That's what the Trusteeship Council was working on. The Portugeuse were gradually losing ground. But Indian leaders wanted to gather glory from immediate results.
Indian leaders wanted immediate results???? Man open your eyes for a second...No need to keep harping on the same point which lacks logic....We waited for 14 damn years...Portuguese were gradually losing ground??? is this what you can come up with...So how many more years you think this gradually would have taken??? We already know UN speed of solving conflicts especially the track record in SA and the apartheid regime...
Is it such a difficult think to crack - when a country has the power to fix the issue on its own complemented with inefficiency of UN then i am sorry but the country has no choice but to take matters in her own hands...b/w there are many actions that US has taken outside the mandate of UN...What is your take on that???
Pick another state; don't mess with Texas! And that's not the question. The correct analogous question is, What should the U.S. reaction be 400 YEARS AFTER India occupies Texas?
Nopes...It doesn't matter if the occupation is 400 years old - 500 years old....It is like saying if the occupier is there from quiet sometime then he/she gets a legitimacy to stay there for another 50 years even though the occupied has the power to throw the occupier out...this one is another insane reasoning that i have come across......The moment i have the power to get rid of the occupier i will...India went into UN, waited for 14 years after she got her independence and yet Portugal's did not budge...They were loosing ground or not is a useless rhetoric in this context...
Anyhow i think we have discussed a lot on this subject..so let's cut it out...Your original comment was "invade other nations' territories for the purpose of expansion"...The example you have given so far is GOA...How was goa someone's else territory...explain that part or accept yourm mistake and give some other example...
Just because Pakistan acted badly doesn't make India into an angel.
Again a lame attempt to circle around...You said Pakistan used our bad precedent and acted in 65...whereas bad precedent was set way back in 47....Now may i say that Goa was just a lame excuse on the Pakistan's part???
Go ahead and check me on this and I think you'll find all territorial disputes were all handled through the U.N. system during this period.
Let's see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_crisis_of_1946 - where was UN here....
1948 Arab
"Arguing that the partition plan was unfair to the Arabs with regard to the population balance at that time, the representatives of the Palestinian Arabs and the Arab League firmly opposed the UN action and rejected its authority to involve itself in the entire matter.[20] They upheld "that the rule of Palestine should revert to its inhabitants, in accordance with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations."[21][22]"
There are many more but i don't want to waste my time....UN is not a fair body and moves as per the interests of G5...so let's cut the crap here....
Haven't you read Rusty's posts? Pakistanis and Indians aren't that different. Rusty understands India's actions on moral grounds. The West that didn't accept that - as India's leaders surely knew at the time. As seen from the quoted diplomatic record, Z.A.B. & Ayub Khan cited the same justifications in 1965 that India did in the Goa invasion.
haven't you read my reply?? One can quote anything but that doesn't mean they are correct...The needed an excuse they used it...There were enough examples for them around including their own act in 47...So once again let me say - your reasoning is not good enough...don't want to be rude but it is a pathetic attempt to combine two incidents that have nothing in common...If you think there is a commonality between 65 war if India-Pak vs Goa war of 61 then list them...
These are tactical and logistical considerations, not strategic ones.
How do you infer it is not strategic one's??? Anyhow even it is tactical and logictical considerations then does that mean they are not important???
Sure.The course the parties have been following since independence (i.e., geography is more important than people, so eat all the oysters you can) doesn't lead to peace. Time to shift and try a different tack, then: start slow and loud and see how Pakistan responds. But don't listen to excuses for not acting that have no impact on security. It's the job of the professional military to find such excuses and the job of the civilian leadership to evaluate them.
A profession Army will find excuses??? If that is true then how come they are professional??? What kind of excuse is this that the current positions should be recognized and army will move back....i find the demand logical...You still have not answered me how this is not logical or an excuse??? Kargil happened just a decade ago...was that an excuse in your eyes??? If there is no ground positioning there there is no legitimacy should Pakistan acted unilaterally and occupy the position...And once positions are occupied there is no way on this earth you can vacate them...You should better ask this from Pakistani friends here...They tried 2-3 times...Do you find this as an excuse??? If yes, then how???
That is indeed the stance I have come to expect from Indians: once they run out of justifications they politely say no thank you we'll keep on doing what we're doing anyway.
All that i am harping on numerous posts of mine makes you feel that i am ran out of justifications???? I am sorry but i hope you are not brain dead...because once again you are generalizing everyone...One Indian is not equivalent to all Indians...I am talking to you...you don't represent US/ISrael/Jews...you are just one person and it is stupid to paint everyone because of what you are saying...
