Pak may never try another Kargil, but it could get worse

[Mercenary]

The Hindu : Over 4,000 soldiers killed in Kargil: Sharif

Again this nonsensical claim.

Do you even read this thread before putting such nonsense?

If 4,000 Pakistanis died in Kargil, where are their bodies?

How could 1,000 tired and wounded Pakistani soldiers carry 4,000 bodies back to Pakistan?

How could Nawaz Sharif be privy to such sensitive information when he was totally out of the loop in Kargil and didn't even know what was going on?

Einstein said the definition of Insanity is keep on doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Just by posting this debunked statistic by Nawaz Sharif will not some how magically change the fact that you guys lost more men in Kargil than we did.

We lost 357 while you lost over 500.

I know it hurts but that is the truth.

 

[Ticker]

I use smiles very rarely. But I think in this situation this is indispensable " "

Pls from next time answer only when you have any constructive/productive arguments to make. And for god sake do not quote me and start derailing the thread, which I presume, we had already done.

Regards.

OK. .......

 

[Mercenary]

My eyes are opened... and i have realised now... India lost 1948 war.. kashmir is with pakistan (all of it)...here comes 1965... india lost all of its air force and again kashmir was retaken by pakistan( i dono how it again came back to india )... 1971.... 90k soldiers were given a party hosted by madam indira becos india again lost a war.... this time india lost half part of the bengal which is now called bangladesh... 1984.. india lost siachin to pakistan... and indian army still trying to recapture it.... 1998 kargil has been captured by pakistain army (again????????)... Now the pak armymen sit on the top of 5353 and every day enjoy the view of the indian high way and every day bombarding the high way... after the kargil victory Mushraff is the most famous person in the pakistan.. he has been loved so much that he is scared of going back to his own country...... now i heard one of my friends saying they want to attack india again.... you are not tired yet......

Freinds lets chill... and enjoy the day... in this holy month of ramzan lets discuss something which is good for our countries rather than shouting and taunting at each others... Cheers my freinds

1948 - Pakistan manages to capture 1/3 of Kashmir. Victory for Pakistan because if we didn't act all of Kashmir would be under Indian control just as Hyderabad. India fails to take 1/3 of Kashmir under Pakistani control.

1965 - Pakistan holds back numerically superior Indian forces and forces a stalemate. Victory for Pakistan as its a smaller country holding back a bigger one.

1971 - Pakistani forces cut off and thus outcome is expected. Many other world powers such as Britain in Singapore and Tobruk in 1942, USA in Bataan in 1942, Germans in Stalingrad in 1942, French in Dein Bien Phu in 1953, lost these battles.

1999 - Pakistan shocks India in taking over hills overlooking Kargil but fights with both hands tied behind its back by claiming these are Kashmiri Freedom fighters instead of Pakistani soldiers. India losing more men than Pakistan 500 vs 300. Pakistan still retains control of Point 5353 and thus a territorial gain for Pakistan.

 

[KRAIT]

^ You have successfully entered the lobby of ignorant people. Yeah buddy, Pakistan was winner at all time. You are the champions. Master of the region. Not even a leaf can fall without your permission.

Now look for military books and read them about all these conflicts.

 

[Mercenary]

^ You have successfully entered the lobby of ignorant people. Yeah buddy, Pakistan was winner at all time. You are the champions. Master of the region. Not even a leaf can fall without your permission.

Now look for military books and read them about all these conflicts.

There are never clear cut winners and losers in wars. The reality is always grey and never black and white.

In World War II, clearly Germany and Japan lost and USA, UK and USSR were the victors.

While the Korean War can be spun either way as it ended up in a stalemate. Western sources believe they won because they pushed the North Koreans back. Chinese sources believe they won because they pushed the Americans out of North Korea.

So same for the Indo-Pakistan wars. Every side will spin it in its own favor.

Heck, some Indians still spin the 1962 war with China as an Indian victory.

 

[KRAIT]

There are never clear cut winners and losers in wars. The reality is always grey and never black and white.

In World War II, clearly Germany and Japan lost and USA, UK and USSR were the victors.

While the Korean War can be spun either way as it ended up in a stalemate. Western sources believe they won because they pushed the North Koreans back. Chinese sources believe they won because they pushed the Americans out of North Korea.

So same for the Indo-Pakistan wars. Every side will spin it in its own favor.

It doesn't matter who won, all that matters is who is standing where. And what we have learned from past. Every govt. will show themselves better than the enemies.

Its an endless debate. Neither India is going to get your territory nor you are going to take ours.

Things have changed a lot. As far as Pakistan is concerned, I don't think there will be any other Kargil in few years to come, as it is busy in its own problems at north and west. So is India.

 

[Jackdaws]

There are never clear cut winners and losers in wars. The reality is always grey and never black and white.

In World War II, clearly Germany and Japan lost and USA, UK and USSR were the victors.

While the Korean War can be spun either way as it ended up in a stalemate. Western sources believe they won because they pushed the North Koreans back. Chinese sources believe they won because they pushed the Americans out of North Korea.

So same for the Indo-Pakistan wars. Every side will spin it in its own favor.

Heck, some Indians still spin the 1962 war with China as an Indian victory.

No Indian in his right mind spins the 1962 war with China as an Indian victory. I have never heard any source on any channel or in the digital or print media ever claim that India won in '62.

In the case of India and Pakistan - let's see a single neutral, credible source which says Pakistan WON any of these wars.

 

[Agnostic_Indian]

1948 - Pakistan manages to capture 1/3 of Kashmir. Victory for Pakistan because if we didn't act all of Kashmir would be under Indian control just as Hyderabad. India fails to take 1/3 of Kashmir under Pakistani control.

1948- you did not win over India. there was a stand still agreement and you violated it and attacked Kashmir. your attack forced raja to join Indian union and stopped you from further advancement. that's how you ended up with 1/3 of Kashmir while you could have gained all of it.

1965 - Pakistan holds back numerically superior Indian forces and forces a stalemate. Victory for Pakistan as its a smaller country holding back a bigger one.

1965 also starts with Pakistan attacking India
but India managed to hold back Pakistan and captured larger area of land than Pakistan could though it was not a big portion of land. your force being larger or smaller is not our head ache.. you tried to capture Kashmir and we didn't let you.. matter over. victory is decide not by looking at the size of the army but by seeing whether or not the objectives were achieved or not.

1971 - Pakistani forces cut off and thus outcome is expected. Many other world powers such as Britain in Singapore and Tobruk in 1942, USA in Bataan in 1942, Germans in Stalingrad in 1942, French in Dein Bien Phu in 1953, lost these battles.

1971 was a clear and big victory for India. your logistics and supply routes are your problem, no excuse can save you here from a complete surrender in front of Indian army.

1999 - Pakistan shocks India in taking over hills overlooking Kargil but fights with both hands tied behind its back by claiming these are Kashmiri Freedom fighters instead of Pakistani soldiers. India losing more men than Pakistan 500 vs 300. Pakistan still retains control of Point 5353 and thus a territorial gain for Pakistan.

1999- once again , Pakistan acted irresponsibly by attacking India while Indian prime minister was in Pakistan making peace talks. yes India as well as the international community was shocked and realised that pak is not at all interested in peace but only in remaining " piece " of Kashmir. then war breaks out and end result was pak lost all the peaks it occupied and left with only one peak which is on LOC, pak claims it can attack NH From there but forgets that India can counter it from surrounding 3 peaks. Pakistan lost around 4000 of it's men, they even refused to take back the dead body of their soldiers. Pakistan lost the war militarily as it suffered great losses, failed to achieve it's objectives.
diplomatically Pakistan left with no face in front of the world.

 

[Joe Shearer]

It's a front slash, genius.

/, not \

 

[batmannow]

^ You have successfully entered the lobby of ignorant people. Yeah buddy, Pakistan was winner at all time. You are the champions. Master of the region. Not even a leaf can fall without your permission.

Now look for military books and read them about all these conflicts.

&YOU may study this!
& keep it reading, till the sowrds are drawn again!

India's army chief describes 'alarming' state of military in leaked letter
India's army chief describes 'alarming' state of military in leaked letter - Telegraph
India's tank fleet lacks ammunition, its air defences are "97 per cent obsolete" and its elite forces lack essential arms, the country's army chief wrote in an explosive letter leaked on Wednesday.

The Indian army's entire tank fleet is "devoid of critical ammunition to defeat enemy tanks" Photo: AP
9:33AM BST 28 Mar 201218 Comments
The letter to the prime minister dated March 12 – widely reported by the Indian media – lists the shortcomings of the armed forces in embarrassing detail in a blow to the government and the Asian giant's military prestige.
Its publication also ups the stakes in a public battle between army chief General V.K. Singh and the government which began with a dispute over Singh's retirement earlier this year.
"The state of the major (fighting) arms i.e. mechanised forces, artillery, air defence, infantry and special forces, as well as the engineers and signals, is indeed alarming," Singh wrote in the letter, DNA newspaper reported.
The army's entire tank fleet is "devoid of critical ammunition to defeat enemy tanks", while the air defence system is "97% obsolete and it doesn't give the deemed confidence to protect ... from the air," he wrote, according to DNA.
The infantry is crippled with "deficiencies" and lacks night fighting equipment, while the elite special forces are "woefully short" of "essential weapons".

 

[Agnostic_Indian]

&YOU may study this!
& keep it reading, till the sowrds are drawn again!

India's army chief describes 'alarming' state of military in leaked letter
India's army chief describes 'alarming' state of military in leaked letter - Telegraph
India's tank fleet lacks ammunition, its air defences are "97 per cent obsolete" and its elite forces lack essential arms, the country's army chief wrote in an explosive letter leaked on Wednesday.

The Indian army's entire tank fleet is "devoid of critical ammunition to defeat enemy tanks" Photo: AP
9:33AM BST 28 Mar 201218 Comments
The letter to the prime minister dated March 12 – widely reported by the Indian media – lists the shortcomings of the armed forces in embarrassing detail in a blow to the government and the Asian giant's military prestige.
Its publication also ups the stakes in a public battle between army chief General V.K. Singh and the government which began with a dispute over Singh's retirement earlier this year.
"The state of the major (fighting) arms i.e. mechanised forces, artillery, air defence, infantry and special forces, as well as the engineers and signals, is indeed alarming," Singh wrote in the letter, DNA newspaper reported.
The army's entire tank fleet is "devoid of critical ammunition to defeat enemy tanks", while the air defence system is "97% obsolete and it doesn't give the deemed confidence to protect ... from the air," he wrote, according to DNA.
The infantry is crippled with "deficiencies" and lacks night fighting equipment, while the elite special forces are "woefully short" of "essential weapons".

Russia to Supply Tank Ammunition to India

our systems are more than enough for Pakistan. we have better systems in quality and quantity. it's is against China we are lagging behind .

 

[Rafi]

Why did you have to clothe it in Latin? This has already been said famously by great Muslim scholars of Akbar's court, and it would have looked so nice in Urdu.

Do you know anything about the Cathars or was this a random acquisition?

Yes the Albigensian Crusade, some of the Cathars converted to Islam, and migrated to the Ottoman Empire to escape religious persecution.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Yes the Albigensian Crusade, some of the Cathars converted to Islam, and migrated to the Ottoman Empire to escape religious persecution.

I am impressed.

 

[Mercenary]

1948- you did not win over India. there was a stand still agreement and you violated it and attacked Kashmir. your attack forced raja to join Indian union and stopped you from further advancement. that's how you ended up with 1/3 of Kashmir while you could have gained all of it.

1965 also starts with Pakistan attacking India
but India managed to hold back Pakistan and captured larger area of land than Pakistan could though it was not a big portion of land. your force being larger or smaller is not our head ache.. you tried to capture Kashmir and we didn't let you.. matter over. victory is decide not by looking at the size of the army but by seeing whether or not the objectives were achieved or not.



1971 was a clear and big victory for India. your logistics and supply routes are your problem, no excuse can save you here from a complete surrender in front of Indian army.




1999- once again , Pakistan acted irresponsibly by attacking India while Indian prime minister was in Pakistan making peace talks. yes India as well as the international community was shocked and realised that pak is not at all interested in peace but only in remaining " piece " of Kashmir. then war breaks out and end result was pak lost all the peaks it occupied and left with only one peak which is on LOC, pak claims it can attack NH From there but forgets that India can counter it from surrounding 3 peaks. Pakistan lost around 4000 of it's men, they even refused to take back the dead body of their soldiers. Pakistan lost the war militarily as it suffered great losses, failed to achieve it's objectives.
diplomatically Pakistan left with no face in front of the world.

1948 - Agreement is irrelevant. We know how well India holds up agreements. Look at what India did in Hyderabad or Goa as no further proof of agreement. The Agreement was a sham and a ploy for India to colonize Kashmir. Thank God we acted when we did, and we did manage to get 1/3 of Kashmir or otherwise we would have gotten nothing. So I consider that a Pakistani victory. We got 1/3 of Kashmir, otherwise we would have gotten nothing.

1965 - Yes, Pakistan started the war to take back Kashmir. But then the war changed from our attempt to take Kashmir to the foolish Indian attempt to take Lahore. We held you guys back in Punjab and you guys held us back in Kashmir, and thus a stalemate. The reason I say its a victory for Pakistan is that Pakistan was numerically inferior to India.

1971 - Pakistan lost. I just gave you examples of the near impossible odds Pakistan faced.

1999 - Pakistan's plan was not carefully thoughout otherwise Pakistan would have achieved a strategic victory. Pakistan did manage to shock India and 5,000 Pakistani soldiers held back an onslaught of 100,000 Indian soldiers, and inflicted heavy losses on them, while suffering less losses and managing to hold Point 5353.

As for 4,000 losses you guys keep parading, please name me one other source besides the disgraced PM of Pakistan who can substantiate these claims? Any reputable military historian, international think tank, defense experts will do.

Good luck.

 

[kṣamā]

@Mercenary, We know we cannot talk sense into you. Also by your ideology of "victory", I fell it is useless to continue discussion with u in that matter of fact. I can't speak about my frnds over here but u show ME a credible, impartial source which supports your view (48-Win, 65- Win, 71- stalemate, 99 - Win) I would be happy to take this point of view.

Of topic: "We had our hands tied" Did we tie them ? No. Did India forced ur elites to tie ur hands ? No. Can't you see that, "The Four" pulled Waqar Ahmad on ur army and administration. One more thing, the present favors them who wins the history. India chose "Non-alignment" and Pakistan from day one was under USA, still today International balance tilts in India's court and yours is seen as an aggression-loving country. Just my two cents.