What's new

India has no desire to wage war

Status
Not open for further replies.
500+ aircraft is clearly a few .. so is a SSBN.. three aircraft carriers.. very very defensive.
All to combat the ragtag terrorist scum..

To combat Pakistan , a country that has attacked is 65 , 71 and 99 .

To combat China to which we lost a war in 1962 , have a border dispute with and which is building its defence exponentially faster than we are .
 
.

It shows how peaceful the country is to live in!

It shows Afghanistan in black/dark red. Does that mean Afghanistan is most aggressive and invades lots of countries? The country's occupied!

Seriously mate, how much you must you enjoy to troll that you don't even make any sense anymore in fact you post something that totally negates your argument. It sickens me! I'm glad not all the Chinese are like you. :sick:
 
.
500+ aircraft is clearly a few .. so is a SSBN.. three aircraft carriers.. very very defensive.
All to combat the ragtag terrorist scum..

Nope, never said those new toys are for terrorists. Those aircraft, SSBN etc. are for deterring the lovely couple from trying anything funny.

Like I said, if your nukes are for deterrence then India's aircraft etc. are for deterrence too right? It just so happens that our authorities prefer conventional weapons over nuclear ones. Don't ask me why.
 
.
500+ aircraft is clearly a few .. so is a SSBN.. three aircraft carriers.. very very defensive.
All to combat the ragtag terrorist scum..

Being defensive doesn't just mean defending yourselves from terrorists but also from war mongers (in our case its Pakistan)
anyways we have taken our lessons in 1962 for not having a strong millitary and corrected our mistakes and its seems to me that its helping us alot isn't it.

---------- Post added at 06:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:51 PM ----------

Nope, never said those new toys are for terrorists. Those aircraft, SSBN etc. are for deterring the lovely couple from trying anything funny.

Like I said, if your nukes are for deterrence then India's aircraft etc. are for deterrence too right? It just so happens that our authorities prefer conventional weapons over nuclear ones. Don't ask me why.

^^^I think this answer was better than mine :lol:
 
.
500+ aircraft is clearly a few .. so is a SSBN.. three aircraft carriers.. very very defensive.
All to combat the ragtag terrorist scum..

3 Words....Peace through strength.
 
.
When Pakistan builds a sh*t-load of warheads, it's deterrence but when India buys a few aircraft or gets an aircraft carrier, it's hegemonic designs?

Doesn't quite make sense.

Same can be said about India: ...when India bought Sh1t load of military planes and weapon are claiming for defensive purpose...when China got ASAT test and J-20 exprimental flight for purely peacefull defensive...it become a threat to India.

that make alot of sense... don't you think?
 
.
You fail to make any sense . Go to sleep , come back when you are sober.
if you dont know keep quiet
Kashmir and Jammu (princely state) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
220px-Pangaea_continents.svg.png

Pangea_animation_03.gif


see how india has emerged

---------- Post added at 08:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:27 PM ----------

Same can be said about India: ...when India bought Sh1t load of military planes and weapon are claiming for defensive purpose...when China got ASAT test and J-20 exprimental flight for purely peacefull defensive...it become a threat to India.

that make alot of sense... don't you think?
If it was defensive, why a stealth fighter?
If it is for defensive, conduct anti ASAT tests , not asat tests
we have less squadrons than sanctioned , do u ?
 
.
Pakistan may go to in another war to solve its internal problems .

corruption
poverty
population bust.
detorating ecnomy.
detorating relationship with US
internal/ domestic problem
Shia Sunni fight
Tribal problem.

So the qyestion is with whom, they are very good for proxy war but thats now gone with Laden and Taliban.
Indian must be prepared to give an Iron fist to any adventures.
 
.
Same can be said about India: ...when India bought Sh1t load of military planes and weapon are claiming for defensive purpose...when China got ASAT test and J-20 exprimental flight for purely peacefull defensive...it become a threat to India.

that make alot of sense... don't you think?

Of course it's a threat to us. Did I say that Indian weapon acquisitions were not a threat to Pakistan? No, because that would be incredibly stupid. The problem I have is with some people trying to term Indian weapons acquisitions as part of her "hegemonic designs" while poor old Pakistan is just "defending herself".

What's even funnier is when they say China is simply "defending herself". Reeks of double standards don't you think?
 
.
Pakistan may go to in another war to solve its internal problems .

corruption
poverty
population bust.
detorating ecnomy.
detorating relationship with US
internal/ domestic problem
Shia Sunni fight
Tribal problem.

So the qyestion is with whom, they are very good for proxy war but thats now gone with Laden and Taliban.
Indian must be prepared to give an Iron fist to any adventures.

see what I said now reflects.

The 9/11 attacks that thrust Pakistan into the war on terror have brought the nuclear-armed state to its knees, fighting Islamist radicals at home and risking pariah status abroad.

It was already evening in Pakistan when television channels, recently deregulated by then president General Pervez Musharraf, began broadcasting the terrifying scenes from the twin towers in New York.

Few slept that night, realising immediately that the world had changed forever and that Pakistan was in the eye of the storm after spending years fostering extremist movements for its own ends.

"My immediate thought was 'oh my God, more trouble coming onto Pakistan'," said author Imtiaz Gul, who has written extensively about the subsequent war and its fallout at home.

"My fears have been borne out... The 9/11 events shocked Pakistan into an unprecedented crisis of insecurity," he said.

It didn't take long for Musharraf to weigh up conditions imposed by Washington and announce on September 19 that Pakistan would offer its airspace, territory and capabilities to help the United States defeat terrorism.

But as America put the finishing touches to its war plans, Pakistan desperately tried to persuade its Taliban allies in Afghanistan to give up Osama bin Laden and avert catastrophic military action, to no avail.

Within weeks, bin Laden, his future successor Ayman al-Zawahiri and Taliban leaders had fled the American invasion into Pakistan.

And there in the northwestern tribal belt, which no government has been able to subjugate, they found refuge among an extremist support network dating back to the 1990s jihad against the Soviets in Afghanistan.

They regrouped, forming bases used by the Taliban to direct the insurgency in Afghanistan and training camps for Al-Qaeda to brainwash young extremists from all over the world into carrying out terror attacks.

As a result, the last decade has made the only Muslim nuclear power more unstable than ever before in its bloody and chaotic 64-year existence.

The watershed came in July 2007 when government troops cleared out extremists preaching hate from the Red mosque in the heart of the capital Islamabad.

The militants declared war and in the past four years, around 500 bomb attacks have killed 4,600 people, according to an AFP tally.

Just when it appeared things couldn't get worse, this year the US discovered bin Laden living close to Pakistan's equivalent of West Point, sending in Navy SEALs to kill him and sinking already fractured US-Pakistani relations.

"No doubt that this is absolutely the worst time for the country," said Pakistani journalist Ahmed Rashid, whose book "Taliban" became an international bestseller after 9/11.

Rashid describes Pakistan as "completely isolated" by a war that "brought terrorism, sectarianism, a weakening of the state (and) much greater ethnic insurgencies" within the country.

But the blame -- he says -- is Pakistan's for frittering away American aid money and refusing to realign its national security priorities.

"Politically, the most far-reaching mistake was the hosting and relaunching of the Afghan Taliban by the military and the intelligence agencies. That was enormously detrimental and led to the growth of the Pakistani Taliban."

Pakistan routinely proclaims to have sacrificed the most of any country fighting terror.

The government claims that 35,000 people have been killed. The army confirms the deaths of 3,019 soldiers since 2001 -- more than the 2,684 Western soldiers to have died in Afghanistan.

More than three million people have been displaced by violence and counter-terrorism activities in Pakistan since 9/11, according to International Crisis Group figures released in 2010.

The army says 147,000 troops are deployed in the northwest compared to 35,000 in October 2001, a drastic reversal from the previous concentration along the Indian border in the east.

Yet extremism has increased. An average of one US drone strike every four days against militants in the tribal belt is raising fears that the campaign is recruiting a new generation of insurgents and suicide bombers.

Jihadist groups -- fostered by Pakistan's security establishment to fight India in Kashmir and maintain Afghanistan as a strategic asset -- have splintered, and increasingly turned the guns on their old allies in the state.

"Pakistan is a lot less secure country now than 10 years ago, because it has become a battleground, an extension of the Afghan war. Pakistan is now facing a serious threat for its stability," said journalist Zahid Hussain.

Yet the public discourse concentrates less on how to defeat militancy than debating the merits of the hugely unpopular US alliance.

Trust between Islamabad and Washington is at an all-time low. Cooperation between the CIA and Pakistan's ISI spy agency is poor. Blame games on both sides are played out in the media.

Compounding the sense of crisis is the country's economic meltdown. Pakistan says losses related to the war are $68 billion. Critics say the country has squandered up to $20 billion in aid given by the United States.

"The biggest mistake was the failure to really address strategic issues in the economy. Pakistan could have changed its very weak economic structure at that point in time," said Rashid.

Instead crippling inflation, rampant unemployment and an energy crisis with power cuts of up to 16 hours a day have left millions wondering how to fill the void
 
.
Of course it's a threat to us. Did I say that Indian weapon acquisitions were not a threat to Pakistan? No, because that would be incredibly stupid. The problem I have is with some people trying to term Indian weapons acquisitions as part of her "hegemonic designs" while poor old Pakistan is just "defending herself".

What's even funnier is when they say China is simply "defending herself". Reeks of double standards don't you think?

Every nation has it own double standard, India and China are not exception, we're all hypocritical when talking weapons acquisitions: play down when we own a load of weapon and trumpeting enemy's threat even they acquire only a single bullet.
 
.
Every nation has it own double standard, India and China are not exception, we're all hypocritical when talking weapons acquisitions: play down when we own a load of weapon and trumpeting enemy's threat even they acquire only a single bullet.

So we're agreeing then? Pakistan's nukes are passed off as "defensive" and Indian acquisitions are amplified to make her look like the sole aggressor while conveniently ignoring our security needs.
 
.
So we're agreeing then? Pakistan's nukes are passed off as "defensive" and Indian acquisitions are amplified to make her look like the sole aggressor while conveniently ignoring our security needs.

There is a big difference.


india tested nukes first.
2)Pakistan doesnt complain when india buys weapons... while indians cry infront of the white house even if we by 18 odd F-16s.... And i mean really... indian americans actually protested infront of the white house when we were in talks for the F-16s.

---------- Post added at 02:54 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:52 AM ----------

Pakistan may go to in another war to solve its internal problems .

corruption
poverty
population bust.
detorating ecnomy.
detorating relationship with US
internal/ domestic problem
Shia Sunni fight
Tribal problem.

So the qyestion is with whom, they are very good for proxy war but thats now gone with Laden and Taliban.
Indian must be prepared to give an Iron fist to any adventures.

Another pile of horse shyt.

All ur facts look like typical shyt fed to indians by zee n dordarshan tvs.
 
.
There is a big difference.


india tested nukes first.
2)Pakistan doesnt complain when india buys weapons... while indians cry infront of the white house even if we by 18 odd F-16s.... And i mean really... indian americans actually protested infront of the white house when we were in talks for the F-16s.

China also crys when US tries to sell Taiwan F-16.
 
.
There is a big difference.


india tested nukes first.
2)Pakistan doesnt complain when india buys weapons... while indians cry infront of the white house even if we by 18 odd F-16s.... And i mean really... indian americans actually protested infront of the white house when we were in talks for the F-16s.

chinese tested nukes first:azn:
 
.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom