremendous international pressure from the world to avoid a military confrontation with Pakistan.

If India, of all states, sees 'adverse consequences' from a US-Pak military confrontation, then you know the Chinese, Arabs, Europeans (barring the lapdog of the US, the UK) and South Americans are certainly not going to offer any support for military action by the US against Pakistan.

In terms of a 'message' to the US to stick to 'non violent diplomacy', the Indian statement is significant.

And lets be clear (to borrow from Obama), this statement was primarily for the US, since Pakistan has shown no indication of wanting a military confrontation with the US, and has in fact been arguing for dialog and diplomacy to resolve disputes and differences, and it is Pakistan that has been arguing against inflammatory rhetoric and threats in the public domain.
 
.
Well I actually think it is a good statement from the Indian government - if India really means it, then I would argue that it supports my previous arguments about the US coming under tremendous international pressure from the world to avoid a military confrontation with Pakistan.

If India, of all states, sees 'adverse consequences' from a US-Pak military confrontation, then you know the Chinese, Arabs, Europeans (barring the lapdog of the US, the UK) and South Americans are certainly not going to offer any support for military action by the US against Pakistan.

In terms of a 'message' to the US to stick to 'non violent diplomacy', the Indian statement is significant.

And lets be clear (to borrow from Obama), this statement was primarily for the US, since Pakistan has shown no indication of wanting a military confrontation with the US, and has in fact been arguing for dialog and diplomacy to resolve disputes and differences, and it is Pakistan that has been arguing against inflammatory rhetoric and threats in the public domain.
I am happy that the first of the Pakistani Member taking the positives of the Indian message in this thread. If the others follow suit I am going to have a wonderful and happy week end.
 
. .
what a joke- self praising indians at it again- ok grandpa we will try-

india is becoming a "ghus bethia" between us and amrika- same title goes for india against us and afghanistan-
 
.
If India said this as a message to US to back off, and let them handle it, then it is a very good one IMO. Gives a message to the US that it does not always get what it wants.
 
.
If India said this as a message to US to back off, and let them handle it, then it is a very good one IMO. Gives a message to the US that it does not always get what it wants.

Do you really believe that?- Really?-
As you can see its a big "if" you are talking about-
 
.
If India said this as a message to US to back off, and let them handle it, then it is a very good one IMO. Gives a message to the US that it does not always get what it wants.

If we could do that wouldn't we have said that to China!

Pakistan has better chance of dealing with USA than us because you have been in relationship with each other for many decades so will understand them better.
 
. . .
Back
Top Bottom