Blair made Musharraf fall in line after 9/11

[roadrunner]

roadrunner, i will not get down to your level of personal insults. But you said that first two were draw, right ? Third was obviously our gain. 4th id assume you would say was a draw again. So

Pak = 0, 0, -1, 0 = -1

India 0, 0, 1, 0 = 1

Have fun

there were no insults thrown..just a joke with a bit of irony.

And whilst that score is correct technically, the +1 you have there was achieved because of a 2 vs 1 fight - and that's what it takes you to beat Pakistan..desertions and the help of a hostile Pakistani population, else you cannot defeat Pakistan conventionally - numbers do not equal military ability as Pakistan has proven.

 

[blitz]

Sure you are right. Except history will always take note of what happened. Not what could have happened or should have happened. That my friend, is called strategy. Victor goes to battle only after victory is assured, the looser goes to battle and then seeks to win. India went to battle with overwhelming advantage and hence won. It would be foolhardy to fight with equal odds. Only fools do it, and thats why only fools always loose.

 

[Always Neutral]

i dont how how a country with a nuclear arsenal should fear other countries pakistan should do whats in its own interest and not worry about threats

Dear Aussie,

Unfortunately Pakistans nukes is like a toy pistol compared to USA's and hence the Gen. was smart and sane enough to change policies. After LM I think most people must be happy that the Gen did not take his country to stone age for the OBL's cause.

Regards

 

[roadrunner]

Sure you are right. Except history will always take note of what happened. Not what could have happened or should have happened. That my friend, is called strategy. Victor goes to battle only after victory is assured, the looser goes to battle and then seeks to win. India went to battle with overwhelming advantage and hence won. It would be foolhardy to fight with equal odds. Only fools do it, and thats why only fools always loose.

This doesnt make much sense. Strategy is important, and so? If anything Pakistan's strategy must be better to hold off the bigger army in 3 conventional wars for sure. Both the first two wars were a stalemate with neither side being defeated, both winning some battles, losing others. None of the wars between ONLY PakistaN and Bharat have resulted in victory - that's the futility of having war between the two countries especially with nukes. But the point that a bigger country is necessarily a more powerful one is flawed and proven flawed by history from the subcontinent.

 

[Always Neutral]

I think AC is trying to sell his book with sensationalism but there is no doubt that tremendous pressure was exerted on the Gen. by the world powers and he did the most sensible and sane thing.

Regards

 

[blitz]

This doesnt make much sense. Strategy is important, and so? If anything Pakistan's strategy must be better to hold off the bigger army in 3 conventional wars for sure. Both the first two wars were a stalemate with neither side being defeated, both winning some battles, losing others. None of the wars between ONLY PakistaN and Bharat have resulted in victory - that's the futility of having war between the two countries especially with nukes. But the point that a bigger country is necessarily a more powerful one is flawed and proven flawed by history from the subcontinent.

Oh absolutely true. There is no guarantee that the bigger country is the more powerful country. Israel is the perfect example right ? But a much bigger country with a much bigger population, much bigger army, navy, air force, better and more advanced technology, much bigger economy, much bigger industrial capacity should be more powerful right ?

And as for my earlier post not making sense, strategy is not only what you do in battle. Good strategy lies in picking your enemies wisely first. Picking on an enemy which has overwhelming advantage over you in every conceivable sphere is the hight of foolishness. I hope this is not too hard to comprehend.

 

[roadrunner]

Oh absolutely true. There is no guarantee that the bigger country is the more powerful country. Israel is the perfect example right ? But a much bigger country with a much bigger population, much bigger army, navy, air force, better and more advanced technology, much bigger economy, much bigger industrial capacity should be more powerful right ?

And as for my earlier post not making sense, strategy is not only what you do in battle. Good strategy lies in picking your enemies wisely first. Picking on an enemy which has overwhelming advantage over you in every conceivable sphere is the hight of foolishness. I hope this is not too hard to comprehend.

Dont think Israel is a good example. The Arabs have been divided usually during wars so their numbers probably arent hugely different, though technologically Israel has always had the advantage.

Countries with much bigger economies, tech numbers etc should be more powerful, but are not always, and this is AC's obvious mistake - he doesn't know his subcontinent history which is a perfect example that countries with more people are not always more powerful. Anybody who fights 3 conventional wars to a stalemate are obviously equally paired, even if one is more numerous (I don't agree Bharat has more technology).

 

[blitz]

It don't matter what you believe my friend, ummm...the proof is right here on this forum. Go to 'India space capablities' thread. Need i say more ?

 

[roadrunner]

It don't matter what you believe my friend, ummm...the proof is right here on this forum. Go to 'India space capablities' thread. Need i say more ?

The space capabilities dont make Bharat more powerful (at least militarily which is what I'm talking about). You might as well give everyone a house instead because it won't help in any war as yet. What matters for power is who has the better navy, airforce, and missiles. If I had to choose, I'd want the Babur over something like Brahmos, ballistic missiles won't matter in a conventional war since both have enough range, and personally I think a J-10 is a match for an MKI. Scorpenes vs Agostas, again pretty level. Perhaps there's a number advantage to India, but it never helped them much in previous wars, anyway it's all irrelavent since both have nukes. Space tech isn't going to make you more militarily powerful though, just technologically, though I think Pakistan will get some of it soon.

 

[blitz]

no no, it was not for power. It was in response to your 'i dont believe bharat has more tech' thingy

 

[roadrunner]

no no, it was not for power. It was in response to your 'i dont believe bharat has more tech' thingy

Whatever dude, this whole thread has been about the claim India is bigger and more powerful

 

[kidwaibhai]

is it an acknowledgement of our foreign policy that a country such as India wants claims that they should be treated as equals to us.