Russia opposes a military action against Pakistan

[Kharian_Beast]

Really? So all the theory of the warm port access was crap?

You guys unnecessarily destroyed your civil society for a non-existent threat!

Not necessarily destroyed, more so battle hardened perhaps.

Soviet Union not a threat? Maybe you are one of those little tykes running around here like S-2 pointed out above.

 

[roadrunner]

Really? So all the theory of the warm port access was crap?

You guys unnecessarily destroyed your civil society for a non-existent threat!

Before warm water discussion I was talking about.

You're welcome to explain to me how the society has been destroyed though.

 

[S-2]

"Look how we gang raped the Soviet Union with your money.

Might want to give proper respect to Pakistan when due, something everyone forgets."

Easily forgotten coming from the likes of you. Respect is earned. You've not done so from myself nor likely will.

That first comment is tasteless and does that young lady no service. That second comment reflects your absymal lack of self-esteem and utterly reveals your fragility. You're in good company here.

 

[Kharian_Beast]

"Look how we gang raped the Soviet Union with your money.

Might want to give proper respect to Pakistan when due, something everyone forgets."

Easily forgotten coming from the likes of you. Respect is earned. You've not done so from myself nor likely will.

That first comment is tasteless and does that young lady no service. That second comment reflects your absymal lack of self-esteem and utterly reveals your fragility. You're in good company here.

This is not in reference to that young lady, so please stop drooling (I should add over 6,000 young ladies).

I do not have self esteem issues, but thanks for trying to diagnose me with your problems.

 

[Vinod2070]

Not necessarily destroyed, more so battle hardened perhaps.

Soviet Union not a threat? Maybe you are one of those little tykes running around here like S-2 pointed out above.

I just quoted RR on that one. He mentioned that USSR was never a threat. Read page 1 again.

Before warm water discussion I was talking about.

You're welcome to explain to me how the society has been destroyed though.

Well it is simple enough. There are any number of Pakistani writers who have blamed the conflict for the rise in militancy in Pakistani society, the increased violence levels, the sectarian conflicts, the use of terror as a state policy, Pakistan becoming the hub of worldwide terror, the arming of the society, the increase in religious fanaticism among a large section of people etc.

The trend was towards the South since that time. You can't deny that. I hope it is not beyond redemption and the civil society can be recovered with help from the world.

 

[Kharian_Beast]

I just quoted RR on that one. He mentioned that USSR was never a threat. Read page 1 again.

Oye, Vinod kay bache, this is what Road Runner actually said,

"The Soviets may well have been a threat to Pakistan."

Please stfd.

 

[Vinod2070]

Actually the Afghan conflict was the first time that some Muslims perceived a victory in centuries after constant humiliation for a long period (as per them). Sections of them felt elated that they could defeat one Superpower (it was delusion of course) why not the other.

This feeling took wings and we have the current situation of worldwide terror at our hands.

 

[Vinod2070]

Oye, Vinod kay bache, this is what Road Runner actually said,

"The Soviets may well have been a threat to Pakistan."

Please stfd.

You have a comprehension problem with the English language and there is nothing I can do to help you.

If you can't conduct a civilized debate, don't bother replying to me in future.

I certainly won't.

 

[Kharian_Beast]

You have a comprehension problem with the English language and there is nothing I can do to help you.

If you can't conduct a civilized debate, don't bother replying to me in future.

I certainly won't.

Taking the high road after such a high fall?

You Indians.

 

[T-Rex]

Possible. But it was legally invited in using the treaty powers between the two countries which in fact Amin used. That so far is an invite.



And the Soviets did assasinate Amin. No doubts. This is the only point where you can argue that it was an invasion. But then the treaty still stood and the next puppet did not call for the withdrawal of the Soviet military.



At the time it seemed like a good idea. But would Afghanistan have been better off under the Soviets? I think perhaps.

The Soviets may well have been a threat to Pakistan. But the only thing they would have wanted would have been Balochistan. And that could have been negotiated in such as way that they could access it while it still was a part of Pakistan. The whole thing was unnecessary.

S-2 has a problem accepting facts, he has to twist it and put a CIA spin to it. Even though the Soviets were invited he will keep on arguing that the Soviets had invaded Afghanistan simply because no one invited the so-called champions of human rights when they invaded Afghanistan. It makes him feel guilty and his aggressive behaviour is a symptom of his guilty conscience. He talks of bad company but there is hardly any company more wicked in this world than certified liars like bush and blair.

 

[roadrunner]

Actually the Afghan conflict was the first time that some Muslims perceived a victory in centuries after constant humiliation for a long period (as per them). Sections of them felt elated that they could defeat one Superpower (it was delusion of course) why not the other.

Defeating a superpower is no walk in the part.

Your military hasn't defeated anyone on its own, except in the mythological Bharata fictonal series.

This feeling took wings and we have the current situation of worldwide terror at our hands.

Worldwide terror created by false flags such as the Samjhauta Express, the Kalava clad Hindu in Mumbai etc etc.

 

[roadrunner]

Well it is simple enough. There are any number of Pakistani writers who have blamed the conflict for the rise in militancy in Pakistani society, the increased violence levels, the sectarian conflicts, the use of terror as a state policy, Pakistan becoming the hub of worldwide terror, the arming of the society, the increase in religious fanaticism among a large section of people etc.

Nope. That's the Times of India or the Indian Express writers that you're talking about.

The trend was towards the South since that time. You can't deny that. I hope it is not beyond redemption and the civil society can be recovered with help from the world.

Pakistan's society doesn't need any help, least of all from the AIDS ridden, unhygienic, poverty stricken, illiterate, societies of India. Btw, don't flame this thread. I'm quoting facts, you can research neutrally. Pakistani society is not in as bad a shape as Indian society generally.

 

[roadrunner]

You have a comprehension problem with the English language and there is nothing I can do to help you.

If you can't conduct a civilized debate, don't bother replying to me in future.

I certainly won't.

He's right actually. I think it's you with the comprehension problem. The Soviets were a threat to Pakistan, but I think this could have been resolved through diplomacy and negotiation. They could have been given access to the ports in Balochistan from the Pakistani government.

 

[S-2]

"Even though the Soviets were invited he will keep on arguing that the Soviets had invaded Afghanistan simply because no one invited the so-called champions of human rights when they invaded Afghanistan."

You don't know events very well nor have you read my comments closely.

I contend it was an invasion. That doesn't mean that I'm in complete dispute w/ roadrunner here. He is thoroughly correct that there were treaty provisions which the Soviet Gov't was reluctant to implement however urgently Taraki was pleading for them to do so.

Nonetheless, with a raging civil war already in progress and the PDPA in internal chaos, the Soviet Army was very much an invasion force and they possessed no illusion otherwise.

I've already stated that we were un-invited. That's patently clear and a simple google should suffice for those unaware. Further, I'm not the least bit ashamed as I know from where my nation was attacked and completely endorse our actions post-9/11.

With the conquest complete, the victory was not secured by the U.N. however heartfelt their belated attempt to place their stamp of approval on matters by creating ISAF. While participating, we've never been completely sold on their commitment which is why OEF is a parallel mission run concurrently with our participation and cooperation- but separate nonetheless.

I use the words of the Russian General Staff study of the Soviet-Afghan war as backdrop and you can talk to them if you have a problem. Your references likely come from your fourth point of contact and can be better smelled than read.

 

[fatman17]

New Delhi, Dec 6 (PTI) Russia today disfavoured any military action by India against Pakistan in the wake of Mumbai attacks as both have nuclear weapons even as it suggested involvement of ISI in the terror strikes.
Russian Ambassador Vyacheslav Trubnikov said any action against Pakistan should be taken under the UN mandate and hoped that the international community's pressure would make Islamabad take action against terrorists, even if they are "non-state actors".

Asked about the possibility of military action by India against Pakistan, he told reporters that no state should take the "law into its own hands" as UN is the right forum to take a decision.

Pakistan and India have nuclear missiles and "any risky step might" lead to snowballing of the situation, he said, adding "We have to get our heads little bit cooler for restoration of peaceful process." On whether Russia will support India if the matter goes to the Security Council, he said Moscow will do so if India produces "hard proof" about involvement of Pakistan-based elements in the Mumbai attacks.

"I feel that investigation should produce serious proofs about perpetrators and financers," he said adding he would not like to jump into any conclusion now.

Referring to last week's terror strikes, the Ambassador said elements which do not want to see normalisation of relations between India and Pakistan could be behind the henious terror attacks in Mumbai.

Pointing fingers at the ISI, he said the spy agency could be involved in terror strikes so as to break the improving relations between the two countries. PTI

Russia disfavours military action by India against Pakistan

This is a positive change by Russia. The envoy expressed reservation about the ISI but at this point I think main objective is to avoid any war or battle between Pakistan and India.

i think the russians are more interested in further cementing their "friendship-treaty" (read defence deals) with india, esp the US8 bill MRCA contract!!!