Indian Sikh company surrendering to Lone Pilot Lt.Col Naseerullah Babar

[BL33D]

War's a means to an end, a militaristic approach to a goal, to achieve an objective using force.

The initiating side has the advantage and a clear objective to achieve. It's the reason why the war is started. Allies, enemies, planning, contingencies, are taken into account when attacking. If they don't conform to reality, is the planner to blame or other "factors" beyond planners control.

If PA's objective was to display its military powress and the courage and valour of it's bravehearts, then there is no doubt about either of them. PA soldiers have proven themselves to be among the best of them.

Might I ask for each war you've mentioned, who was the initiator? What was the objective behind it ? and in the aftermath what was the result?

After all, if you've won the war and didn't achieve anything substantial or the objectives remain unfulfilled, what did the soldiers die for?

Very well put. He could have just written excuses with bullet points instead. Pakistanis love to compare how they are x number of times smaller and had the courage to wage war. If history is to be looked at, the size of a country has never mattered if you know your objectives well and have prepared for it. Take Israel and Turkey as a case. Oh hell take Vietnam. And if not for the N-Bomb, even Japan gave the US a tough time.

 

[peagle]

Thank you for such a detailed explanation, and I appreciate your efforts to have a constructive dialog with me. It's a breath of fresh air.

My apologies for the 'hotchpotch' manner of my posts, as you've put it, I blame my poor editing skills.

I'd like to clear up the point I was trying to convey; the 65 war on most accounts ended in a stalemate, a mixed bag, successes and failures on both sides in various sectors. Neither side achieved significant gains.

The PA was successful in the defense of it's territories while the IA was successful in defending ours, but this war was initiated by PA executing Operation Gibralter, with an aim to capture Kashmir from Indian control, it's stated objectives could not be achieved. Ultimately, lives were lost for no gains to show for it.

Individual valour, as you've rightly pointed out, was prevalent on both sides and should be lauded but to ignore lessons from past wars risks repetition with the same disastrous results.

I agree with you 100% in your analysis, and I look forward to the day when we can live as brothers and sisters, not as a single country as that can never be, and I believe we never were, but as a single cultural grouping. The world has found other ways to cohabit with their cultural family, such as Europe, I think so can we, under the right conditions.

But, in regards to the 1965 war, there is an important addition that rarely, you could say almost never gets raised, resulting in the lopsided analysis. In 1965, and even today, the international border stops at the last corner of the two Punjab’s. Thereafter the line has been known by various names, but it not a border.

So the 1965 war has two parts, one where Pakistan went into Kashmir, and, the second where India crossed the international border. Pakistan had no intention of attacking India across the international border. It can be argued that it was a weak assumption that India would not attack across the international border, and I believe it was. But, the fact remains the international border and the line separating the two Kashmir’s operated under different legal conditions, so that affects how the first and second parts of this war can be fairly judged.

Accepting what you have said above, it needs to be pointed out that the blame for the loss of lives falls on both sides, Pakistan did not achieve its objective in the first stage, and having crossed the international border India did not achieve its objective either, as it ended with a ceasefire and a negotiated settlement. Both objectives resulted in the loss of lives. May both of our Jawans Rest In Peace.

Below, at 05:15 Lt General Atta Hasnain is explaining how the rules of engagement are different in Kashmir than the international border. This is now, in the present. A lot of the rules that have been established since did not exist before, so in 1965, the line in Kashmir was way more contentious than it is now. Hence the need for fair analysis.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Don't get cocky, neither did you. You couldn't defeat an opponent 9 times smaller than you.

1948 > India was 11 times larger than Pakistan, still could not defeat Pakistan. (as a new country Pakistan had no money, nor its share of weapons)

1965 > India was 9 times larger than Pakistan, still could not defeat Pakistan. (Pakistan was put under sanctions, but India still received weapons from the Soviets)

1971 > India was 9 times larger than Pakistan, still could not achieve victory in West Pakistan. (Pakistan was still under sanctions, but India had the full backing of the Soviet Union.)
(What happened in Bangladesh is a more complicated story and has to be viewed holistically. Once a local population decides against you, nothing can be done. Look at America in Vietnam and Soviets in Afghanistan, both were the most powerful countries in the world at the time.)

1999 > Results only came after India went crying to America and they along with China forced Pakistan to pull back.
2002 > Full deployment for nearly one year, killed over 1000 over its own soldiers, just to pull back.

Heh heh heh....just pointing out what your people said is full of holes. Did I say anything, or claim anything? As it is, you are merely slaughtering a straw man, created by yourself, again, winning a famous victory!

Now, to address your points:

1948: India set out to capture nothing but to defend against admitted Pakistani aggression. So where is the question of India defeating Pakistan? India repelled the invaders from half of Baltistan, from Ladakh and from significant parts of western Jammu. She never sought to do more, and there lay Pakistan's future downfall, assuming that never in the future would she seek to do more.

1965: Self-created drama, considering that it was an outright attack by Pakistan in Kashmir, a totally failed one, that led to Indian retaliation, again, within Kashmir, and to the general alarm within Pakistan about the possibility of the fall of Muzaffarabad. If you haven't yet done so, read the feature on 1965 printed recently; this is an old gambit, to pretend victimhood and to pretend that an intrepid defence against aggression was the keynote of your military efforts, all the while that matters on the ground were the exact opposite. As for sanctions and weapons supply, these were instituted after hostilities, not before, so what is the point you are trying to make?

1971: Right. Again the self-serving assumption that India sought anything other than the relief of 10 million refugees sitting on her land. All the attacks in the west were initiated, without exception, by Pakistan. So who set out to defeat whom, and where was the failure? One side attacks, is repelled, and claims victory because the defender did not conquer the aggressor. I've read about reductio ad absurdum, but never thought that it would be mistranslated to produce something like your limitless self-pity.

1999: You might as well remind us all of your pulling out of Delhi, while you are on the fantasy trail. It is Pakistani sources, thousands of them, that have told the true story, of who went running to whom, and who were trying to prevent an outright scandalous turning of the tables. We have to do nothing but to reproduce the writings of your own military, including the damning testimony of Kaisar Tufail.

2002: Truly another impressive Pakistani victory.

You really need to descend to earth. I say this more in pity and disbelief than in any other emotion.

 

[peagle]

Heh heh heh....just pointing out what your people said is full of holes. Did I say anything, or claim anything? As it is, you are merely slaughtering a straw man, created by yourself, again, winning a famous victory!

Now, to address your points:

1948: India set out to capture nothing but to defend against admitted Pakistani aggression. So where is the question of India defeating Pakistan? India repelled the invaders from half of Baltistan, from Ladakh and from significant parts of western Jammu. She never sought to do more, and there lay Pakistan's future downfall, assuming that never in the future would she seek to do more.

1965: Self-created drama, considering that it was an outright attack by Pakistan in Kashmir, a totally failed one, that led to Indian retaliation, again, within Kashmir, and to the general alarm within Pakistan about the possibility of the fall of Muzaffarabad. If you haven't yet done so, read the feature on 1965 printed recently; this is an old gambit, to pretend victimhood and to pretend that an intrepid defence against aggression was the keynote of your military efforts, all the while that matters on the ground were the exact opposite. As for sanctions and weapons supply, these were instituted after hostilities, not before, so what is the point you are trying to make?

1971: Right. Again the self-serving assumption that India sought anything other than the relief of 10 million refugees sitting on her land. All the attacks in the west were initiated, without exception, by Pakistan. So who set out to defeat whom, and where was the failure? One side attacks, is repelled, and claims victory because the defender did not conquer the aggressor. I've read about reductio ad absurdum, but never thought that it would be mistranslated to produce something like your limitless self-pity.

1999: You might as well remind us all of your pulling out of Delhi, while you are on the fantasy trail. It is Pakistani sources, thousands of them, that have told the true story, of who went running to whom, and who were trying to prevent an outright scandalous turning of the tables. We have to do nothing but to reproduce the writings of your own military, including the damning testimony of Kaisar Tufail.

2002: Truly another impressive Pakistani victory.

You really need to descend to earth. I say this more in pity and disbelief than in any other emotion.

By Allah and by Bagwaan, the sheer fantasy world you guys inhabit is astounding. I hope you guys stay there and allow us to live in reality. Thank you so much for showing me the real side of your lot. From my previous communication, I was starting to believe there are normal Indians after all, I suppose they are still in the minority.

I will try to get back to answering you fantasy points, I just do not have the time right now for a full answer, hopefully in the next few days. What colour is the sky in your world, I'm assuming pink, right?

 

[Joe Shearer]

By Allah and by Bagwaan, the sheer fantasy world you guys inhabit is astounding. I hope you guys stay there and allow us to live in reality. Thank you so much for showing me the real side of your lot. From my previous communication, I was starting to believe there are normal Indians after all, I suppose they are still in the minority.

I will try to get back to answering you fantasy points, I just do not have the time right now for a full answer, hopefully in the next few days. What colour is the sky in your world, I'm assuming pink, right?

Please: don't try. If you will not be instructed by those of other nationalities, ask your own. Repeating these childish urban legends promoted in Internet fora by fanboys does not impress anyone but your own selves; it is an audience and a response that is totally circular in nature. As for me, I really don't need certificates from anybody any more. I have enough of them already, and they are not Indians doing it.

Your astonishment is grossly overdone and would be offensive if it were not comic.

 

[Cuirassier]

What a mess the fckin thread just invited wannabe historians wasting their time foulmouthing.

 

[peagle]

Please: don't try. If you will not be instructed by those of other nationalities, ask your own. Repeating these childish urban legends promoted in Internet fora by fanboys does not impress anyone but your own selves; it is an audience and a response that is totally circular in nature. As for me, I really don't need certificates from anybody any more. I have enough of them already, and they are not Indians doing it.

Your astonishment is grossly overdone and would be offensive if it were not comic.

Please: don't try. If you will not be instructed by those of other nationalities, ask your own. Repeating these childish urban legends promoted in Internet fora by fanboys does not impress anyone but your own selves; it is an audience and a response that is totally circular in nature. As for me, I really don't need certificates from anybody any more. I have enough of them already, and they are not Indians doing it.

Your astonishment is grossly overdone and would be offensive if it were not comic.

Looks like someone is sensitive, awww did I bruise someone's ego.

If you cant take it then make sure not to give it, and, stick with relevant arguments rather than forever trying to demean my countrymen. Respect flows two ways.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Looks like someone is sensitive, awww did I bruise someone's ego.

If you cant take it then make sure not to give it, and, stick with relevant arguments rather than forever trying to demean my countrymen. Respect flows two ways.

Don't worry about my sensitivity; if anyone manages to survive for eleven years on this forum after answering the same silly statements year after year, he or she is not unduly sensitive. However, this precise set of urban legends has been repeated - and contradicted with facts, gleaned exclusively from Pakistani sources - every six months on an average.

Relevant arguments are not arguments that are untruthful but please you, those are arguments that are based on facts. Nobody is trying to demean your countrymen; check among the older Pakistani members, and don't come in with your two months' worth of self-importance pumping you up to be more royalist than the king.

 

[peagle]

Don't worry about my sensitivity; if anyone manages to survive for eleven years on this forum after answering the same silly statements year after year, he or she is not unduly sensitive. However, this precise set of urban legends has been repeated - and contradicted with facts, gleaned exclusively from Pakistani sources - every six months on an average.

Relevant arguments are not arguments that are untruthful but please you, those are arguments that are based on facts. Nobody is trying to demean your countrymen; check among the older Pakistani members, and don't come in with your two months' worth of self-importance pumping you up to be more royalist than the king.

wow I really got under your skin didn't I lolololol
come on, count to 10 and take a deep breath before you have a heart attack.

I am not concerned with what my countrymen say or do not say, I can only present my arguments. And for the record most of my friends are Indian and almost all of the writings I've across online or otherwise by Indians, fall into exactly the same category as the label you love putting on Pakistanis.

Indians are the most insanely blind group I've known in my life. Lovely people with intelligence and I actually love them to bits, but it does not mean I am required to keep quiet when I hear stupidity in action. You mention the word Pakistan, in some cases Islam, and you can see logic and reason departing from their body. Perfectly normal people enter a fantasy land.

You are free to say what you want, as am I, but, once you reply by quoting a previous message then you are honour bound to keep your accusations and claims to what that person says or has said. Not refer to Tom, Dick or Harry as that person is not responsible for what someone else says.

It is basic common sense, once you enter in communication with someone then it is only you and him/her, you cannot ask that person to defend what someone else has said, or put someones else's statement on that persons head and ask them to answer it, it is not their statement.

Come on please, little common sense goes a long way.

 

[Joe Shearer]

wow I really got under your skin didn't I lolololol
come on, count to 10 and take a deep breath before you have a heart attack.

I am not concerned with what my countrymen say or do not say, I can only present my arguments. And for the record most of my friends are Indian and almost all of the writings I've across online or otherwise by Indians, fall into exactly the same category as the label you love putting on Pakistanis.

Indians are the most insanely blind group I've known in my life. Lovely people with intelligence and I actually love them to bits, but it does not mean I am required to keep quiet when I hear stupidity in action. You mention the word Pakistan, in some cases Islam, and you can see logic and reason departing from their body. Perfectly normal people enter a fantasy land.

You are free to say what you want, as am I, but, once you reply by quoting a previous message then you are honour bound to keep your accusations and claims to what that person says or has said. Not refer to Tom, Dick or Harry as that person is not responsible for what someone else says.

It is basic common sense, once you enter in communication with someone then it is only you and him/her, you cannot ask that person to defend what someone else has said, or put someones else's statement on that persons head and ask them to answer it, it is not their statement.

Come on please, little common sense goes a long way.

"Lovely people with intelligence and I actually love them to bits, but it does not mean I am required to keep quiet when I hear stupidity in action"....

Yeah, right.

Now turn it inside out, a sensible, balanced Indian listening to Pakistani fan-boys, who trot out the same dreary arguments for eleven years, running, every six months or less, as every new crop of members comes on board, and let's take the temperature of your sense of humour after that. These are not just your arguments, made for the first time; these are arguments that have been trotted out faithfully, with wide-eyed innocence, every six months, by every newbie claiming to have the real inside story on what happened.

As for your personal evaluation, I suggest, once again, ask older members before making a complete **** of yourself.

* as in male donkey

And with Forrest Gump, 'that's all I have to say about that.'

 

[peagle]

"Lovely people with intelligence and I actually love them to bits, but it does not mean I am required to keep quiet when I hear stupidity in action"....

Yeah, right.

Now turn it inside out, a sensible, balanced Indian listening to Pakistani fan-boys, who trot out the same dreary arguments for eleven years, running, every six months or less, as every new crop of members comes on board, and let's take the temperature of your sense of humour after that. These are not just your arguments, made for the first time; these are arguments that have been trotted out faithfully, with wide-eyed innocence, every six months, by every newbie claiming to have the real inside story on what happened.

As for your personal evaluation, I suggest, once again, ask older members before making a complete **** of yourself.

* as in male donkey

And with Forrest Gump, 'that's all I have to say about that.'

If parrots could write, I could swear you might be one, as you keep repeating yourself. It is getting boring.

Now, you have shown your true colours, PEOPLE THIS IS AN INDIAN when you have nothing worth saying, dig deep into personal insults. I was raised in a better cultural environment so I won't get into that swearing match.

Stop your blabbing, pick a single topic and make your arguments. Please, don't keep crying the same points that have no bearing on anything logical. Come on let me see that beautiful Indian intelligence.

 

[Joe Shearer]

If parrots could write, I could swear you might be one, as you keep repeating yourself. It is getting boring.

Now, you have shown your true colours, PEOPLE THIS IS AN INDIAN when you have nothing worth saying, dig deep into personal insults. I was raised in a better cultural environment so I won't get into that swearing match.

Stop your blabbing, pick a single topic and make your arguments. Please, don't keep crying the same points that have no bearing on anything logical. Come on let me see that beautiful Indian intelligence.

Come back in ten years.

 

[peagle]

Come back in ten years.

Crybaby................................................................................................

 

[rambro]

That's a real life rambo...makes me proud

 

[Trango Towers]

Ka kareen, Sahib, aadat se majboor.

Never mind Joe. Bad habits are hard to die