Limited War Possible: Indian Army Chief Kapoor

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Or the cold icy fingers of premonition a good poker player feels stroking his spine when he's been called out by his better.

Yeah sure - whatever.

So where is the argument then AM .... we are all on the same page.

Exactly - no 'icy cold premonition's' involved here since Kapoor's comments do not signify anything new requiring analysis or discussion. The FO would not be doing its job if it did not use every opportunity presented to harangue India, but in terms of 'value' there is nothing here to discuss other than the age old argument of whether India can dictate the terms and result of any 'limited conventional engagement', which has been played on innumerable threads on this forum and others.

And for the Indian establishment to rap the Pakistani one across the knuckles for being a naughty boy and taking liberties it can ill afford to .... in the present circumstances ..... and likely for the end of time.

I'll go with the adage of 'sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me.'

Let me know when India stops blabbing - so far Pakistan has done everything at her pace, and done that which is necessary and that which it said it would do from the outset (referring to the trial of the seven accused LeT members) despite all this 'international pressure' conjured up by India.

Heck, there weren't even any sops from Obama at the joint press conference with MMS, only qualified words of praise for Pakistan in tackling terrorism, and a pointed reference to 'MMS being a man of peace, and India and Pakistan resolving their historical conflicts'.

My friend, I think no one including you with your padded jocks is under any illusion as to the results of a conventional showdown ..... even keeping our past showdown score aside.

Which is really the only aspect of discussion around Kapoor's comments -

1. What would Indian objectives in a 'limited war' with Pakistan be?

2.Would she be able to achieve those objectives:
a. At all?
b. Keep the war 'limited' in pursuit of those objectives?

And the above points form part of a discussion that has taken place many a time - gets old after a while. If you really are interested, search and read through some of the existing threads on such scenarios. I lost interest a long time ago.

 

[Spring Onion]

Not at all Jana ..... he is OUR army chief, his shoes are OURS, and WE decide whether or not he is stepping in or out of them, NOT YOU.

I think his view is measured and in keeping with his high office as a General leading a huge army.

His first and only loyalty is to his people and to his men.

If he can save their lives by forewarning Pakistan from indulging in tripe (thanks AM) that will invite a military response, and keep Pakistan in THEIR shoes, then his purpose is solved.

Rather than take offense, I sincerely hope you guys can see it that way too.

It would be a small start ..... but a not insignificant one.

Cheers, Doc

If that is so then he is speaking language of your govt and that war mongering.

we can see why Indians every now and then resort to such cheap blabbring whenever there is either a high level visit by any US personal or some policy making going on in white house viz a viz Afghanistan and Pakistan.


Earlier you were doing same war mongering against China ahead of Obama's visit. And now when your MM Singh was on US visit and vital policies by US are being considered for Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Anyway its this complex of India due to which the neighbouring countries are turning to each other instead of bharat

 

[vsdoc]

Let me know when India stops blabbing - so far Pakistan has done everything at her pace, and done that which is necessary and that which it said it would do from the outset (referring to the trial of the seven accused LeT members) despite all this 'international pressure' conjured up by India.

You know that is an eyewash but taking your bait would take us on a tangent to what is being discussed here.

Heck, there weren't even any sops from Obama at the joint press conference with MMS, only qualified words of praise for Pakistan in tackling terrorism, and a pointed reference to 'MMS being a man of peace, and India and Pakistan resolving their historical conflicts'.

Angling with anemic worms seems to be a favorite pastime in your neck of the woods dost ..... your not catching this fish that way.

Unlike you my friend, our foreign policy and rules of engagement with partners does not start and end with "sops."

Let me know when you can run your country without them.

Which is really the only aspect of discussion around Kapoor's comments -

1. What would Indian objectives in a 'limited war' with Pakistan be?

2.Would she be able to achieve those objectives:
a. At all?
b. Keep the war 'limited' in pursuit of those objectives?

And the above points form part of a discussion that has taken place many a time - gets old after a while. If you really are interested, search and read through some of the existing threads on such scenarios. I lost interest a long time ago.

Now you're talking! I understand the jaded feeling an old timer gets in reading and jawing about the same thing again and again ..... heck, after 10,000 posts I would not be replying to someone like me!

Coming to objectives ..... encircling Pakistan through a land bridge with Afghanistan comes to mind ..... the mountainous part of *** you hold would serve no other meaningful strategic advantage today to us than to do that and cut you away from China.

Wouldn't encroach on your holy Lakshmanrekha of Lahore-Karachi axis either.

And to be fair it does belong to us and was illegally taken away by you to start with, so it would only be righting an earlier wrong.

What say?

Cheers, Doc

 

[pakistantiger]

yea RAW and taliban are two sides of a coin n india want to regeonal power thats y they want war with pakistan and pressuries us and dear peoples it wont be limited war if once broke out on international borders india attack on pakistani soil of her choice and pakistan will retaliate with out choice and point of attack on indian terrotory and yes whos fighting in tamil nado with indian forcess for liberation

 

[arihant]

yea RAW and taliban are two sides of a coin n india want to regeonal power thats y they want war with pakistan and pressuries us and dear peoples it wont be limited war if once broke out on international borders india attack on pakistani soil of her choice and pakistan will retaliate with out choice and point of attack on indian terrotory and yes whos fighting in tamil nado with indian forcess for liberation

Cool. So, we gone attack you from west side rather then east side.

Have you heard news when Taliban expressed that they will fight for Pak, in case of war.

 

[DaRk WaVe]

Cool. So, we gone attack you from west side rather then east side.

Have you heard news when Taliban expressed that they will fight for Pak, in case of war.

Do you believe on what TTP idiots say

 

[arihant]

Do you believe on what TTP idiots say

And you believe in Ziad Hamid - RAW-CIA-Mosaid theory

 

[Seadog1]

ooow do i sense some fear from our neighbours now??!

We will do whatever it takes to protect our beloved country! Even, if in the worse case scenario if that means taking the whole of pakistan out with india!!

Btw, personally i feel any war (limitied or extended!) between pakistan and india would be in pakistan's favour!! We have nothing to lose. We have corrupt politicians and a f'kd up economy in my opinion. so, we have nothinng major to lose. In contrast, you guys have everything to lose. Your 'fast growing economy' is the first thing you should be worried about. The stakes are much higher for you guys than us! so yeh, bring on the war any day

If Pakistan is as bad off as you say,, India does not have to do anything,,,your doing it to your selves....I assume terrorism is just the result of the agony of death,, like a a dog tearing at its own entrails.

 

[DaRk WaVe]

And you believe in Ziad Hamid - RAW-CIA-***

he's our Fox news, why don't u people understand that....

But still whats difference b/w Him & your COAS, both talk of Nuclear warfare as if its a joke...

 

[arihant]

he's our Fox news, why don't u people understand that....

Taliban is not our fox news, so why you eye on us. Taliban is more dangerous to India if become active in West Punjab.

But still whats difference b/w Him & your COAS, both talk of Nuclear warfare as if its a joke...

who talks about nuclear warfare. Absolutely impossible. I thought its Pakistani who are keen to use nuclear. Anyway, should we discuss nuclear here, there are enough thread to discuss that.

 

[DaRk WaVe]

Taliban is not our fox news, so why you eye on us. Taliban is more dangerous to India if become active in West Punjab.

lolzzzz

Good one

who talks about nuclear warfare. Absolutely impossible. I thought its Pakistani who are keen to use nuclear. Anyway, should we discuss nuclear here, there are enough thread to discuss that.

your COAS is talking about Nuclear war
& there is no thread around with such rant...
We all know nothing;s gonna happen, If something happened sub continent will be pushed back to stone age....

 

[Spring Onion]

And you believe in Ziad Hamid - RAW-CIA-Mosaid theory

Yes we do.

 

[arihant]

Yes we do.

Got it.

 

[Spring Onion]

If Pakistan is as bad off as you say,, India does not have to do anything,,,your doing it to your selves....I assume terrorism is just the result of the agony of death,, like a a dog tearing at its own entrails.

If so then ask kapoora to shut his mouth why he is wasting his bleak energy at all

 

[vsdoc]

your COAS is talking about Nuclear war

He is not. Please read again.

He is talking about a limited war between two nuclear nations.

Where the hostilities will be limited in area and scope and objective without escalation to a point of no return by pressing either country's sensitive buttons.

What is so implausible about that?

Yes it is risky ..... but what Pakistan is doing behind the scenes against India for decades is risky too.

Stop that and there is no risk ..... for either of us.

That is his message.

Heed it.

For your own good ..... and ours.

And if ANY nuclear country felt that by going nuclear it had achieved the Holy Grail, pray tell why would it simply not stockpile nuclear warheads and sit back waiting for hostilities?

Why spend time and money in training and equiping you conventional forces at all? Homeland security?

Cheers, Doc