An interesting incident from Indo-Pak war 1965

[nahtanbob]

Read again and try to comprehend slowly, it says common danger against any signatory state, india was a close ally of Soviet Union, hence a common danger.

But anyways that was not what we were discussing at first place.

That is Pakistan's perception. If India was a common danger how come Indian air force was equipped with British/French built combat aircraft Hunter, Dassault Mystère, Canberra and Gnat. Indian Navy had a lot of British built warships.

 

[WarKa DaNG]

By stopping the enemy from reaching it's objective in 65. Holding a lot of territories for bargaining.
At the next instance, making the enemy sign a surrender.

So thats why you did your 'Nashta' in Lahore Gym Khana

1965 war was a loss for pakistan. pakistani economy sputtered. The economic edge over India dissipated

We are still suffering from economic downfall, but aint got dead

for them its chest thumbing based on lies

Exactly, nothing more nothing less

Sir by giving their biggest miltry award to POW

Hell yeah

 

[American Pakistani]

That is Pakistan's perception. If India was a common danger how come Indian air force was equipped with British/French built combat aircraft Hunter, Dassault Mystère, Canberra and Gnat. Indian Navy had a lot of British built warships.

Very dumb logic. One can say, if Pakistan was in SEATO CENTO, why was China and Pakistan relation so close and friendly or why was Russian steel mill in Pakistan.

 

[nahtanbob]

Very dumb logic. One can say, if Pakistan was in SEATO CENTO, why was China and Pakistan relation so close and friendly or why was Russian steel mill in Pakistan.

If India was a threat or Soviet client how come substantial portion of their military is equipped by Western states ? it is that simple

Pakistani elite joined CENTO and SEATO for free money. What else is new ?

 

[American Pakistani]

If India was a threat or Soviet client how come substantial portion of their military is equipped by Western states ? it is that simple

Pakistani elite joined CENTO and SEATO for free money. What else is new ?

Because initially india was tried to be bought off from Soviets.

 

[nahtanbob]

Because initially india was tried to be bought off from Soviets.

That does not explain sale of Sea Harriers, Mirage-2000 and Jaguars to India in the 1970s and 1980s

India was never a true Soviet client. there were no Soviet military bases in India. India was not a communist state. India was never a base for exporting communism.

Which brings us to the next point ? Why would USA encourage and arm Pakistan in an active war against India ?
What make Pakistani leaders think so ?

 

[American Pakistani]

That does not explain sale of Sea Harriers, Mirage-2000 and Jaguars to India in the 1970s and 1980s

India was never a true Soviet client. there were no Soviet military bases in India. India was not a communist state. India was never a base for exporting communism.

Which brings us to the next point ? Why would USA encourage and arm Pakistan in an active war against India ?
What make Pakistani leaders think so ?

Exactly, that's why there was hope in the west to buy it off from Soviets. You seemed like a very confused bharti boy. India was inclined and almost a client state to Soviet, but not completely.

Because Pakistan had agreements under military alliances that I already mentioned.

 

[nahtanbob]

Exactly, that's why there was hope in the west to buy it off from Soviets. You seemed like a very confused bharti boy. India was inclined and almost a client state to Soviet, but not completely.

Because Pakistan had agreements under military alliances that I already mentioned.

There was a difference between India/Iraq/Egypt/Syria of the world and Cuba/North Korea/Vietnam/Poland of the world. Egypt switched sides during the Cold War.

In any reason why would USA support Pakistan in a hot war against India ? Pakistani leaders and Pakistanis are the ones confused complaining about lack of American support

 

[American Pakistani]

There was a difference between India/Iraq/Egypt/Syria of the world and Cuba/North Korea/Vietnam/Poland of the world. Egypt switched sides during the Cold War.

In any reason why would USA support Pakistan in a hot war against India ? Pakistani leaders and Pakistanis are the ones confused complaining about lack of American support

India was in the middle of those leagues. But more inclined towards Soviets.

Like I said, because that's the agreement we had against "any" threat.

 

[nahtanbob]

India was in the middle of those leagues. But more inclined towards Soviets.

Like I said, because that's the agreement we had against "any" threat.

organization charters was explicitly against communism
in any case CENTO was dead on arrival when Iraqi monarch was overthrown

 

[American Pakistani]

organization charters was explicitly against communism
in any case CENTO was dead on arrival when Iraqi monarch was overthrown

I slapped the facts into your bharti face but once a bharti always a bharti no matter how many flags he avails to hide his embarrassing identity, and continue trolling.

 

[nahtanbob]

I slapped the facts into your bharti face but once a bharti always a bharti no matter how many flags he avails to hide his embarrassing identity, and continue trolling.

it is easy for us to troll Pakistanis. if you want to understand how we have a supply line to Afghanistan without paying you a dime you are exhibit number one

 

[American Pakistani]

it is easy for us to troll Pakistanis. if you want to understand how we have a supply line to Afghanistan without paying you a dime you are exhibit number one

We don't give a fk on how bhartis have supply line to anywhere in the world.

 

[Signalian]

PASCOM/DEFCOM lines of communication was one of the biggest reliefs that Signals Corps provided to PA back in 1990's. Today, its C4I, EW, satellite, soft systems and R&D.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Quoted from UCLA Indologist and historian Stanley Wopert:
"In three weeks the second Indo-Pak War ended in what appeared to be a draw when the embargo placed by Washington on U.S. ammunition and replacements for both armies forced cessation of conflict before either side won a clear victory. India, however, was in a position to inflict grave damage to, if not capture, Pakistan's capital of the Punjab when the cease-fire was called, and controlled Kashmir's strategic Uri-Poonch bulge, much to Ayub's chagrin. "
Excerpt from his work India
http://publishedstories.info/a-new-history-of-india-find-book-groups-stanley-a-wolpert.pdf

Assessment by the US Library of Congress Country Studies:
"The war was militarily inconclusive; each side held prisoners and some territory belonging to the other. Losses were relatively heavy—on the Pakistani side, twenty aircraft, 200 tanks, and 3,800 troops. Pakistan's army had been able to withstand Indian pressure, but a continuation of the fighting would only have led to further losses and ultimate defeat for Pakistan. Most Pakistanis, schooled in the belief of their own martial prowess, refused to accept the possibility of their country's military defeat by "Hindu India" and were, instead, quick to blame their failure to attain their military aims on what they considered to be the ineptitude of Ayub Khan and his government"

From A Region in Turmoil: South Asian Conflicts Since 1947 by Robert Johnson:
India's strategic aims were modest – it aimed to deny Pakistani Army victory, although it ended up in possession of 720 square miles (1,900 km2) of Pakistani territory for the loss of just 220 square miles (570 km2) of its own.

These are just a few. There are plenty more neutral assessments of the war, none of which support Pakistan. The question is can you provide even a single source to support your claims? But then again I am probably wasting your time since you do not want to see anything that goes against your preconceived notions @Nilgiri @Joe Shearer

How utterly foolish of you to take this line. On this forum.