Come on dude, save the sarcasm.
I wouldn't wanna be a part of world's single largest concentration of poor or uneducated people!
Don't turn this topic to another dick measuring contest.
India's sly game on Siachen
- Thread starter Awesome
- Start date
Come on dude, save the sarcasm.
I wouldn't wanna be a part of world's single largest concentration of poor or uneducated people!
Don't turn this topic to another dick measuring contest.
Awesome
RETIRED MOD
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2006
- Messages
- 22,023
- Reaction score
- 5
Actually India had a lot more balls then, we pissed em off in J&K and India started up a fullscale border war, it actually dared to step into Lahore! That's a pretty big thing for an Indian government.
Now they have a 1.5:1 superiority in soldiers, They have a kickass Air Force which is at least 10 years ahead of Pakistan's if not more. What made the Indians blink in 2002? And we didn't even have our Agostas, our economy was fledgling weak and no sign of the JF-17/F-16/J-10. You can count on us to experiment around with these new toys if India doesn't playball on the negotiating table and agrees to a mutual withdrawal. Pakistan is giving them a fair deal, India wants to keep targetting the Karakoram Pass which is unacceptable to us.
Awesome
RETIRED MOD
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2006
- Messages
- 22,023
- Reaction score
- 5
I strongly believe that kind of attitude doesn't deserve peace. We've already placed ourselves in a unique position where India can just wait and see us arm ourselves and wait for the next attack.
It managed to survive an attack during the Kargil days because of a lack of BVR ability of the PAF and the InAF was instrumental in that war.
Anyway I'm eager to hear his rants for a little while longer. It's easy pickings for me.
It managed to survive an attack during the Kargil days because of a lack of BVR ability of the PAF and the InAF was instrumental in that war.
Anyway I'm eager to hear his rants for a little while longer. It's easy pickings for me.
Shehz
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2006
- Messages
- 150
- Reaction score
- 0
The British handed over Kashmir to Pakistan (independence), India invaded it illegally.
UN Resolution: http://www.kashmiri-cc.ca/un/sc21apr48.htm
All UN Resolutions (vis-a-vis Kashmir) http://www.kashmiri-cc.ca/un/index.htm
Resolution 91 (1951)
Concerning the India-Pakistan question submitted by the Representatives of
United Kingdom and United States and adopted by the Security Council on
March 30, 1951.
(Document No. S/2017/Rev. 1, dated the 30th March, 1951).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE SECURITY COUNCIL,
Having received and noted the report of Sir Owen Dixon, the United Nations Representative for
India and Pakistan on his mission initiated by the Security Council resolution 80 (1950) of March
14, 1950.
Observing that the Governments of India and Pakistan have accepted the provisions of the United
Nations Commission for India and Pakistan resolutions of 13 August, 1948, and 5 January, 1949,
and have re-affirmed their desire that the future of the State of Jammu and Kashmir shall be decided
through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite conducted under the auspices of the
United Nations.
Observing that on 27 October, 1950, the General Council of the "All Jammu and Kashmir National
Conference" adopted a resolution recommending the convening of a Constituent Assembly for the
purpose of determining the "future shape and affiliations of the State of Jammu and Kashmir";
observing further from statements of responsible authorities that action is proposed to convene such
a Constituent Assembly and that the area from which such a Constituent Assembly would be elected
is only a part of the whole territory of Jammu and Kashmir.
Reminding the Governments and authorities concerned of the principle embodied in its resolutions 47
(1948) of 21 April 1948, 51(1948) of 3 June, 1948 and 80 (1950) of 14 March, 1950 and the
United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan resolutions of 13 August, 1948, and 5 January,
1949, that the final disposition of the State of Jammu and Kashmir will be made in accordance with
the will of the people expressed through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite
conducted under the auspices of the United Nations.
Affirming that the convening of a Constituent Assembly as recommended by the General Council of
the "All Jammu and Kashmir National Conference" and any action that Assembly might attempt to
take to determine the future shape and affiliation of the entire State or any part thereof would not
constitute a disposition of the State in accordance with the above principle.
Declaring its belief that it is the duty of the Security Council in carrying out its primary responsibility
for the maintenance of international peace and security to aid the parties to reach an amicable
solution of the Kashmir dispute and that a prompt settlement of this dispute is of vital importance to
the maintenance of international peace and security.
Observing from Sir Owen Dixon's report that the main points of difference preventing agreement
between the parties were:
(a) The procedure for and the extent of demilitarisation of the State preparatory to the holding
of a plebiscite, and
(b) The degree of control over the exercise of the functions of Government in the State
necessary to ensure a free and fair plebiscite.
(1) Accepts, in compliance with his request, Sir Owen Dixon's resignation and expresses its
gratitude to Sir Owen Dixon's resignation and expresses its gratitude to Sir Owen for the great ability
and devotion with which he carried out his mission;
(2) Decides to appoint a United Nations Representative for India and Pakistan in succession to Sir
Owen Dixon;
(3) Instructs the United Nations Representative to proceed to the sub-continent and, after
consultation with the Governments of India and Pakistan, to effect the demilitarisation of the State of
Jammu and Kashmir on the basis of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan
resolutions of 13 August, 1948, and, 5 January, 1949;
(4) Calls upon the parties to co-operate with the United Nations Representative to the fullest degree
in effecting the demilitarisation of the State of Jammu and Kashmir;
(5) Instructs the United Nations Representatives to report to the Security Council within three
months from the date of his arrival on the sub-continent; if at the time of this report, he has not
effected demilitarisation in accordance with paragraph three above, or obtained the agreement of the
parties to a plan for effecting such demilitarisation, the United Nations Representative shall report to
the Security Council those points of difference between the parties in regard to the interpretation and
execution of the agreed resolutions of 13 August, 1948, and 5 January, 1949, which he considers
must be resolved to enable such demilitarisation to be carried out;
(6) Calls upon the parties, in the event of their discussions with the United Nations Representative
failing in his opinion to result in full agreement, to accept arbitration upon all outstanding points of
difference reported by the United Nations representative in accordance with paragraph five above.
Such arbitration to be carried 'out by an arbitrator, or a panel of arbitrators, to be appointed by the
President of the International Court of Justice after consultation with the parties;
(7) Decides that the Military Observer Group shall continue to supervise the cease-fire in the State;
(8) Requests the Governments of India and Pakistan to ensure that their cement regarding the
cease-fire shall continue to be faithfully observed and calls them to take all possible measures to
ensure the creation and maintenance of an atmosphere favourable to the promotion of further
negotiations and to refrain from any likely to prejudice a just and peaceful settlement;
(9) Requests the Secretary-General to provide the United Nations Representative for India and
Pakistan with such services and facilities as may be necessary in carrying out the terms of this
resolution.
The Security Council voted on this Resolution on 30-3-51 with the following result:
In favour: Brazil, China, Ecuador, France, Netherlands, Turkey, U.K. and U.S.A.
Against: None
Abstaining: India, U.S.S.R. and Yugoslavia.
French Statement (on Kashmir Resulution)
Statement of the President of the Security Council (French Representative) made on the 18th May, 1964, at the 1117th meeting of the Security Council
(Document No. S/PV. 1117, dated the 18th May, 1964)
summarising the conclusion of the debate on Kashmir.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.. I ..
"(a) The members of the Council noted that this week's debate was a continuation of our discussions
of February and March on the question of Jammu and Kashmir. They recalled that they had already,
particularly during the debate in February, stated the views of their Governments on the basic facts
of the problem, including the relevant United Nations resolutions, the question as to the juridical
status of Jammu and Kashmir, and the principles of the Charter applicable to the case. They
confirmed that the statements which they had made at that time were still valid;"
"(b) The members of the Council expressed their concern with respect to two great countries which
have everything to gain from re-establishing good relations with each other and whose present
disputes, particularly that centring upon Jammu and Kashmir, should be settled amicably in the
interest of world peace;"
"(c) The members of the Council expressed their feeling that recent developments were such as
might lead to the adoption of more flexible positions to better mutual understanding, and therefore to
a situation in which conversations between the parties concerned would have better prospects of
leading to a settlement;"
"(d) The members of the Council expressed their conviction that everything should be done to
consolidate those favourable factors and to avoid jeopardising those prospects, and that this
required an attitude of conciliatory moderation on the part of both parties and an attitude of caution,
but also of vigilant attention, on the part of the United Nations;"
"(e) The members of the Council expressed the hope that both parties would refrain from any act
which might aggravate the situation and that they would take steps calculated to re-establish an
atmosphere of moderation between the two countries and peace and harmony between the
communities;"
"(f) The members of the Council expressed the hope that, in the light of our recent debates, the two
countries concerned would resume their contacts in the near future with a view to settling their
disputes, particularly that centring upon Jammu and Kashmir, by negotiation."
.. II ..
"Several members of the Council expressed the view that the Secretary- General of the United
Nations might possibly give useful assistance to the parties in order to facilitate the resumption of
negotiations in the question of Jammu and Kashmir, or might help them to continue such negotiations
in the event of the latter encountering difficulties. Other members of the Council, however, expressed
the view that the negotiations between India and Pakistan might be complicated by any outside
intervention, and that even the principle of having recourse to the Secretary-General should be a
matter for agreement between the parties."
.. III ..
"The India-Pakistan question remains on the agenda of the Security Council".
UN Resolution: http://www.kashmiri-cc.ca/un/sc21apr48.htm
All UN Resolutions (vis-a-vis Kashmir) http://www.kashmiri-cc.ca/un/index.htm
Resolution 91 (1951)
Concerning the India-Pakistan question submitted by the Representatives of
United Kingdom and United States and adopted by the Security Council on
March 30, 1951.
(Document No. S/2017/Rev. 1, dated the 30th March, 1951).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE SECURITY COUNCIL,
Having received and noted the report of Sir Owen Dixon, the United Nations Representative for
India and Pakistan on his mission initiated by the Security Council resolution 80 (1950) of March
14, 1950.
Observing that the Governments of India and Pakistan have accepted the provisions of the United
Nations Commission for India and Pakistan resolutions of 13 August, 1948, and 5 January, 1949,
and have re-affirmed their desire that the future of the State of Jammu and Kashmir shall be decided
through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite conducted under the auspices of the
United Nations.
Observing that on 27 October, 1950, the General Council of the "All Jammu and Kashmir National
Conference" adopted a resolution recommending the convening of a Constituent Assembly for the
purpose of determining the "future shape and affiliations of the State of Jammu and Kashmir";
observing further from statements of responsible authorities that action is proposed to convene such
a Constituent Assembly and that the area from which such a Constituent Assembly would be elected
is only a part of the whole territory of Jammu and Kashmir.
Reminding the Governments and authorities concerned of the principle embodied in its resolutions 47
(1948) of 21 April 1948, 51(1948) of 3 June, 1948 and 80 (1950) of 14 March, 1950 and the
United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan resolutions of 13 August, 1948, and 5 January,
1949, that the final disposition of the State of Jammu and Kashmir will be made in accordance with
the will of the people expressed through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite
conducted under the auspices of the United Nations.
Affirming that the convening of a Constituent Assembly as recommended by the General Council of
the "All Jammu and Kashmir National Conference" and any action that Assembly might attempt to
take to determine the future shape and affiliation of the entire State or any part thereof would not
constitute a disposition of the State in accordance with the above principle.
Declaring its belief that it is the duty of the Security Council in carrying out its primary responsibility
for the maintenance of international peace and security to aid the parties to reach an amicable
solution of the Kashmir dispute and that a prompt settlement of this dispute is of vital importance to
the maintenance of international peace and security.
Observing from Sir Owen Dixon's report that the main points of difference preventing agreement
between the parties were:
(a) The procedure for and the extent of demilitarisation of the State preparatory to the holding
of a plebiscite, and
(b) The degree of control over the exercise of the functions of Government in the State
necessary to ensure a free and fair plebiscite.
(1) Accepts, in compliance with his request, Sir Owen Dixon's resignation and expresses its
gratitude to Sir Owen Dixon's resignation and expresses its gratitude to Sir Owen for the great ability
and devotion with which he carried out his mission;
(2) Decides to appoint a United Nations Representative for India and Pakistan in succession to Sir
Owen Dixon;
(3) Instructs the United Nations Representative to proceed to the sub-continent and, after
consultation with the Governments of India and Pakistan, to effect the demilitarisation of the State of
Jammu and Kashmir on the basis of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan
resolutions of 13 August, 1948, and, 5 January, 1949;
(4) Calls upon the parties to co-operate with the United Nations Representative to the fullest degree
in effecting the demilitarisation of the State of Jammu and Kashmir;
(5) Instructs the United Nations Representatives to report to the Security Council within three
months from the date of his arrival on the sub-continent; if at the time of this report, he has not
effected demilitarisation in accordance with paragraph three above, or obtained the agreement of the
parties to a plan for effecting such demilitarisation, the United Nations Representative shall report to
the Security Council those points of difference between the parties in regard to the interpretation and
execution of the agreed resolutions of 13 August, 1948, and 5 January, 1949, which he considers
must be resolved to enable such demilitarisation to be carried out;
(6) Calls upon the parties, in the event of their discussions with the United Nations Representative
failing in his opinion to result in full agreement, to accept arbitration upon all outstanding points of
difference reported by the United Nations representative in accordance with paragraph five above.
Such arbitration to be carried 'out by an arbitrator, or a panel of arbitrators, to be appointed by the
President of the International Court of Justice after consultation with the parties;
(7) Decides that the Military Observer Group shall continue to supervise the cease-fire in the State;
(8) Requests the Governments of India and Pakistan to ensure that their cement regarding the
cease-fire shall continue to be faithfully observed and calls them to take all possible measures to
ensure the creation and maintenance of an atmosphere favourable to the promotion of further
negotiations and to refrain from any likely to prejudice a just and peaceful settlement;
(9) Requests the Secretary-General to provide the United Nations Representative for India and
Pakistan with such services and facilities as may be necessary in carrying out the terms of this
resolution.
The Security Council voted on this Resolution on 30-3-51 with the following result:
In favour: Brazil, China, Ecuador, France, Netherlands, Turkey, U.K. and U.S.A.
Against: None
Abstaining: India, U.S.S.R. and Yugoslavia.
French Statement (on Kashmir Resulution)
Statement of the President of the Security Council (French Representative) made on the 18th May, 1964, at the 1117th meeting of the Security Council
(Document No. S/PV. 1117, dated the 18th May, 1964)
summarising the conclusion of the debate on Kashmir.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.. I ..
"(a) The members of the Council noted that this week's debate was a continuation of our discussions
of February and March on the question of Jammu and Kashmir. They recalled that they had already,
particularly during the debate in February, stated the views of their Governments on the basic facts
of the problem, including the relevant United Nations resolutions, the question as to the juridical
status of Jammu and Kashmir, and the principles of the Charter applicable to the case. They
confirmed that the statements which they had made at that time were still valid;"
"(b) The members of the Council expressed their concern with respect to two great countries which
have everything to gain from re-establishing good relations with each other and whose present
disputes, particularly that centring upon Jammu and Kashmir, should be settled amicably in the
interest of world peace;"
"(c) The members of the Council expressed their feeling that recent developments were such as
might lead to the adoption of more flexible positions to better mutual understanding, and therefore to
a situation in which conversations between the parties concerned would have better prospects of
leading to a settlement;"
"(d) The members of the Council expressed their conviction that everything should be done to
consolidate those favourable factors and to avoid jeopardising those prospects, and that this
required an attitude of conciliatory moderation on the part of both parties and an attitude of caution,
but also of vigilant attention, on the part of the United Nations;"
"(e) The members of the Council expressed the hope that both parties would refrain from any act
which might aggravate the situation and that they would take steps calculated to re-establish an
atmosphere of moderation between the two countries and peace and harmony between the
communities;"
"(f) The members of the Council expressed the hope that, in the light of our recent debates, the two
countries concerned would resume their contacts in the near future with a view to settling their
disputes, particularly that centring upon Jammu and Kashmir, by negotiation."
.. II ..
"Several members of the Council expressed the view that the Secretary- General of the United
Nations might possibly give useful assistance to the parties in order to facilitate the resumption of
negotiations in the question of Jammu and Kashmir, or might help them to continue such negotiations
in the event of the latter encountering difficulties. Other members of the Council, however, expressed
the view that the negotiations between India and Pakistan might be complicated by any outside
intervention, and that even the principle of having recourse to the Secretary-General should be a
matter for agreement between the parties."
.. III ..
"The India-Pakistan question remains on the agenda of the Security Council".
Whatever you say!
--
Do you really think individuals or people make decision in India? Nah. It is the state machinery which makes policy decisions.
.
Bull
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2006
- Messages
- 6,850
- Reaction score
- 0
Where is jingoism in those posts? Its you who claimed about your country getting stronger and India cant do..blah blah.
You are easily hiding behind the facts when saying you are doing all these for the sake of peace alone. pakistan is sandwiched right now with two fronts to be taken care off. It cant oncentrate on the western border and on the internal tensions without reducing force levels on the east. And sien the call for peace.
India wont listen to you as we know you have no choice but to reduce the force levels or raise more troops to be stationed on your western border, which it doesnt want to.
Bull
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2006
- Messages
- 6,850
- Reaction score
- 0
Well you need to speak to the guy who rules you.
Well yeah right. Hope you see whats building up in your tribal areas and Afghanistan.
Reported Post: Regulated.
Lets not get ahead of the issue here. Pakistan does not see the need to carry on with endless deployment of troops at siachen. We have a bde level presence there whereas you guys have more. Pakistan can easily carry on in perpetuity with Siachen since there is no shortage of men, officers and money available to sustain the deployment...the issue is the wastage....which is what the Pakistani side needs to get over. Externally Pakistan is the securest it has ever been regardless of Indian buildup. There is nothing overtly dangerous facing Pakistan right now her Eastern borders...the existing force levels are also enough and the PA has not gone in for any additional raising of units/divs, rather its in the process of consolidating its units by creating 3 regional commands for the Army.
The biggest miscalculation on the Indian part is to assume that Pakistan is desparate...Musharraf may want a compromise with India for domestic consumption, however this is not due to any security compulsion (external or internal). Most of the CI work in FATA is being handled by Paramilitary units and the same goes for Baluchistan. We do have regular units deployed around the Afghanistan border however in case of a problem with India, their redeployment along the eastern borders is a foregone conclusion. We have about a quarter the size of forces that are deployed on the Pak-Afghan border serving overseas under the UNPK umbrella so lets not assume Pakistani desire for some compromise on Siachen as due to security compulsions.
Interceptor
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2007
- Messages
- 2,005
- Reaction score
- 0
And Vice Versa if Pakistan nukes India remember what I told u a while back India is in a much more fragile situation.
Similar threads
- Article
