What's new

Three heavies endorse Sri Lanka

Pandora

SENIOR MEMBER
Feb 15, 2013
7,656
7
12,110
Country
Pakistan
Location
Australia
Non permanent seat is rotating, even Burkina Faso could become a member.
In the same vein see that country like Rwanda is also there (in the table), that does not make Rwanda heavy.
This is no benchmark.

I know i was just trying to mention that pakistan currently being non permanent member can present sirilankan case.
 

Bhairava

SENIOR MEMBER
Jun 8, 2010
5,160
0
4,766
Yes the article does not say pakistani destroyers were allowed to refuel bcoz that did not happen.

Aircraft were allowed and non-combat ships were allowed.

And hey, I am not supporting SL, just trying to be on facts.

What difference does it make ?

Bottom line - Lanka sided with Pak against India.
 

ashokdeiva

SENIOR MEMBER
May 5, 2011
4,265
0
3,030
They could have had increased problems by allowing their warships to refuel but probably threats from Indian govt. stopped them.
And that is what we should be doing now, instead of licking them.
GOI does not have the balls, the last time we saw a PM with ball was IG and no one was good like IG in handling SL.
But I do not say she was good on other issues.
 

Skyline

SENIOR MEMBER
Jan 8, 2011
3,640
0
2,629
Country
Sri Lanka
Location
Sri Lanka
ashokdeiva said:
So you will support CHINA, INDIAN here in PDF who think that INDIA should support SL in UNHCR think once again.
You think that by voting in favour of them, we are changing nothing. They are in the enemies camp. I would be happy if the INDIANS think stright and make CHINA into our friends circle rather than pleasing and boot licking countries like SL.

As I mentioned earlier India in serious situation than SL at the moment. One political party of one state demanding vote against SL, if they don't do that then whole Indian government will collapse. (?)Don't you feel India is weak regarding on this matter, for a another country's issue India is shaking. lol
 

Bhairava

SENIOR MEMBER
Jun 8, 2010
5,160
0
4,766
They could have had increased problems by allowing their warships to refuel but probably threats from Indian govt. stopped them.

So allowing combat aircrafts and transport aircraft to refuel is fine but only when warships are fuelled it mean helping Pak ? With respect I cant understand the logic behind that. Either you remain neutral or not. They did not remain neutral and actively helped pakistan logistically. I dont understand what are you trying to prove.
 

Markus

SENIOR MEMBER
May 27, 2010
4,426
-1
3,262
And that is what we should be doing now, instead of licking them.
GOI does not have the balls, the last time we saw a PM with ball was IG and no one was good like IG in handling SL.
But I do not say she was good on other issues.

I am not supporting SL, we should deal with them with an iron hand.
 

ashokdeiva

SENIOR MEMBER
May 5, 2011
4,265
0
3,030
As I mentioned earlier India in serious situation than SL at the moment. One political party of one state demanding vote against SL, if they don't do that then whole Indian government will collapse. (?)Don't you feel India is weak regarding on this matter, for a another country's issue India is shaking. lol

This I have to agree, we are weak because we are not even trying to intimidate SL rather our politicians are fooling the people of INDIA by dividing TN people from the rest of the country.
 

Markus

SENIOR MEMBER
May 27, 2010
4,426
-1
3,262
So allowing combat aircrafts and transport aircraft to refuel is fine but only when warships are fuelled it mean helping Pak ? With respect I cant understand the logic behind that. Either you remain neutral or not. They did not remain neutral and actively helped pakistan logistically. I dont understand what are you trying to prove.

I am not supporting SL, they certainly helped PK in the war.

But I just want to stick on facts when I replied to ashokdieva that warships were not refuelled.

Ofcourse that does not mean that allowing aircraft was fine. Upto the Indian govt. on how to deal with them.
 

Punjabbi Munda

FULL MEMBER
Jan 11, 2011
1,794
0
1,539
Permanent and Non-Permanent Members
The Council is composed of 15 Members:

five permanent members: China, France, Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, and the United States,
and ten non-permanent members elected for two-year terms by the General Assembly (with end of term date):
Argentina (2014)
Azerbaijan (2013)
Australia (2014)
Guatemala (2013)
Luxembourg (2014)
Morocco (2013)
Pakistan (2013)
Republic of Korea (2014)
Rwanda (2014)
Togo (2013)
Members of the United Nations Security Council

Hope you get the point.
That's the criteria then Guatemala,Rwanda and Togo must be heavies too.
 

Luffy 500

SENIOR MEMBER
Jan 2, 2012
5,562
2
7,420
Good job by PAK, russia and China. PAK and china must support SL all the way through for mutual interest and regional stability.

Btw its funny how Indians laugh at PAK being called heavy weight. Yes they have a ragged up economy but in geo-political sense they R recognized regional power and player. A regional player is one that can effect political changes away from its borders and in SL/maldivian/ Afghan case PAK is definitely a player. They also helped SL fight against tamil terrorist while their involvement in AF is indispensable for a peaceful resolution in Afghan conflict and stability of the region. They R also a nuclear power and the 2nd largest muslim state in the world being located in a strategically important area of the C.asian great game and indispensible for TAPI and IP pipeline. SO why make fun of their regional power status?
 

Ammyy

BANNED
Jun 8, 2010
7,393
-12
6,451
Country
India
Location
India
Good job by PAK, russia and China. PAK and china must support SL all the way through for mutual interest and regional stability.

Btw its funny how Indians laugh at PAK being called heavy weight. Yes they have a ragged up economy but in geo-political sense they R recognized regional power and player. A regional player is one that can effect political changes away from its borders and in SL/maldivian/ Afghan case PAK is definitely a player. They also helped SL fight against tamil terrorist while their involvement in AF is indispensable for a peaceful resolution in Afghan conflict and stability of the region. They R also a nuclear power and the 2nd largest muslim state in the world being located in a strategically important area of the C.asian great game and indispensible for TAPI and IP pipeline. SO why make fun of their regional power status?

Apart from Afghanistan .... No :disagree:

Even that's because of Taliban I will always put Iran ahead of Pakistan in terms of world politics.
 

Windjammer

ELITE MEMBER
Nov 9, 2009
39,799
176
145,910
Country
Pakistan
Location
United Kingdom
Apart from Afghanistan .... No :disagree:

Even that's because of Taliban I will always put Iran ahead of Pakistan in terms of world politics.

And what makes you think that your opinion matters....there's something called ground realities like India despite being so big and bending backwards, can't get the permananent UNSC seat.
 

American Pakistani

ELITE MEMBER
May 30, 2010
15,370
10
22,624
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
Doesnt change the fact that bracketing Russia and Pakistan together as heavies makes as much sense as bracketing US and Cuba.

I can see your @*$3 burning.

Regionnal Powers 2012.
800px-Regional_powers_2012_updated3.png

I know it will be hard for you to accept the facts but unfortunately you have to. Now will ya stop trolling & stinking the forum please? Or should i invite @Aeronaut & @WebMaster to take action against insignificant trolls from insignificant country.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Top Bottom