Cameron's inflammatory comments against Pakistan: I meant Pakistanis are terrorists..

[Icarus]

Who says that someone who is weak cannot be a rival ? Afghanistan government can if it decides give you more trouble than India and Israel together and your immediate challenge is to address Afghanistan and not Israel or India. Keep adding to your list and you will get to a number I have in mind.

Like I said, Afghanistan is not a rival, it's just the people's attitude.
And even if Afghanistan wanted to make something of it, what's the worst they can do ? Our military is working like a well oiled machine, completely in sync with intel agencies and govt to combat the terrorists, we won't even have to move or equip troops, they are already there ! Even when Afghanistan attacked us in 69, they were in their military prime yet still they were made to abandon their dead and injured, fleeing the battlefield in disorder. Besides that we can turn out 5 million of their refugees, stop moving flour to Afghanistan, stop buying their dry fruits, stop their access to sea, stop their trucks from going to India, but since they are NOT our rivals, we will do no such thing......................

 

[Icarus]

Just take a look at the location of Indian airbase and then reassess whether the base is pure business. I will leave it to you to decide as it is no point proving this further.

With the right money, you could lease a military base in Lahore ! Like I said: "Just good business".
When you are leasing a military base it is SUPPOSED to be on a strategically important location, otherwise there won't be much point buying it, will there ?

 

[ramu]

K,

^^ I don't disagree with most of what you wrote. We are saying the same thing. Just that what you say sounds like Afghanistan is a potent rival and I am calling it a rival. The difference is hairline and I will live with that.

About base in Lahore, it is just impossible as all the wealth in the world will still fall short.

 

[Icarus]

In my view, having rivals is not bad.. Justs mean you are competing in a wider field. Enemies on the other hand is an all together different thing. Today, in my view, India has only one enemy that is Pakistan and vice versa... And my definition is simple.. Enemy is a person/state who you would want to hurt even without Provocation. And for India and Pakistan each, only one nation passes that test.

China can be called a marginal enemy to India and on the same lines, Afghanistan is for Pakistan..

Beyond this, there are only national interests that keep changing...

Smartest post in this entire discussion...................

 

[Icarus]

K,

^^ I don't disagree with most of what you wrote. We are saying the same thing. Just that what you say sounds like Afghanistan is a potent rival and I am calling it a rival. The difference is hairline and I will live with that.

About base in Lahore, it is just impossible as all the wealth in the world will still fall short.

It was meant only as an example but with Zardari and co in power you can even buy a military base in the Presidential palace for a 10% commission of course...........

 

[deckingraj]

Yes, I agree there are things that need to be done. Recognizing Israel won't go down well in Pakistan and in other muslim countries so that won't happen. Plus their Palestinian occupation and oppression is not something that we can ignore.

This policy and public mind set is what i am questioning....We had the same dilemna but then common sense prevailed way back in 90's and we went ahead and recognized Israel...See how much we have gained/gaining with that one move....As far as i know India is still in good books of Arab world....I fail to udnerstand when Turkey was a key ally of Israel then what were pakistan obligations....Don't you see there lies a clear policy flaw????

India OTOH has a luxury to be friends with Israel as there's no domestic pressure or international pressure.

No domestic or international pressure??? Are you kidding me??? Do you know how much vote banks politics is played in India...Congress want's to expolit anti-muslims votes against BJP all the time and thus they are precieved to be soft on issues that muslim community has concerns with.....So your saying that India did not have domestic pressure is factually incorrect....As far as International pressure then i am afraid you are wrong again.....It was the fear of backlash from muslim world that stopped us from recognizing Israel for almost 5 decades....

There's circumstances that lead to creating more enemies and we can't just be friends with everyone.

Nopes it is the policies that make someone friend or foe....There was no need for Pak to get directly involved against Israel...or to have no relations with Israel...India for instance also condemns their actions but that's about it....Turkey was one of their key ally uptil recently, no???

India, for instance, has Pakistan and perhaps China as rivals.

You are right...however do you see the level of engagement India has with China???? A tade worth $60 billion and relations have improved lately...May i know which of your so called rival you have managed to improve relations, lately???

I really don't think that the number of our enemies is too high or is something too alarming.

Alarming...if not then it should be....Allignment in any particular camp if not beneficial...you guys should have learned it by now....Because conflicts don't last forever....Cold war which seemed to never end finished...what happened??? Americans left....Leaving Pakistan alone and not so healthy relations with Russia....and now looks like you are more and more leaning towards China....Once India and China resolves their issues there is a potential that things would come back to bite again....

You're counting 3 or 4 states at best and Afghanistan is negligible since their state is very weak at the moment.

Do you think Nepal, Bhutan, Maldives,Malaysia, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh are very strong countries??? Nopes however are they for any reason less important...heck no..Not even in dreams...Good relations with them is equally important if not less then having good relations with US, Russia because these countries are our immediate neighbours.....Had US and Canada not friends their success story would have been very different....Don't you think so???

 

[ramu]

^^ deck, that was a thoughtful post. Pakistan should hire you as thr foreign policy advisor. 10/10 for your policy towards Israel.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

And may be he is making the comment because he does know much more than a usual man walking the London streets. Eh?

Yes, that is what Bush and Blair appeared to claim about the Iraq war as well, and they even had fabricated intel to back it up. Cameron hasn't even backed his statements up with fabricated intel.

 

[deckingraj]

In my view, having rivals is not bad.. Justs mean you are competing in a wider field.

Karan i am afraid but i disagree....What you are talking about is true in pure economic terms...However if something is challenging my national security then rivalry is dangerous...If a mumbai happens in Moscow or New York you will see how this competition will cause devastation...Also healthy engagemnt is the key here...In today's global world having rivals is not a healthy sign..don't you think so????....How many rivals India have in today's world???

Enemies on the other hand is an all together different thing. Today, in my view, India has only one enemy that is Pakistan and vice versa... And my definition is simple.. Enemy is a person/state who you would want to hurt even without Provocation. And for India and Pakistan each, only one nation passes that test.

This is not the definition of enemy..it is the defnition of arch rivals...India and China are also rivals but don't see them hurting each other even without provocation...In fact you will see them hand in hand on many fronts representing developing world POV....Moreover India and Pakistan are in direct conflict...so there is always provocation/motivation to keep hurting each other....Do you honestly think that if terrorism is rejected from all forms in Pakistan India will like to keep hurting Pak's interests???

China can be called a marginal enemy to India and on the same lines, Afghanistan is for Pakistan..

there is nothing called marginal enemy...Either you have an enemy or not....I consider China as an adversary however by engaging them we are reducing chances of any conflict....Don't forget our defence minister on records have said China is our enemy no 1....All our major defence acquisition is done keeping China is mind....In short in defence terms we are preparing for the worst and in diplomatic terms doing all we can to avoid worst scenario,.....Just recently our forces were told to prepare for a two front war....Do i need to fill in the blanks???

Beyond this, there are only national interests that keep changing...

It is always national interests and nothing else where you make friends/foes....The key is vision....If your vision is faulty then you end up making a foe in pretext of national interests whereas factually you are hurting them....Pakistan policies in the past has defnitely caused issues for them....We also had our share....However somewhere down the line we did take very important steps...To me the most important is

NAM : When our so called arch rival was growing at a much rapid pace then us...was getting state of art weapons being an ally of a super power we still resisted from joining any camps...even after US role in 1971 we choose not to join warsaw....Had we done that we would not have been able to enjoy best of both worlds....

 

[deckingraj]

Yes, that is what Bush and Blair appeared to claim about the Iraq war as well, and they even had fabricated intel to back it up. Cameron hasn't even backed his statements up with fabricated intel.

However being the head of the state they managed to do what they wanted..by fabricating intel or by any means...they up the ante against Iraq...Not sure what cameroon is after...The way i see great relations with India at the cost of Pak is not good sign for Pak... Please feel free to disagree...

 

[deckingraj]

^^ deck, that was a thoughtful post. Pakistan should hire you as thr foreign policy advisor. 10/10 for your policy towards Israel.

Hahaha....thnxs mate however it is the trust deficit b/w India and Pak because of which i could not get my hands on to that post ....

Anyways cheers...

 

[karan.1970]

Yes, that is what Bush and Blair appeared to claim about the Iraq war as well, and they even had fabricated intel to back it up. Cameron hasn't even backed his statements up with fabricated intel.

So he may be different from B&B in both the cases. I mean not having fabricated intel and not being wrong..

But hey.. Its all speculation.. The why's and how's will appear over next few weeks. At this time only What's are clear...

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

However being the head of the state they managed to do what they wanted..by fabricating intel or by any means...they up the ante against Iraq...Not sure what cameroon is after...The way i see great relations with India at the cost of Pak is not good sign for Pak... Please feel free to disagree...

I am only pointing out that arguments such as 'he is PM so he must be right' are easily proven wrong given the lies sold by Bush and Blair.

As for 'upping the ante' I see nothing of the sort here given the clarifications issued and Cameron's own comments of 'engage in discussions with Pakistan to resolve these issues'.

Calling Gaza a prison camp is not going to end the UK's diplomatic ties with Israel (though it may signal tougher public rhetoric with respect to them) nor are Cameron's recent statements going to have any G2G impact given significant UK interests in maintaining a good relationship with Pakistan, and the lack of any actual evidence substantiating Cameron's rhetoric.

It is what it is, 'rhetoric to please India when leading the larges British delegation to India in history on a jobs mission'.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

So he may be different from B&B in both the cases. I mean not having fabricated intel and not being wrong..

But hey.. Its all speculation.. The why's and how's will appear over next few weeks. At this time only What's are clear...

If he is correct, since he has already 'upset' Pakistan by making the statements publicly, there should be nothing stopping him from providing the evidence backing his comments either. Providing evidence backing up his public rhetoric is a pretty reasonable ask.

 

[karan.1970]

Karan i am afraid but i disagree....What you are talking about is true in pure economic terms...However if something is challenging my national security then rivalry is dangerous...If a mumbai happens in Moscow or New York you will see how this competition will cause devastation...Also healthy engagemnt is the key here...In today's global world having rivals is not a healthy sign..don't you think so????....How many rivals India have in today's world???



This is not the definition of enemy..it is the defnition of arch rivals...India and China are also rivals but don't see them hurting each other even without provocation...In fact you will see them hand in hand on many fronts representing developing world POV....Moreover India and Pakistan are in direct conflict...so there is always provocation/motivation to keep hurting each other....Do you honestly think that if terrorism is rejected from all forms in Pakistan India will like to keep hurting Pak's interests???


there is nothing called marginal enemy...Either you have an enemy or not....I consider China as an adversary however by engaging them we are reducing chances of any conflict....Don't forget our defence minister on records have said China is our enemy no 1....All our major defence acquisition is done keeping China is mind....In short in defence terms we are preparing for the worst and in diplomatic terms doing all we can to avoid worst scenario,.....Just recently our forces were told to prepare for a two front war....Do i need to fill in the blanks???



It is always national interests and nothing else where you make friends/foes....The key is vision....If your vision is faulty then you end up making a foe in pretext of national interests whereas factually you are hurting them....Pakistan policies in the past has defnitely caused issues for them....We also had our share....However somewhere down the line we did take very important steps...To me the most important is

NAM : When our so called arch rival was growing at a much rapid pace then us...was getting state of art weapons being an ally of a super power we still resisted from joining any camps...even after US role in 1971 we choose not to join warsaw....Had we done that we would not have been able to enjoy best of both worlds....

I dont disagree violently to this POV as well.. However, in my view the key difference between rivals and enemies is that rivalry can be healthy buy animosity never is. Today, UK, France and USA are rivals in the defence equipment market of the world. But thats good rivalry or competition. India and Pakistan playing one up man ship in Afghanistan on the other hand is bad rivaly which is more akin to animosity.

About India hurting Pakistan, if terrorism is rejected... well I agree to your thought here completely. Beacuse Pakistan's support of terrorism/insurgency against India is the reason why India treats Paksitan as an enemy. Similarly Pakistan has its own reasons for treating India as an enemy. You remove the reason of animosity and you are no longer enemies...

About China, the reason I say marginal is simply because of a past war and unresolved boundary disputes. But we are fast getting past that. The key there is to make India militarily strong enough to make animosity a painful venture for China and at the same time, making China and India intertwined economically to make animosity a very unprofitable venture.

On the NAM, I agree... Classical short term gain vs long term gain..

And lets get back to topic before both of us get hit for going off on a tangent...