Meeting India's military challenge

[Windjammer]

religious connotations of hatred are clearly visible here. Brother, I request you - religion is an extremely personal matter, please let it remain personal. there are other ways of replying strongly against a flame post. hope you will understand.

I regret if that's how it appears to you but no thing was intentional as far as religion is concerned, as my religion directs to practice your own and respect others.

 

[Desert Fox]

Needless chest thumping. If someone believe India was backed because we did not have "guts" to strike, they are folling themselves.



.

We already saw how your Sukhois ran back across the border after being confronted by out pilots!

BTW, i thought America was diplomatically backing india to launch surgical strikes on "militant camps" within Pakistan?

 

[karan.1970]

I don't want to ruin the party but just some questions

There have been at least three military build ups between India and Pakistan in the last 12 years and every time the emotions were high in both parts then why there was no war? Why India went back every time? Is there any thing lacking on their part?


Thanks

2002 Stand off for 12 months, not a shot fired still close to 500 Indian deaths, unilateral with drawl, but you are proud of 1971. !!!
Daya re Daya.

Here's why.. Because India was able to inflict significant damage to Pakistan without firing a shot. Cost to India of that deployment was $1.4 billion and for Pakistan was $1.3 billion which for India was less than 0.25% of its GDP but for Pakistan was close to 2% (all figures are 2002). Go figure..

 

[footmarks]

I regret if that's how it appears to you but no thing was intentional as far as religion is concerned, as my religion directs to practice your own and respect others.

No issues bro. I personally believe - its not the religion but the followers who are bad. and bad people are not religion specific, you can find them everywhere. Religions were made by god to make people follow austerity, purity of heart and to make them tread the path of truth so that humans can live a peaceful, happy and content life. Alas, but poor humans had made religion a cause worth dying in vengeance for rather than a means for living happily. I call it a religious paradox.

Anyways, not related to this thread. Just came to my mind, so.....carry on with the discussions.

 

[Windjammer]

Here's why.. Because India was able to inflict significant damage to Pakistan without firing a shot. Cost to India of that deployment was $1.4 billion and for Pakistan was $1.3 billion which for India was less than 0.25% of its GDP but for Pakistan was close to 2% (all figures are 2002). Go figure..

If that is your rational conclusion, then let me enlighten you that this so called war on terror has cost Pakistan over $30 Billion, but has it dented our resolve or made Pakistan vulnerable, if any thing Pakistan has come out much stronger. But if one was to take your explanation seriously, then i wonder why it was India desperate to resume open sky policy.

 

[karan.1970]

If that is your rational conclusion, then let me enlighten you that this so called war on terror has cost Pakistan over $30 Billion, but has it dented our resolve or made Pakistan vulnerable, if any thing Pakistan has come out much stronger. But if one was to take your explanation seriously, then i wonder why it was India desperate to resume open sky policy.

Because unlike WOT, US was not subsidizing that cost (atleast directly).

On Open Sky, 3 words.. Access to Afghanistan..

 

[Windjammer]

Because unlike WOT, US was not subsidizing that cost (atleast directly).

On Open Sky, 3 words.. Access to Afghanistan..

And may i know how exactly worked out the $30 Billion cost to Pakistan is reimbursed by the promised $5 Billion over several years. ???

As for Open Sky dilemma, it had nothing to do with Afghanistan as it was effecting only 8 PIA flights but some 200 Air India designations.
So don't convince your self that through 2002 stand off, India had achieved it's objectives, rather far from it.

 

[Contrarian]

If that is your rational conclusion, then let me enlighten you that this so called war on terror has cost Pakistan over $30 Billion, but has it dented our resolve or made Pakistan vulnerable, if any thing Pakistan has come out much stronger. But if one was to take your explanation seriously, then i wonder why it was India desperate to resume open sky policy.

Intangibles..The war on terror has made Pakistan come out stronger. Do elucidate, HOW has Pakistan come out stronger?

 

[karan.1970]

And may i know how exactly worked out the $30 Billion cost to Pakistan is reimbursed by the promised $5 Billion over several years. ???

As for Open Sky dilemma, it had nothing to do with Afghanistan as it was effecting only 8 PIA flights but some 200 Air India designations.
So don't convince your self that through 2002 stand off, India had achieved it's objectives, rather far from it.

Its a matter of opinion. There was a $10 billion which Musharraf apparantly misused and there was a huge hulla about it recently.. Also do u have a non Pakistani link for this $30 billion over last 9 years (avg $3.3 billion/annum). Seems a tad inflated if you relate it with your annual defence budget of $ 7 billion or so )


Also the Airline impact you mentioned is skewed..If at all PIA was more impacted and had to shut some of its routes..

refer here

The Hindu : Scramble for PIA flight seats

rediff.com: PIA to suspend flights on four routes: Reuters

 

[blain2]

I have heard the same lame refrain by so many Pakistanis before this one that its been relegated to the "Kashmir le kar rahenge" hot air league in my mind's Pakistan pigeon hole sort-list.

The fact of the matter is simple ..... every time the Indian war machinery escalates and does not strike, it leaves in its wake many wet undergarments in the pakistani military establishment.

Its not a nice feeling to be looking down the barrel of a cocked gun, wondering with each click of the trigger whether this time around the chamber is empty .... or not.

Sawaal yeh nahin ki pakistan ka number ayega ki nahin ..... par yeh ki number kab ayega ..... aur kahan se ayega.

Cheers, Doc

There are no realistic options available to India. This is the hard fact and Pakistan will make sure that this is registered really well anytime there is an attempt to push.

Pakistan ka number kabhi nahi aaega aur agar aaega tau India kay saath aaega. Let there be no doubt about this.

Pakistan will never allow a repeat of 71 even in a limited manner again without hurting the other side disproportionately. The escalation that happens beyond our response is something that everyone needs to worry about, not just Pakistan

 

[blain2]

Its a matter of opinion. There was a $10 billion which mushy apparantly misused and there was a huge hulla about it recently.. Also do u have a non Pakistani link for this $30 billion over last 9 years (avg $3.3 billion/annum). Seems a tad inflated if you relate it with your annual defence budget of $ 7 billion or so )


Also the Airline impact you mentioned is skewed..If at all PIA was more impacted and had to shut some of its routes..

refer here

The Hindu : Scramble for PIA flight seats

rediff.com: PIA to suspend flights on four routes: Reuters

Musharraf did not misuse anything. The number was not even $10 billion. It was about 6 and change. Of that $4 billion was money owed to Pakistan and about 1.5 to 2 billion were in aid.

 

[Windjammer]

Intangibles..The war on terror has made Pakistan come out stronger. Do elucidate, HOW has Pakistan come out stronger?

Where at one time there was some sport for Talibans and their means and ways. Now

The Nation has gelled together in it's fight against such militancy, the military has moved like a well oiled machine and it's achievements has surprised friends and foes alike. In due course it's polished it's prowess.

 

[karan.1970]

Musharraf did not misuse anything. The number was not even $10 billion. It was about 6 and change. Of that $4 billion was money owed to Pakistan and about 1.5 to 2 billion were in aid.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/world/asia/04assess.html

http://www.defence.pk/forums/nation...-where-did-10-billion-us-aid-pakistan-go.html


6 and change was only the military money... The amount owed was also in exchange for Pakistan's cost in WOT and that exactly was my point in the previous post. In all the total money (not cash) given was over $10 billion in various shapes and forms.

 

[blain2]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/world/asia/04assess.html

http://www.defence.pk/forums/nation...-where-did-10-billion-us-aid-pakistan-go.html


6 and change was only the military money... The amount owed was also in exchange for Pakistan's cost in WOT and that exactly was my point in the previous post. In all the total money (not cash) given was over $10 billion in various shapes and forms.

"Given" is a misleading term as it connotes aid. Figure out how much was CSF reimbursement and then you will realize that most of the money Pakistan got was simply money owed for services it had provided in support of US and ISAF work. What Pakistan did with that money was Pakistan's business as it was not FMF or USAID funded or directed.

 

[karan.1970]

"Given" is a misleading term as it connotes aid. Figure out how much was CSF reimbursement and then you will realize that most of the money Pakistan got was simply money owed for services it had provided in support of US and ISAF work. What Pakistan did with that money was Pakistan's business as it was not FMF or USAID funded or directed.

Not at all debating that it was reimbursement. As a matter of fact my initial post was to Windjammer on how US has reimursed a lot of expense pakistan has incurred during WOT. Am not debating that it was aid..